Atonement: Satisfaction or Recapitulation?

[Cavaradossi]

That’s where I’ll disagree. I can understand the argument that the more-specific Penal Substitution Theory was not explicitly taught by the fathers, but a general subscription to Satisfaction Theory seems obvious. We don’t even have to look to the fathers here; Scripture is clear.

I’d be interested in learning how Orthodox Christians can interpret Paul’s letters to promote anything else?

To me, it seems that things are the other way around. Paul quite naturally is teaching a form of penal substitution. Christ takes upon himself the penalty of Adams transgression, which is death, and abolishes it. This is only natural, considering the nature of the Jewish religion and how Christ was the ultimate paschal sacrifice, and many Church Fathers followed this line of thought.

The theory of satisfaction on the other hand seems more difficult to prove from scripture and from the fathers. In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm lays out a very specific framework whereby the creature owes the Creator a certain debt of honor, and in sinning, injures the Creator’s honor, by not rendering this debt. Since, however, the Creator’s honor cannot truly be impugned, it then is necessary that the Creator punish the disobedient creature to extract this honor from the disobedient creature that otherwise would have been rendered to God by obedience.

 

[SyCarl]

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 95)
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

. The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html
I

t was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others.

John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

And what has He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die.

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,“and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice. .”

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. ."

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

But how incomprehensible and unimaginable that Greatness wherewith He shall come in His Second Manifesting, in some degree we estimate aright, if we consider with heedful reflection the weighty particulars of His first Advent. Surely that He might redeem us from death, the Lord came to die, and the impoverishment and punishments of our flesh He underwent in His own Body; Who before He came to the stock of the Cross, suffered Himself to be bound, to be spit on, to be mocked and to be beaten with blows on His cheek.

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book17.html

He bore the sum of human evils and every form of transgression, as well as their recompense and punishment. And as if he were our debtor, the only-begotten Word of God, coming into the world alongside us, fulfilled every law and all righteousness and did not stumble over sin but received it willingly so as to change our punishment into peace and harmony. For undergoing temptation he carried our rebukes and punishment, and by faith we make our own his sufferings, and dying together with him we are saved by grace. He was not delivered by force but as an act of obedience.

Theodore of Heraclea (Fragments on Isaiah, Mark W. Elliott ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament XI, Isaiah 40-66, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 164

 

[fred_conty]

If the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement is true, then why hasn’t it been taught before Anselm of Canterbury (1000 A.D.)? According to Wikipedia, the Early Church Fathers taught the Recaptulation and Christus-Victor theory of atonement.

Can I hear the Catholic perspective on this issue? It is the reason I am considering becoming Orthodox, rather than Catholic.

Thanks.

If you want a complete historical understanding, and what the possiblities of this doctrine are, here is a webpage for this purpose. Rather lengthly but worthwhile.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=938207&page=2

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[icamhif]

If you want a complete historical understanding, and what the possiblities of this doctrine are, here is a webpage for this purpose. Rather lengthly but worthwhile.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=938207&page=2

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

The link takes me back to this page.

 

[fred_conty]

The link takes me back to this page.

Sorry about that. Here is the right one.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[Seraphim73]

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 95)
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html
I

John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book17.html

Theodore of Heraclea (Fragments on Isaiah, Mark W. Elliott ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament XI, Isaiah 40-66, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 164

I would love to see those quotes in Greek and in context. I’d be willing to bet it doesn’t say what you think it says.

 

[Indifferently]

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree".
- Gal. 3:13

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
- 2 Cor. 5:21

The whole sum and substance of the Old Testament’s teaching on propitiation makes it clear that the sin and guilt are transferred to the sacrificial lamb, which is then consumed by God’s wrath and offered in sacrifice for sins. I was preaching through the Book of Zephaniah in Advent and what became clear was the notion of substitutionary atonement:

Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near; the LORD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests.
- Zeph. 1:7

Because the people of God have been offering corrupted worship (sacrifice) to God in Judah, God instead says that the sacrifice he has prepared will be the people of God themselves. This is the “day of the LORD” which is called a “day of wrath” and a “day of anger” in the text.

