How was the Crucifixion Understood by the Early Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kei

Guest
How was the Crucifixion and Resurrection understood by the early Church?
I have heard the idea that He took on God’s punishments for us to be an idea brought about in the Middle Ages, though it is something our Protestant brothers and sisters seem to almost universally believe in.
If this is so, then how was it understood by the early Church? Perhaps someone expert in the Patristics may know
 
It was very much understood for what it is—forget the “middle ages”.

We hear all about the way Jesus took our sins and their punishments upon himself in Acts, Corintians and all the letters.
 
Good question I think some of his followers knew about the Old Testament…things like I think God asked Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice and then he was being obidiant to God and then the angel stopped him at the point when he was gonna stab his son laying down or whatever don’t quote me, but they had more understanding. ABout God’s wishes for sacrifices like Killing lambs and sheep and putting blood on the front door and stuff like that so the angel of death flew by that house I don’t know lol
 
Last edited:
Like satisfaction theory or the scapegoat theory or…
I believe the Christus Victor or the ransom theory are often called patristic, but this is just from a quick search
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Like satisfaction theory or the scapegoat theory or…
I believe the Christus Victor or the ransom theory are often called patristic, but this is just from a quick search
Click to expand...
Quick research?

Come now, we’re adults. If you’re really curious about something buckle down and get reading.

In the very least, grab a Scott Hahn chapter book and flip through it a bit. All of the “theories” are right in the letters. The practices and understanding may have changed ever-so-slightly. They might have picked up names in the middle ages, but they are there in completeness in the Gospels.
 
But, say, Anselm’s idea is different as it appears to the classical idea…

And the reason for the thread is a discussion and perhaps pointing to certain reading materials.
 
Last edited:
The theories of different saints, when added to the magisterium, only add to the core knowledge that was already there.

If they aren’t adding to the core knowledge, then they are just theories.

All Anselm’s theory did was to draw from the nuances of language surrounding “satisfaction” and interpret it in a legalistic fashion.

Do keep in mind that he was, in fact, appealing to a very legalistic society trying to help them comprehend the crucifixion in their own terms. It doesn’t mean that what he theorized didn’t exist beforehand, it just wasn’t understood by the society that way. But no society before Anselm’s would have understood the way legalism was being used during that time.

Remeber, after Anselm, St. Thomas continued to finalize this theory as it pertained to culture at the time. Yet before that, the theory still had fullness based on the understanding of the midset of people at the time.

What you are trying to imply would be akin to someone in 200 years saying that people 500 years ago didn’t understand the Trinity because they didn’t have fidget spinners to compare.
 
I understand that as an understanding, but I do not imply it is necessarily wrong, but I believe there is nothing wrong with trying to understand in the mindset of the people who were there or close to there
 
That Jesus took on our punishment is biblical:

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2: 24
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
I understand that as an understanding, but I do not imply it is necessarily wrong, but I believe there is nothing wrong with trying to understand in the mindset of the people who were there or close to there
Click to expand...
No, but I think you’re running a fine line of trying to imply that the early church didn’t understand the meaning of the Crucifixion.

They probably understood it at a deeper and more personal level than we can comprehend because so much of it was carried out in their society—one that we cannot really wrap our heads around today.

The later theories came about because we lost touch with that culture and understanding and needed to have it translated into “modern” thought.

We are getting the short-end translated information–not the people long ago. It is clear from the letters–especially Paul’s and Peter’s that people really understood the meaning of the crucifixion.

All the saints have done is to ensure the nuiances that were culturally available to the original church were not lost.
 
No, it is precisely because I believe the Church Fathers understood better that I want to understand their understanding.
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
fine line of trying to imply that the early church didn’t understand the meaning of the Crucifixion.

They probably understood it at a deeper and more personal level than we can comprehend because so much of it was carried out in their society—one that we cannot really wrap our heads around today.

The later theories came about because
Click to expand...
But you aren’t a first-century jew living in Palestine. Much of what the Church Fathers said and did must be understood in the context of their culture.

The reason the church has gifted us theologians is because they are able to pull out the things we cannot see and understand.

I know a couple Biblical scholar priests. They knew Hebrew and Greek because they were curious about early gospels and wanted to read them as they were written free of the church’s “official” translation as they felt they could glean more knowledge.

In reality, they wound up finding that the early theologians picked up more than they could.

Having studied the Bible with someone who knows Hebrew is very interesting…especially if they are able to tell you about first-century geopolitical culture and religious climate as well as history.

Perhaps seeking that out (perhaps a paid class at a Catholic uni?) may do you some good.
 
Hey Kei Can you clarify as to what exactly you would like to know as precisely as possible, I might be able to help. There should be no subject “off the table”, anyway this is historical question.

Certainly, the early church did believe that Christ atoned for the sins of mankind. Due to his perfection in obeying the law and being sinless, His propitiatory act had infinite merit.
 
