www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Online Orthodox Catechism

Originally posted by Fr. Thomas:
The same goes for "redemption." Although he mentions that there were different theories posited by several Fathers, he never seems to quite get to the point, which is that Christ's sacrifice was simply offered to the Reality of the situation, not to God the Father (for He never demanded it, although He accepted it) and certainly not to the Devil.

Originally posted by Mor Ephrem:
Barekhmor!

When you say this, what does it mean?

In the history of Christian doctrine there has been great debate over the question of to whom Christ "pays the price" for the ransom of the world and the salvation of mankind. Some have said that the "payment" was made to the devil. This is the view that the devil received certain "rights" over man and his world because of man's sin. In his rebellion against God, man "sold himself to the devil" thus allowing the Evil One to become the "prince of this world" (Jn 12:31). Christ comes to pay the debt to the devil and to release man from his control by sacrificing Himself upon the cross.

Others say that Christ's "payment" on behalf of man had to be made to God the Father. This is the view which interprets Christ's sacrificial death on the cross as the proper punishment that had to be paid to satisfy God's wrath over the human race. God was insulted by man's sin. His law was broken and His righteousness was offended. Man had to pay the penalty for his sin by offering the proper punishment. But no amount of human punishment could satisfy God's justice because God's justice is divine. Thus the Son of God had to be born into the world and receive the punishment that was rightly to be placed on men. He had to die in order for God to receive proper satisfaction for man's offenses against Him. Christ substituted Himself on our behalf and died for our sins, offering His blood as the satisfying sacrifice for the sins of the world. By dying on the cross in place of sinful man, Christ pays the full and total payment for man's sins. God's wrath is removed. Man's insult is punished. The world is reconciled with its Creator.

Commenting on this question about to whom Christ "pays the price" for man's salvation, St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century wrote the following in his second Easter Oration:

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.

In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of "payment" and "ransom" is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).

Originally posted by Fr. Thomas:
Bshem abo wabro wrooho qadee-sho
had aloho shareero, ameen!

Originally posted by Mor Ephrem:

What do you know? He can discuss the finer points of theology and he can do so in Syriac!

Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

With respect to the Nestorians, I understand that a Russian missionary in the 19th century brought a section of the Assyrian Church of the East into communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and that they were called "Assyrian Orthodox."

Were they allowed to keep their Assyrian liturgical rite?

Yes, the Diocese of Urmia of the Assyrian Church was united to the Orthodox
Church in the 1890s. Mar Yonan and a number of his clergy went to St
Petersburg and in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra they were vested at the Liturgy
for the Annunciation. The Synodal choir sang the Trisagion and some other
pieces in Syriac. The mission flourished, even if the impetus was largely
political - protection from Turks ad Persians - and in spite of competing
Anglican and Presbyterian missionary activities. When the Mar Yonan and his
clergy went baqck to Urmia, assisted by Russian priests they visited every
community and united the Assyrian faithful to Orthodoxy. They wee permitted
to keep their Assyrian baptismal names, and they were permitted to keep
their entire liturgical rite - with references to Nestorius and related
Nestorian worthies deleted. (This is basically the Liturgy Addai and Mari,
with numerous anaphoras, belonging to the East Syrian liturgical tradition).
There are descendents of this mission scattered around the world. I met one
in London, Ontario in a hospital in 1983,and took him Communion. The last
bishop for this group died in the 1960s in Chicago (I think), and was part
of the Church Abroad.

One good source for info are the relevant chapters in *The Church of the
East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's
Assyrian Mission* by J. F. Coakley.

If you do an advanced search on Google, typing in Urmia and under exact
phrase Russian Orthodox you will find a fair bit of stuff. Somewhere I have
a description of the reception of the Assyrian clergy published in a
contemporary Russian journal.

The mid-19th century up through the Revolution was really an exciting period
in Russian Orthodox missions, beginning with North America and the Russian
Far East, Siberia, the Altai, and with activity in Ethiopia, throughout the
Middle East, in Persia, in Japan, in India.