Also, remember the sin of Nadab and Abihu - who offered “unauthorized fire” (a sacrifice that had not been commanded) before the LORD (Lev. 10:1) and the Lord therefore, did not accept the sacrifice, and consumed Nadab and Abihu instead.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29) in that it is upon him that God’s wrath against sin is poured out. Jesus is punished in our behalf at the cross so that we can be forgiven.

 

[Seraphim73]

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree".
- Gal. 3:13

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
- 2 Cor. 5:21

The whole sum and substance of the Old Testament’s teaching on propitiation makes it clear that the sin and guilt are transferred to the sacrificial lamb, which is then consumed by God’s wrath and offered in sacrifice for sins. I was preaching through the Book of Zephaniah in Advent and what became clear was the notion of substitutionary atonement:

Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near; the LORD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests.
- Zeph. 1:7

Because the people of God have been offering corrupted worship (sacrifice) to God in Judah, God instead says that the sacrifice he has prepared will be the people of God themselves. This is the “day of the LORD” which is called a “day of wrath” and a “day of anger” in the text.

Also, remember the sin of Nadab and Abihu - who offered “unauthorized fire” (a sacrifice that had not been commanded) before the LORD (Lev. 10:1) and the Lord therefore, did not accept the sacrifice, and consumed Nadab and Abihu instead.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29) in that it is upon him that God’s wrath against sin is poured out. Jesus is punished in our behalf at the cross so that we can be forgiven.

Nowhere does any of that say Jesus was punished.

 

[Indifferently]

Isaiah 53 is used by Philip to preach the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
- Isa. 53:4-5

The whole theological structure of the Bible (and the Levitical system in particular) make it clear that sin and guilt deserve to be punished by God, and it’s only through this system that we can be reconciled. All the types were pointing to Jesus and his sacrifice.

 

[Seraphim73]

Isaiah 53 is used by Philip to preach the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
- Isa. 53:4-5

The whole theological structure of the Bible (and the Levitical system in particular) make it clear that sin and guilt deserve to be punished by God, and it’s only through this system that we can be reconciled. All the types were pointing to Jesus and his sacrifice.

That’s a really poor translation of that verse. It doesn’t really give the correct sense of it at all. From the Greek it is better rendered as “He was wounded because of our transgressions, He was bruised because of our iniquities.” And I would also add there is still not a word about punishment in the verses cited.

But if you are correct then we would have to be punished. If my wife commits murder I can’t chose to go to jail for her. If God is just punishing one person for the crimes of another is the very definition of injustice. If that is the teaching no wonder athiesm has grown so much. That kind of “god” is a monster and it would be better for everyone if He didn’t exist. But as has been pointed out there is not a single verse in Scripture that says God had to kill and torture God in order to appease God.

 

[Matthew_Light]

“He was wounded because of our transgressions, He was bruised because of our iniquities.”

That is also my understanding of this passage.

 

[Indifferently]

The word “chastisement” there could equally be rendered “punishment”. You are offended by this gospel, and it is an extremely offensive gospel. But it’s the true gospel. God has demanded sacrifice for sin all throughout salvation history, and even if I haven’t given you a golden verse, I’ve clearly set out what Scripture affirms about sacrifice - the propitiation of the OT was a sacrificial system where sins were confessed (and therefore transferred) onto the lambs, which were then slain and offered up to God to appease his wrath.

Jesus is the Agnus Dei, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. He takes it away because, as the lambs in the Old Testament, God’s wrath is poured out upon him in order that we might be spared. It’s not unjust - rather, it’s the only basis of our hope of peace on the day of wrath that is coming when Christ returns (1 Thess. 5:1 etc).

Heb. 12:19 tells us, in allusion to the Nadab and Abihu incident, that it is God himself who is a consuming fire. God is the one who consumed them (and this fiery consumption is how God accepted sacrifice) because their sacrifice (their substitute) was unacceptable. The only reason God does not consume true believers is because he consumed his own Son at the cross in their place.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s a really poor translation of that verse. It doesn’t really give the correct sense of it at all. From the Greek it is better rendered as “He was wounded because of our transgressions, He was bruised because of our iniquities.” And I would also add there is still not a word about punishment in the verses cited.