Well, I suppose the view they had on the atomement, how it worked, what it’s more exact purposes were, etc.

Like, nowadays you may hear many say, “Gd is perfectly just so there had to be a punishment for sins but instead of punishing us God took on the punishment of all humanity I’m Christ Jesus”
But I don’t think this is the exact way it was looked to, like was it more akin to “God defeated all evils, sin, and even death itself, and made holy suffering,” etc etc, or something else?

Essentially I’m trying to find out the model of the atonement understood by the Church fathers or those closest to Christ.
 
Kei said:
Well, I suppose the view they had on the atomement, how it worked, what it’s more exact purposes were, etc.

Like, nowadays you may hear many say, “Gd is perfectly just so there had to be a punishment for sins but instead of punishing us God took on the punishment of all humanity I’m Christ Jesus”
But I don’t think this is the exact way it was looked to, like was it more akin to “God defeated all evils, sin, and even death itself, and made holy suffering,” etc etc, or something else?

Essentially I’m trying to find out the model of the atonement understood by the Church fathers or those closest to Christ.
Click to expand...
So right off the bat, no one taught PSA in the early Church. It is not to be found anywhere. It is an absolute heresy. Even St. Anselm did not teach it in such a manner as Calvin. Christ only pays the penalty for sin (the wages of sin is death). HE DOES NOT become sin, nor does He take upon Himself a sinful nature, just pays the penalty for sin. And the Father did not punish Christ. Christ made an oblation of Himself, a willing sacrifice for our sins.

As understood by the Church at that time was Christ because a willing sacrifice on the cross and payed the penalty for out sins. That is it. The Jews understood the need for sacrifice for sins, thus he is the Lamb of Gd who takes away the sins of the world. They had an innate understanding of the sacrifice. They did not need deep theological parsing to understand it. Now as Catholicism became more and more a faith associated with gentiles we were becoming further and further removed from Christ’s sacrifice so it people were explaining the crucifixion. Some of these are adequate, some are not, and other are just wrong. PSA is just wrong.
 
Hm, you were raised Jewish, correct?
Can I ask you something someone asked me, if human sacrifice was banned and the sacrifice was not done in the temple or by a levite priest, how is it valid?
I feel like it’s a too literal understanding of what is meant by sacrifice.

My own personal understanding is that death and sin entered the world through Adam, and so the New Adam took on our sins and our death and all evil and defeated it in the Resurrection. Old Testament sacrifice is a type to this ultimate sacrifice, and sacrifice across the various religions is similarly hints towards this truth.
 
Last edited:
No, I was not raised Jewish, though my father is technically a Jew - Converso father and Sephardi mother. My mother is from a diaspora Jewish town (Jews founded it) which lost its Jewish identity due to intermarriage but has married among secular Jews (as did my mother) since the 1800s - the family itself has its own entry on Wikipedia. However, I grew up among Jews at the Jewish Cultural Association I belonged to since I was a child and my closest friends growing up were Jews (though most were Ashkenazi while my father would be considered Sephardi). I was baptized within hours of being born.

One of the issues Jews dealt with is the sacrifice of children (usually babies) to Moloch. The pagan in that area had a statue of Moloch made of copper which they would heat until it was red hot and place the infant in the hands of the idol. So there was injunctions all over the OT that Jews are not supposed to sacrifice children. Most of the injunctions against sacrifice of children also indicate that no one can be burned as a sacrifice. There is also an injunction of sacrificing children to idols in general. Remember when Abraham attempted to sacrifice his son Issac, Issac was already a man, he was not a child as many paintings illustrate. God provides the ultimate sacrifice, Him Son. The sacrifice of Christ is a reflection of this sacrifice.

When the High Priest tore his garments, the priesthood was taken away from him, just as the birthright was taken from Esau and given to Jacob due to his disregard for it. The Jews had a method of telling if a sacrifice was acceptable. One of the tractates indicate that the thread did not change color for two score years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and no longer were the sacrifices performed acceptable. This coincides with the death of Christ. There was no longer a need for the temple because it existed for the purpose of sacrifice. Prior to this, there were very few occasion when the sacrifice was not acceptable. Nevertheless, Christ was condemned by the High Priest which happened on Mt. Moriah which is where the temple stood.

Yes various religions have such sacrifices. All religions have some truth to them as Gd has made truth available to all through grace. But He chose the Jews for a very specific purpose of bringing salvation.
 
The early Christians understood the Crucifixion just as well as we do now, if not better. They literally faced the punishment of the crucifixion for just being Christians. They saw their dead brothers and sisters hanging from those crosses as they walked down the ROAD. They understood how humiliating it was, and they understood the words of St. Paul perfectly, that Christ became sin for us, so that we may become righteous. If anything it is we do not understand the Crucifixion, considering how desensitized we are to it by the constant appearance of crucifixes.
 
Precisely why I want to understand how the early Church understood it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top