Orthodox "Atonement" theories; why did Jesus have to die?

[bri89]

An orthodox theologian I often listen too made the case that the western catholic atonement model is too legalistic and too literal in its’ understanding of terms like “ransom” and “paying the price”. For the orthodox, Did Jesus have to die to satisfy divine justice?" In what sense was he paying a “ransom”?

 

[Formosus]

In Eastern theology, Christ’s death on the Cross was not meant to satisfy some sort of Divine Justice, rather it was to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In Eastern theology, Christ’s death on the Cross was not meant to satisfy some sort of Divine Justice, rather it was to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall.

More precisely the image, which was never lost, was healed; the likeness, which was lost, was restored. Both Eastern and Western theology make a distinction between “image” and “likeness”. It wasn’t until more recent times that the line between “image” and “likeness” became somewhat blurred.

 

[fhansen]

In Eastern theology, Christ’s death on the Cross was not meant to satisfy some sort of Divine Justice, rather it was to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall.

In the west there are more than one theory, none completely satisfactory from my understanding. Could you explain why Jesus had to die to defeat death, other than serving as proof to us-which it certainly does- that death is defeatable? And how it restores the image or likeness of God lost at the fall?

 

[Barbkw]

Christ’s Resurrection defeated death. Unfortuneately, in this human body, one has to die to prove it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In the west there are more than one theory, none completely satisfactory from my understanding. Could you explain why Jesus had to die to defeat death, other than serving as proof to us-which it certainly does- that death is defeatable? And how it restores the image or likeness of God lost at the fall?

From the Eastern Christian perspective, original sin marred the image of God within us. The only Person who could restore that image was the Image of God the Father Himself, namely the Son and Word of God Who became flesh in Jesus Christ. (This puts pay to the heretical notion that Christ was an angel before He became man - angels are not made in the image of God for one thing).

By uniting His Divinity with our humanity, by becoming Man in Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Divine Image of the Father, healed the alienation we experience through sin, restored us to God’s favour by having us participate in Him and deifies us through the Communion of His Body and Blood through the Holy Spirit.

He brings His saving Divinity into every aspect of human experience and by doing so, He saves and transfigures us.

By dying out of obedience to God the Father, He restores what we lost by Adam’s disobedience and through our daily disobediences/sins. We participate and are alive in Him through faith and obedience and this entails our participation in the life of the Body of Christ which is the Church - her sacraments, prayer life etc.

By rising from the dead, He conquered death for all time and the grave lost its power over us.

As Orthodox theologians however have said - the Western understandings of redemption are in no wise condemned or somehow deprecated by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Alex

 

[fhansen]

From the Eastern Christian perspective, original sin marred the image of God within us. The only Person who could restore that image was the Image of God the Father Himself, namely the Son and Word of God Who became flesh in Jesus Christ. (This puts pay to the heretical notion that Christ was an angel before He became man - angels are not made in the image of God for one thing).

By uniting His Divinity with our humanity, by becoming Man in Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Divine Image of the Father, healed the alienation we experience through sin, restored us to God’s favour by having us participate in Him and deifies us through the Communion of His Body and Blood through the Holy Spirit.

He brings His saving Divinity into every aspect of human experience and by doing so, He saves and transfigures us.

By dying out of obedience to God the Father, He restores what we lost by Adam’s disobedience and through our daily disobediences/sins. We participate and are alive in Him through faith and obedience and this entails our participation in the life of the Body of Christ which is the Church - her sacraments, prayer life etc.

By rising from the dead, He conquered death for all time and the grave lost its power over us.

As Orthodox theologians however have said - the Western understandings of redemption are in no wise condemned or somehow deprecated by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Alex

Thank you-there is some overlapping between the two naturally but also some different perspectives in your explanation that seem quite edifying. Thanks, again

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I love this forum and the people, like yourself, that make it so wonderful!

Alex

 

[twf]

As has already been pointed out, there are a number of Western theologies of redemption/atonement, a fact Orthodox polemics often ignores. The mystery of the cross is so rich and beautiful that no mere human explanation could ever capture all that it entails. Mardukm has often pointed out on these boards that the Oriental Orthodox approach to atonement tends to be closer to the Latin approach than the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox one…

That being said, how can any Orthodox Christian reject terms such as ‘ransom’, as the OP suggests, when the Holy Spirit himself uses it a number of times in Sacred Scripture? See Mt 20:28, mark 10:25, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 9:15…
I intend no disrespect to Byzantine theology - I’m just looking for an explanation. Is it possible that Byzantine redemption theology is more nuanced than polemics give it credit? That’s certainly the case in Latin theology. I’m certainly not an expert, but I know that there are parallels to every (or most) point our Eastern brothers have made so far in Latin theology…like I said, the mystery of the cross is VAST.