Not much difference between the translations that I can see. But there are others.

But if you are correct then we would have to be punished. If my wife commits murder I can’t chose to go to jail for her. If God is just punishing one person for the crimes of another is the very definition of injustice. If that is the teaching no wonder athiesm has grown so much. That kind of “god” is a monster and it would be better for everyone if He didn’t exist. But as has been pointed out there is not a single verse in Scripture that says God had to kill and torture God in order to appease God.

Murder? Maybe not. But if your wife incurs a debt you may pay it. The human race incurred a debt that we could not pay. God chose to pay it for us.

Sacred Scripture says this:

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Hebrews 7:9-10
9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Do you see? Levi paid the tenth to Melchizedek through his forefather Abraham because Levi was still in Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek.

Levi gets credit for honoring Melchizedek simply by being “in Abraham” when Abraham offered a tithe. That’s the principle at work from a positive perspective. Negatively, however, we were all “in Adam” when he sinned, so we all suffer the consequences of that, too.

That is what Mary was protected from through her Immaculate Conception.

 

[Seraphim73]

Not much difference between the translations that I can see. But there are others.

Murder? Maybe not. But if your wife incurs a debt you may pay it. The human race incurred a debt that we could not pay. God chose to pay it for us.

Sacred Scripture says this:

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Hebrews 7:9-10
9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Do you see? Levi paid the tenth to Melchizedek through his forefather Abraham because Levi was still in Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek.

Levi gets credit for honoring Melchizedek simply by being “in Abraham” when Abraham offered a tithe. That’s the principle at work from a positive perspective. Negatively, however, we were all “in Adam” when he sinned, so we all suffer the consequences of that, too.

That is what Mary was protected from through her Immaculate Conception.

Yes but if I pay off my wife’s debt I’m not being punished. There is a difference, an enormousness one.

 

[Seraphim73]

The word “chastisement” there could equally be rendered “punishment”. You are offended by this gospel, and it is an extremely offensive gospel. But it’s the true gospel. God has demanded sacrifice for sin all throughout salvation history, and even if I haven’t given you a golden verse, I’ve clearly set out what Scripture affirms about sacrifice - the propitiation of the OT was a sacrificial system where sins were confessed (and therefore transferred) onto the lambs, which were then slain and offered up to God to appease his wrath.

Jesus is the Agnus Dei, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. He takes it away because, as the lambs in the Old Testament, God’s wrath is poured out upon him in order that we might be spared. It’s not unjust - rather, it’s the only basis of our hope of peace on the day of wrath that is coming when Christ returns (1 Thess. 5:1 etc).

Heb. 12:19 tells us, in allusion to the Nadab and Abihu incident, that it is God himself who is a consuming fire. God is the one who consumed them (and this fiery consumption is how God accepted sacrifice) because their sacrifice (their substitute) was unacceptable. The only reason God does not consume true believers is because he consumed his own Son at the cross in their place.

It’s not the Gospel, it a heinous lie concocted by Satan to drive people away from God and it has worked quite well. And the lambs sacrificed by the high priest were no more being punished that Christ was. It was a sacrifice, not a sentence.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes but if I pay off my wife’s debt I’m not being punished. There is a difference, an enormousness one.

Of course you are. You’re out the money, honey.

Our sin against God was more than we could repay. Instead, Jesus paid . That’s the whole point.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not much difference between the translations that I can see. But there are others.

Murder? Maybe not. But if your wife incurs a debt you may pay it. The human race incurred a debt that we could not pay. God chose to pay it for us.

Sacred Scripture says this:

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Hebrews 7:9-10
9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Do you see? Levi paid the tenth to Melchizedek through his forefather Abraham because Levi was still in Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek.

Levi gets credit for honoring Melchizedek simply by being “in Abraham” when Abraham offered a tithe. That’s the principle at work from a positive perspective. Negatively, however, we were all “in Adam” when he sinned, so we all suffer the consequences of that, too.

That is what Mary was protected from through her Immaculate Conception.

