Satisfaction Theory

[dzheremi]

[

Maybe that's because in the Judgment we won't be able to say "but so and so said'.

Since the Bible itself is full of "So and So said", and in many cases that "So and So" is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm not so sure it's wise to make such a statement.

 

[crossnote]

Galatians 3:13 (KJV) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[Not David]

As I understand it, the difference hinges on the definition of "justice". In Western thought, justice carries a legalistic definition, i.e., for every crime a punishment is due. Eastern thought defines justice as "the ordering of the universe". In the West, Christ's death paid the penalty for Adam's sin, in the East, Christ's death reestablished the order of the universe disordered by Adam's sin.

I personally maintain both ideas at once with "not only" and "but also" i.e., not only did Christ's death pay the legal penalty for Adam's sin, but also reestablished the order of the universe.

But that is merely my opinion and my opinion means nothing.

What was the legal penalty?

 

[Not David]

Galatians 3:13 (KJV) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Interesting. Father @ArmyMatt, what's the meaning of that verse?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Interesting. Father @ArmyMatt, what's the meaning of that verse?

He took on death willingly, and the worst death for a first century Jew.

 

[Not David]

He took on death willingly, and the worst death for a first century Jew.

What about the part where Jesus became a curse, especially the curse of the Law?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What about the part where Jesus became a curse, especially the curse of the Law?

the previous verses explain starting in verse 10. the law can only convict sin, so unless you keep the whole of the law, the law curses you.

 

[HTacianas]

What was the legal penalty?

The penalty for sin has always been death. But the Israelites were allowed to offer animal sacrifices for sins of ignorance. Through those sacrifices a substitutionary death through the death of the animal satisfied the legal requirement of the law, but going further, reestablished the order of the universe, but only temporarily. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of the temporary nature of animal sacrifice:

Heb 10:1 - ...can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

But answering the question "how does a sacrifice satisfy justice", the answer is "by reestablishing the order of the universe".

If a person pays a fine for speeding, they are punished for violating the law, but in the grand scheme of things nothing really changes. We can say that justice has been served, but that is an idea existing only inside our own minds. The sacrifice of Christ paid the penalty for sin, but goes much further. That concept of justice is real, not merely a thought.

 

[com7fy8]

the Father didn't pour out His wrath on His Son and He didn't abandon His Son on the Cross. Christ actually says the opposite in I believe John's Gospel.

Our Apostle Paul says,

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

As a guest, here, I say it seems to me that if Jesus on the cross was "a sweet-smelling aroma", then He was pleasing our Father sweetly, on the cross; and so there is no way our Father was forsaking Him and pouring wrath on Him, but Jesus was sweetly satisfying our Father to forgive us and reconcile with us.

How does this compare with the accepted Eastern satisfaction doctrine? I do not mean to teach or debate, but to offer something for comparison . . . if I may.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Our Apostle Paul says,

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

As a guest, here, I say it seems to me that if Jesus on the cross was "a sweet-smelling aroma", then He was pleasing our Father sweetly, on the cross; and so there is no way our Father was forsaking Him and pouring wrath on Him, but Jesus was sweetly satisfying our Father to forgive us and reconcile with us.

How does this compare with the accepted Eastern satisfaction doctrine? I do not mean to teach or debate, but to offer something for comparison . . . if I may.

how do you think what you pointed out differs?

 

[com7fy8]

how do you think what you pointed out differs?

I don't know if it differs from what you understand; so I am offering a rough sketch, for comparison, so you can tell us if you hold to something different.

 

[crossnote]

Since the Bible itself is full of "So and So said", and in many cases that "So and So" is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm not so sure it's wise to make such a statement.

God's Word being fully inspired by God (regardless of the penman) is obviously excepted.

 

[peregrinus2017]

.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't know if it differs from what you understand; so I am offering a rough sketch, for comparison, so you can tell us if you hold to something different.

it's pretty accurate then. but Christ Himself says that when He is forsaken by all, the Father will be with Him.