 

[Aramis]

@TWF:

The EO’s are more grounded in the liturgical and paraliturgical prayers than the Roman, and therefore varies somewhat less.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

As has already been pointed out, there are a number of Western theologies of redemption/atonement, a fact Orthodox polemics often ignores. The mystery of the cross is so rich and beautiful that no mere human explanation could ever capture all that it entails. Mardukm has often pointed out on these boards that the Oriental Orthodox approach to atonement tends to be closer to the Latin approach than the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox one…

That being said, how can any Orthodox Christian reject terms such as ‘ransom’, as the OP suggests, when the Holy Spirit himself uses it a number of times in Sacred Scripture? See Mt 20:28, mark 10:25, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 9:15…
I intend no disrespect to Byzantine theology - I’m just looking for an explanation. Is it possible that Byzantine redemption theology is more nuanced than polemics give it credit? That’s certainly the case in Latin theology. I’m certainly not an expert, but I know that there are parallels to every (or most) point our Eastern brothers have made so far in Latin theology…like I said, the mystery of the cross is VAST.

Dear Friend,

The Orthodox have never rejected Western perspectives on the Atonement as any review of the works of Meyendorff and others will readily bear out. It is the Orthodox East that has been obliged to defend itself against Western Catholic and Protestant attacks (especially in the 17th and 18th centuries) that its Soteriology is lacking. And you yourself go on to launch just such an attack on Orthodox theology, although, to your credit, you do mollify it by suggesting other nuances etc.

Ransom is a term that is used throughout Orthodox Soteriology - the West did not discover it and the Orthodox East is not blind to it.

The question is NOT that Christ made a ransom for us - the question, from the Orthodox POV, is to whom was the ransom made?

Orthodox Soteriology has historically disliked the view that Christ died to placate an angry Father Who demanded justice for the offense of sin.

Christ’s death on the Cross was offered as a ransom to the Father through the Spirit for our disobedience (which is what sin is). The ransom was, in a wider sense, given to the grave which held sinful humanity prior to the Redemption. By dying, and offering His life, signified by the shedding of His Blood, Christ entered into the grave and “bought” us out, so to speak. He crushed death by His Divinity and by rising to heaven in His deified Humanity, which is our humanity as well, He brought us with Him to the Right Hand of the Father. Being the Divine Image of the Father, Christ restored God’s image in us that was tarnished by sin and offers to us the opportunity to live in Him and experience His salvation and divinization through His Body and in the Holy Spirit.

God the Father is not an “angry God.” One (RC) theologian once wrote that God the Father sent His Son not only so that His Son might suffer, but that He also might suffer - after all, what causes more suffering: to go yourself or to send your Son? However, one might interpret that, it has always had deep meaning for me.

Alex

 

[WetCatechumen]

In Eastern theology, Christ’s death on the Cross was not meant to satisfy some sort of Divine Justice, rather it was to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall.

Except that Adam’s sin had a consequence, which is Divine Justice, that all men were to suffer death on account of Adam’s sin. Jesus Christ became the second Adam and suffered death on behalf of all men, thereby nullifying the effect of death upon all of humankind.

Jesus Christ submitted himself to the satisfaction of Divine Justice, which was death, for the purpose of defeating death. You cannot ignore this. Scripture is immensely explicit.

We Westerners are not merely juridical.

 

[searn77]

Except that Adam’s sin had a consequence, which is Divine Justice, that all men were to suffer death on account of Adam’s sin. Jesus Christ became the second Adam and suffered death on behalf of all men, thereby nullifying the effect of death upon all of humankind.

Jesus Christ submitted himself to the satisfaction of Divine Justice, which was death, for the purpose of defeating death. You cannot ignore this. Scripture is immensely explicit.

We Westerners are not merely juridical.

You basically stated the same thing Formosus said but called it Divine Justice. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t divine justice something more along the lines of “Jesus’ death appeased what was owed to God”, rather than “Jesus’ death destroyed death”?

 

[WetCatechumen]

You basically stated the same thing Formosus said but called it Divine Justice. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t divine justice something more along the lines of “Jesus’ death appeased what was owed to God”, rather than “Jesus’ death destroyed death”?

Because of Adam’s sin, all mankind had to suffer the penalty of death - a penalty imposed upon us by God. We owed our own death to God. Jesus Christ substituted his death for ours, and opened the gateway to eternal life.

 

[searn77]

Because of Adam’s sin, all mankind had to suffer the penalty of death - a penalty imposed upon us by God. We owed our own death to God. Jesus Christ substituted his death for ours, and opened the gateway to eternal life.

Okay now I see the difference. What I have been taught was that death wasn’t imposed by God, but rather it was the result of what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit. The result from eating this fruit was that they would die. Kind of like if I eat something that I’m allergic to, I’m going to get hives.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Okay now I see the difference. What I have been taught was that death wasn’t imposed by God, but rather it was the result of what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit. The result from eating this fruit was that they would die. Kind of like if I eat something that I’m allergic to, I’m going to get hives.

Well yes, but in this case, it would be as if God had dictated that the effect of you eating the allergen is hives.