I see that you are quoting many scriptural passages in support of the idea of penal substitution. Now, it is not my intention to dispute that a nascent version of penal substitution is found in the scriptures and the fathers (though this is controversial in scholarly contexts), though it can be hard to distinguish between penal substitution which relies on a framework of satisfaction and the ransom theory, which does not. Many Orthodox thinkers, I must note however, do find fault with the framework of satisfaction.

Since that is in fact the topic of this thread (satisfaction vs. recapitulation), I would simply like to ask you a few questions. Do you think that Anselm’s framework of satisfaction as laid out in Cur Deus Homo is either obvious or self-evident from the scriptures? Is it, for example, self-evident from scripture that God cannot cover up sins with compassion (chapter XII) or that the honor of God can be found in the punishment of the wicked (chapter XIV) and that God consequently must punish the wicked since he cannot suffer any loss of honor (chapter XIII and chapter XV)? Similarly, do you find the recapitulation theory to be self-evident in scripture? In other words, is it self-evident from scripture that Christ’s saving passion and resurrection established a new manner of existence for humanity, and that by being joined to Christ, we are joined to this new manner of existence? Naturally, these questions could also be extended to the fathers as well, if you so wish.

 

[Indifferently]

It’s not the Gospel, it a heinous lie concocted by Satan to drive people away from God and it has worked quite well. And the lambs sacrificed by the high priest were no more being punished that Christ was. It was a sacrifice, not a sentence.

Isa. 53:6 - the verse makes it clear that the LORD (that is, Almighty God our heavenly Father) has laid on him (that is, upon our Lord Jesus Christ) our very own iniquity (sin). Jesus is treated as a sinner by God the Father so that we can be treated as righteous.

 

[spedteacherita]

Now that you point it out, I might have read Indifferently’s post too quickly (that, or he didn’t phrase it as he intended? Perhaps he can clarify).

Christ’s death was not our punishment; rather, He paid our penalty.

Does this help? This is from the Lutheran perspective:

A Lutheran scholar has written: “it is Scriptural to say that God did impute the guilt of man to the innocent Christ” (Pieper, 1951, II.353 — emp. WJ). A Presbyterian writer, James M. Boice, asserted that when Christ died upon the cross [tree] he, “violated the law — through no fault of his own — [and] he became technically guilty of all of it [the law]” (1976, 10.460). Another states: “More awful than the pain of physical suffering that Jesus endured was the psychological pain of bearing the guilt for our sin…. God imputed our sins to Christ” (Grudem. 1994. 573-574; emp. original). Another writer alleges that “our sins [were] transferred to Christ” and accordingly he became “a sinner” on the cross (Choate, 69).

 

[KjetilK]

If the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement is true, then why hasn’tt it been taught before Anselm of Canterbury (1000 A.D.)?

While it is certainly true that Anselm’s theory of Satisfaction wasn’t taught before Anselm of Canterbury (obviously, since it is his theory), it simply isn’t true that no satisfaction theory of atonement was taught before Anselm. When the critics of the satisfaction theories say that such theories wasn’t taught before Anselm, what they really tend to mean is that it wasn’t taught the way Anselm taught it. That is obviously true, as he read satisfaction through what we might call the ‘feudal system.’ But that just means that he applied satisfaction to his own context.

We find satisfaction in Scripture, which emphasises that Christ gave God that which we were called to give. He gave himself. So no, satisfaction theories can be grounded in Scripture, and was taught before Anselm (just not in the same way and context he taught it, obviously). This doesn’t mean that Christ was punished as if he was guilty. This position is often called ‘Anselmian,’ but you won’t find it in his writings. Here we see it charicatured:

Since, however, the Creator’s honor cannot truly be impugned, it then is necessary that the Creator punish the disobedient creature to extract this honor from the disobedient creature that otherwise would have been rendered to God by obedience.

That was not Anselm’s position. What he said was aut poena aut satisfaction, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ That means a crime (and in this case, sin) can be atoned for either by the punishment of the guilty person(s) or by satisfaction made either by the guilty person(s) or, if that is not possible, a representative of the guilty person(s). Thus Christ is the representative, not the ‘replacement.’