 

[peregrinus2017]

Father Matt or any other Orthodox please correct me if I'm going wrong with what I am trying to express. It seems to me that satisfaction theory puts a deficit or need on God, (in saying that God the Son suffered and died on the cross to satisfy God the Fathers justice and/or wrath, so that He could forgive us or look favorably on us) and that God is the one that changes toward us, rather than us changing toward God. God does not change and has no lack.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Father Matt or any other Orthodox please correct me if I'm going wrong with what I am trying to express. It seems to me that satisfaction theory puts a deficit or need on God, (in saying that God the Son suffered and died on the cross to satisfy God the Fathers justice and/or wrath, so that He could forgive us or look favorably on us) and that God is the one that changes toward us, rather than us changing toward God. God does not change and has no lack.

It does make sin God's problem.

There is often the assumption that God is somehow bound by these great cosmic laws, and even if He wanted to forgive us without extracting payment from someone in the form of punishment - He can't do so because those laws won't let Him.

Not only does God change toward us in such a scenario, but He's not even capable of simply choosing how to respond to us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father Matt or any other Orthodox please correct me if I'm going wrong with what I am trying to express. It seems to me that satisfaction theory puts a deficit or need on God, (in saying that God the Son suffered and died on the cross to satisfy God the Fathers justice and/or wrath, so that He could forgive us or look favorably on us) and that God is the one that changes toward us, rather than us changing toward God. God does not change and has no lack.

yep. it makes God's Justice a compulsion that must be satisfied.

 

[com7fy8]

Christ Himself says that when He is forsaken by all, the Father will be with Him.

Even so, He did say, "why have You forsaken Me?" So, what's your understanding about this? I personally understand He could have just meant that legally and circumstantially He was forsaken while He was on Calvary; but Jesus was not forsaken spiritually because He was "a sweet-smelling aroma" to our Father, plus I now think of how our Father said He is well pleased with Jesus.

I have personally communicated with people who insist that Jesus was totally rejected and subjected to God's wrath, while He was on the cross. Ones also claim He did all the suffering in hell, which all of us combined would have to do for all eternity, in hell, in order to pay for our sins. But I understand Jesus on the cross did an interception to prevent all that, so it was "finished", right there, and all that did not have to happen, because He so pleased our Father. Otherwise, what do people do with Ephesians 5:2 which says for us also to love like Jesus on the cross was loving? In order to follow Jesus, they would have to suffer in hell for other people and be rejected by God's wrath for other people, in order to follow Jesus . . . I suppose their idea would mean, then.

It sounds like you have a better understanding. What do you believe Jesus meant by being forsaken, please ?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Even so, He did say, "why have You forsaken Me?" So, what's your understanding about this? I personally understand He could have just meant that legally and circumstantially He was forsaken while He was on Calvary; but Jesus was not forsaken spiritually because He was "a sweet-smelling aroma" to our Father, plus I now think of how our Father said He is well pleased with Jesus.

I have personally communicated with people who insist that Jesus was totally rejected and subjected to God's wrath, while He was on the cross. Ones also claim He did all the suffering in hell, which all of us combined would have to do for all eternity, in hell, in order to pay for our sins. But I understand Jesus on the cross did an interception to prevent all that, so it was "finished", right there, and all that did not have to happen, because He so pleased our Father. Otherwise, what do people do with Ephesians 5:2 which says for us also to love like Jesus on the cross was loving? In order to follow Jesus, they would have to suffer in hell for other people and be rejected by God's wrath for other people, in order to follow Jesus . . . I suppose their idea would mean, then.

It sounds like you have a better understanding. What do you believe Jesus meant by being forsaken, please ?

a few things. first, read the Psalm Christ is quoting when He says that.

and two, the first time that forsaken is used is in Genesis where it says a man will forsake his father to be with his bride. Christ is preparing to do that, as His Bride is dead and in the grave, and that's where the Bridegroom goes to be with her.

 

[Dave-W]

What was the legal penalty?

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.