God created physical death as the result of disobedience.

He didn’t specifically impose it upon Adam and Eve; he imposed death as the penalty/consequence/effect of eating the fruit of the tree. Adam chose death by taking the fruit.

By becoming one of us, he united us to him. He became the new Adam on account of his primacy as the only begotten Son of God and his divinity. Therefore, when he submitted to death, the penalty/consequence/effect of Adam’s sin, because he was righteous, God did not suffer him to remain in the grave but restored him to life. Because we are united to him as the new Adam, we will rise with him.

The natural effect of rebellion against God is death. Because God created and ordered the physical universe and our existence, this could be described as a penalty because it is a negative result which he ordered as the result of eating the fruit.

To distinguish between “imposed by God” and “result of what happened when Adam and Eve took the fruit” is a false distinction. God ordered our existence and therefore, he effectively imposes a penalty of physical death on humans if they rebel against his decrees.

It’s like laws that we have. The specific penalty for a certain crime is a fine of such and such amount, or so many years in prison. They are imposed generally, and people are free to obey the laws. However, when they violate the laws they become subject to the penalty which was imposed generally.

The difference is with sin is that it is so intricately linked with those around you that the consequences of Adam’s sin were passed on through his bloodline. It is as if the penalty for a crime were your exile. If your wife goes with you into exile, and she bears you children there, they cannot return to what would have been their natural homeland because they are foreigners on account of your exile.

Jesus Christ, being the ruler of the kingdom, could not be subject to permanent exile, so when he became a member of Adam’s family and went into exile with them, Adam’s family was made able to return with him.

The penalty is only one aspect of the atonement. However, it is an aspect of it that cannot be denied.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Except that Adam’s sin had a consequence, which is Divine Justice, that all men were to suffer death on account of Adam’s sin. Jesus Christ became the second Adam and suffered death on behalf of all men, thereby nullifying the effect of death upon all of humankind.

Jesus Christ submitted himself to the satisfaction of Divine Justice, which was death, for the purpose of defeating death. You cannot ignore this. Scripture is immensely explicit.

We Westerners are not merely juridical.

That’s a bunch of baloney. There’s not a single verse in Scripture that says God inflicted death upon us as a punishment for Adam’s sin.

 

[bri89]

“The Eastern Orthodox view of our main problem (“original sin”) and God’s solution is markedly different. Sin is its own undoing; it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Sin is the turning away from the divine life and love, and its ultimate consequence is alienation and death. God did not create death; we brought it upon ourselves through our sin. God warned of death because death is not God’s will: “for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16). Rather, communion, obedience, and the sharing of divine life is God’s will.”

I am new to theology but I tend to agree with this quote . “For the wages of sin is death” can be interpreted to mean death is the natural consequence of sin rather than God’s punishment for it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear Friend,

The Orthodox have never rejected Western perspectives on the Atonement as any review of the works of Meyendorff and others will readily bear out. It is the Orthodox East that has been obliged to defend itself against Western Catholic and Protestant attacks (especially in the 17th and 18th centuries) that its Soteriology is lacking. And you yourself go on to launch just such an attack on Orthodox theology, although, to your credit, you do mollify it by suggesting other nuances etc.

Ransom is a term that is used throughout Orthodox Soteriology - the West did not discover it and the Orthodox East is not blind to it.

The question is NOT that Christ made a ransom for us - the question, from the Orthodox POV, is to whom was the ransom made?

Orthodox Soteriology has historically disliked the view that Christ died to placate an angry Father Who demanded justice for the offense of sin.

Christ’s death on the Cross was offered as a ransom to the Father through the Spirit for our disobedience (which is what sin is). The ransom was, in a wider sense, given to the grave which held sinful humanity prior to the Redemption. By dying, and offering His life, signified by the shedding of His Blood, Christ entered into the grave and “bought” us out, so to speak. He crushed death by His Divinity and by rising to heaven in His deified Humanity, which is our humanity as well, He brought us with Him to the Right Hand of the Father. Being the Divine Image of the Father, Christ restored God’s image in us that was tarnished by sin and offers to us the opportunity to live in Him and experience His salvation and divinization through His Body and in the Holy Spirit.

God the Father is not an “angry God.” One (RC) theologian once wrote that God the Father sent His Son not only so that His Son might suffer, but that He also might suffer - after all, what causes more suffering: to go yourself or to send your Son? However, one might interpret that, it has always had deep meaning for me.

Alex

Here is what St Gregory the Theologian had to say about the “ransom.”

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

 

[SonCatcher]

That’s a bunch of baloney. There’s not a single verse in Scripture that says God inflicted death upon us as a punishment for Adam’s sin.

How do you interpret this?[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 2:17[/BIBLEDRB]

God pronounced the rule and consequence ahead of time, as indicated by searn77 and accepted by WetCatechumen. One could argue that Adam chose death or that he chose disobedience. Regardless, Adam knew the consequence of his action beforehand.