So He was neither a penal substitute, or just a "sin offering " (in the Levitical context) but somehow mystically bore our sins on the cross, expiating us.
But did Jesus have to pay a debt of punishment to God like Aquinas and Anselm say? Because according to Aquinas “Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins.”[18] The penance Christ did has its effect in paying the “debt of punishment” incurred by our sin. How does this teaching compare to the catechism and the Council of Trent because both are very vague on this issue.
There are two perfections of God – his perfect justice vis his perfect mercy.
Punishment can be in two (non-exclusive) forms, wrath and correction. Our penitentiary system (note the name, penance) are often called corrections.
In the context of our sin; first grasp that sin is not a thing, but a privation/deprivation; is is a sickness by
loss of grace; Hence, correcting sin may mean stopping the decay ( increase in sin = loss of more life ) or one may actually correct the defect and instigate healing.
An analogy:
In order to correct a defect or mortal wound in the body; one often needs a replacement body part; eg: organ donors or blood donors, etc. In such cases, the one donating the body part is either wounded to obtain it, or already dead.
Hence; Jesus was “wounded” so that we may be healed in the sense of a donor, and I think that meaning of him “suffering for our sin” is the primary one; Clearly, I don’t mean a mere replacement of some of our flesh, but the donation of a whole body
which is worthy to be glorified and heals our spirit as well.
As we don’t have a microscope to examine (the supernatural) Jesus with, it isn’t possible to determine
precisely how he suffered. But: The human body by itself is not capable of experiencing the punishment for every other human’s sin simultaneously – And scripture does say: “He was like us IN ALL THINGS except sin.” (we have finite bodies, nerves, pain centers…)
Hence, I think the expression “he bore our sins” is not intended to signify a simultaneous suffering (en-mass or serially) on the cross, but rather it shows the magnificence of his sacrifice by his awareness of every person who had hurt him, and being willing to die for any one of them.
It is awe inspiring to me that any man would die for another; Consider a hypothetical: if a nuclear bomb was going to go off in a city, and one man chose to die and thereby
succeeded in preventing detonation – would he not be considered great to
every person in that city? I mean, his greatness is not diminished or somehow diluted by the fact that he is only one man as opposed to the crowd, nor that he didn’t personally talk to every person in the city; His greatness isn’t based on a size/quantity comparison at all – but on his compassion toward all.
Just so, the meaning of Jesus’ suffering can’t be diluted or diminished if we
don’t demand he simultaneously suffer and that’s where we can stray from the actual scope of the ECF’s statements you mention.
To demand that God would WANT to hurt his perfect son, on account of us, in an act of unbridled wrath is impossible; such an act would deny God’s mercy toward his son – That would say that God’s
wrath was greater than his love for his
SON. (Reduction to the absurd as God is Love)
Hence: I won’t look for that reason inside of God – rather, I look for it in the imperfections that are outside of God. I am of the opinion that the reason is associated with God’s historical entering into an oath with Moses; a contract (law) that God could not break on account of his own oath.
Once God was in a contract; The devil (in my view) finally had the power to attempt to force God’s hand. He was able to trigger a catch-22 with the oath God made. Hence, on account of a broken oath (although not necessarily an actual breaking of it) We or God could have been liable to punishment. (Jesus, recall, was a Jew born under THAT law of Moses).
Now, if you have experienced even our court systems – you know that a case’s technicalities can often reverse judgment; or even be redirected at the plaintiff should they be caught in vindictive calumny, or a similar crime (purgery, etc.).
I think the cross reversed the fortunes of the plaintiff and defendants; It, so to speak, caught the devil during a legal “cross” examination.
There are two scripture sayings to note:
“The law holds no power over a man once he dies” and again (in another place) it is said the crucifixion caused “prince of this world” to be cast out (condemned).
The cross, then, was a legal trap – for we also know the devil would never have crucified Jesus if he had really known who Jesus was. That’s the nature of the trap – a claim to knowledge of sin, where there was none.
Hence, when the ECF’s talk about this “punishment” – I think that some of their explanations are hyperbolic. The explanations do indeed represent a truth, but they are overly extreme on account of emotional intensity / desire to explain the magnificence of the event.
Our own legal systems, throughout all past ages, (with their imperfections) certainly influenced the thinking of the early church fathers; these are what I suggest you consider carefully when reading what any of the ECF’s have said.
St. Paul, recall, was a lawyers/pharisee – and it is he who connects the cross with Moses’ penalties. And it is also Paul, by his living example – who shows by his
mistaken condemnation of Christ – that the issue is very subtle legally; Then add one more ingredient – The serpent of Genesis was the most “subtle” of all God’s creatures.
Legal novices beware.
Peace.
