Christ's death and Eastern Orthodoxy

[Mort_Alz]

My current understanding of the Western explanation of Christ’s death involves some sense of substitution. We sinned, and, rather than dish out punishment on us for our sins, God put it on His Son instead. He “bore our iniquities.” In a sense, God saved us from Himself by punishing Himself. (There’s probably a better way to put that).

But, I’ve heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with this?

Is that true?

“Through God’s participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of hell (Orthodox reject the idea that Christ died to give God “satisfaction,” as taught by Anselm, or as a punitive substitute as taught by the Reformers).” -Wikipedia

I know Wikipedia is farthest from the best, but that is why I’m asking.

 

[Harpazo]

My current understanding of the Western explanation of Christ’s death involves some sense of substitution. We sinned, and, rather than dish out punishment on us for our sins, God put it on His Son instead. He “bore our iniquities.” In a sense, God saved us from Himself by punishing Himself. (There’s probably a better way to put that).

But, I’ve heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with this?

Is that true?

“Through God’s participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of hell (Orthodox reject the idea that Christ died to give God “satisfaction,” as taught by Anselm, or as a punitive substitute as taught by the Reformers).” -Wikipedia

I know Wikipedia is farthest from the best, but that is why I’m asking.

Christ is risen!

Hi Mort,

I found this blog entry from Fr. Stephen Freeman about this very subject. It seems to give a brief introduction on the subject that I hope will be satisfactory to you. The Orthodox approach Atonement theory not as God having to send Christ as a punishment, but rather to conquer death, which had come into the world after the fall and allow us to become what we once were. I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mort_Alz]

Indeed He is!

That’s very interesting. I just didn’t know that there was a tension between beliefs of Christ’s death’s purpose. Also, I thought the West also believed that Christ’s death AND resurrection also had a redemptive quality, too. In exactly the sense you stated.

But I guess my question is, does the Orthodox Church not believe that the world’s sins were on Christ while he was on the cross?

 

[searn77]

My current understanding of the Western explanation of Christ’s death involves some sense of substitution. We sinned, and, rather than dish out punishment on us for our sins, God put it on His Son instead. He “bore our iniquities.” In a sense, God saved us from Himself by punishing Himself. (There’s probably a better way to put that).

But, I’ve heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with this?

Is that true?

“Through God’s participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of hell (Orthodox reject the idea that Christ died to give God “satisfaction,” as taught by Anselm, or as a punitive substitute as taught by the Reformers).” -Wikipedia

I know Wikipedia is farthest from the best, but that is why I’m asking.

Yes, from my understanding the Orthodox (and maybe Catholics as well but I’m not too sure) would disagree with this western idea that you presented. I’m sorry but I’m extremely busy at the moment and am only taking a short break right now so hopefully someone else will be able to answer you.

Also, although the wikipedia quote that you give seems to be closer to an Orthodox understanding, I don’t think it is entirely correct. I would say that human nature is redeemed rather than changed. And this redemption wasn’t to save us from hell but to draw us closer to God.

I’m sorry again that I can’t go into detail at the moment. Hopefully another Orthodox poster could clarify this or correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Mort_Alz]

hmmm, ok. I was just always told that Jesus was sort of the sin offering once and for all (I wish I could give scripture references) also redemptive, and also a savior

The Bible is full of language like that

 

[patricius79]

My current understanding of the Western explanation of Christ’s death involves some sense of substitution. We sinned, and, rather than dish out punishment on us for our sins, God put it on His Son instead. He “bore our iniquities.” In a sense, God saved us from Himself by punishing Himself. (There’s probably a better way to put that).

But, I’ve heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with this?

Is that true?

“Through God’s participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of hell (Orthodox reject the idea that Christ died to give God “satisfaction,” as taught by Anselm, or as a punitive substitute as taught by the Reformers).” -Wikipedia

I know Wikipedia is farthest from the best, but that is why I’m asking.

the Orthodox i’ve met think that the West is legalistic but personally I think that may be a bit true but also a bit true that they have a superiority complex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Catholic Church, and more particularly the Catholic East, would also disagree. Christ came not to take the wrath of an angry God upon his shoulders, but to reverse the damage done by Adam’s sin, to save us from sin and death, and to offer us participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

the Orthodox i’ve met think that the West is legalistic but personally I think that may be a bit true but also a bit true that they have a superiority complex

Such an accusation can go both ways. Eastern Christians, particularly Eastern Catholics, have very often felt the effects of a Roman Catholic superiority complex. Such a complex on the part of some Roman Catholics has even led to the martyrdom of a number Eastern Catholics, particularly in Poland and Western Ukraine!

My own experience is that those who claim that the East is “mystical” and the West is “legalistic/rational” say so primarily out of ignorance of the very deep mystical traditions of the West and not out of a sense of superiority. A careful and humble reading of the great Carmelite, Franciscan, Jesuit, and Dominican mystics would easily set such stereotypes to rest.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,
Salvation and Redemption are paramount in the Catholic church.

John 1,29 “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”.
Eph 5,2 “Christ has loved us and has delivered Himself for us, an oblation and sacrifice to God…”
IJohn 2,2 “He is expiation for our sins, and not our sins only, but for those of the whole world.”
Mt 20,28 “…and to give His life a redemption for many.”
Mt 26,28 “This is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”
I Tim 2,6 “…He gave Himself as ransom for all.”

The council of Trent teaches that Jesus offered His life on the cross for our eternal redemption.

It also said “who by His most holy passion on the cross offered satisfaction for us to God the Father.”

The the liturgy of the Mass itself is the presentation of the singular offering of Christ crucified to the glory of our Father in heaven and for the atonement of mankind.
For that reason it is called the sacrifice of the Mass, the highest atonement for our sins that is possible here on earth. And since this sacrifice is so pleasing, we are offered a share in the sacrifice as a sign of our oneness with the Father, in Holy Communion. If we ever fully realized all the grandure that implied, we would die there from love right on the spot. (parapharizing St Thomas Aquinas)​

There are millions in the world who are craving the pleasure earthly things afford,
but none can match the wounderous treasure that I find in the Bread from heaven,
Jesus the Lord. (hymn)

 

[firstmode]

Romans 3:

Christ Took Our Punishment

21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses* and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.*

 

[Windfish]

A lot of Protestants (all?) hold to the penal substitutionary atonement theory. Both Catholics and EO disagree with this teaching, even though the EO seem to think that Catholics hold it.

What I do not understand about the EO is that they reject any kind of theory which involves the word “substitution.” But how could this be? Any atonement theory would necessarily involve some concept of “substitution” since it was Christ, not us, who did the deed.

 

[patricius79]

The Catholic Church, and more particularly the Catholic East, would also disagree. Christ came not to take the wrath of an angry God upon his shoulders, but to reverse the damage done by Adam’s sin, to save us from sin and death, and to offer us participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity.

the Catholic Church doesn’t believe in an angry God. we believe that we are the angry ones

 

[patricius79]

Romans 3:

Christ Took Our Punishment

21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses* and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.* 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

that’s true. Scripture does use legal language for the atonement.

 

[Harpazo]

that’s true. Scripture does use legal language for the atonement.

What translation is the version that our friend firstmode is using? It seems to stress the legalistic language that has become common in the Scriptures in certain Western sects.

St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 3 is especially helpful. Other Orthodox Saints writings are enlightening on our Church’s position as well.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mort_Alz]

Yes, I am still learning, so bear with me

but it does seem like the Bible uses legalistic language sometimes

I believe Romans says somewhere that Christ died and demonstrated God’s justice?