www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What did the Cross do? Why did AChrist Die? What did the "Sacrifice" Accomplish?

I've heard a variety of theories and I want to know which ones Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants accept.

1) Christ made SATISFACTION for our sins. He was the perfect sacrifice/expiation for mankind's sins.

2) Recapitulation - by becmong man, AND LIVING A SINLESS LIFE, cHRIST SANCTIFIED HUMAN NATURE IN THE same way that Adam damned humankind.

3) Ransom - Since the Fall, the world has been in the devil's care. Christ paid the devil to get the world back to God. He paid him by his death. Then, once we were redeeemed, Christ escaped the devil's clutches.

4) God poured out His *just* wrath on Christ, so we who accept Christ are not condemned.

I tried reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a paper from Dave Armstrong.

But I'M STILL CONFUSED AS HECK. cAN ANYONE help me out?

Throughout the history of Christianity theologians have sought to understand exactly how Christ's death on the cross effected the salvation of the human race. Different theories of the atonement were developed in the context of varying historical location.

The early Fathers of the Church presented a view of Christ as the great champion of everlasting life. Irenaeus presents the death of Christ as a ransom for humanity's captivity to sin. Their central thesis is that God used the incarnate Christ to trick Satan in releasing the hold of death on humankind, thereby restoring them to their original state. The Devil was forced to open the gates of Hades when it was revealed that Jesus Christ, the sinless and innocent one, was consigned there. Most of the theologians who employed this model were bishops who used it in the sermons they preached during public worship. Hence this Christus Victor approach is evident throughout the liturgy of the Church, particularly in the Eastern or Byzantine rites. Its predominant symbol is the icon of the Risen Christ harrowing the gates of Hell, pulling up the awestruck Adam and Eve to life.

In Western Europe St. Anselm, the Benedictine monk and bishop of Canterbury speculated on Christ's sacrifice of the cross in his preeminent work Cur Deus Homo. Anselm sought to explain why the Second Person of the Triune God had to die. Within the work he outlines a more philosophical theory of redemption in response to the above view found in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Anselm took exception to the patristic interpretation of the doctrine of salvation and was clearly uncomfortable with the implications inherent in the cosmic struggle between God and the Devil. He saw this as incompatible with a philosophic notion of a God of perfection. He wondered why God would have to “trick” Satan. To say that God acted this way against the Devil would seem to imply that the Devil had a claim or right to the possession of the human race. Anselm's proposed alternative was more in harmony with logic. He reasoned that since God is the greatest Being, offenses or sins against Him are infinite in magnitude. Therefore since humankind collectively owes God a debt that is infinite, satisfaction for it has to be just as unlimited. Of course it is obvious that finite human nature is incapable of paying this debt. Therefore satisfaction for sin can only be possible for a God-Man, able by his divinity to give a worthy recompense to God, yet able by his humanity to represent all humankind. So the incarnation is necessary as the basis for God to forgive sins, thereby satisfying God's justice and demonstrating his mercy. This is much different scenario than a plan to rescue humanity by deceiving Satan. This substitutionary atonement model is linked to the notion of sacrifice and is best seen in the nearly ubiquitous crucifix that was found, until recently, in every Catholic Church in the West. Here Christ is presented predominantly as victim as opposed to victor. Protestant reformers like John Calvin favored the juridical terminology evident in this approach.

During the medieval era there was a shift of the locus of theology to the university from the parochial or monastic setting with the Scholastics' efforts to articulate a rational faith. This was furthered in the Enlightenment, a movement in eighteenth century Europe whose proponents rejected any traditional beliefs or doctrines that appeared contrary to human reason. New soteriological formulations were developed that were more in tune with the rationalism of the times. These were mainly exemplarist in approach, emphasizing the ethical inspiration Christ's Passion provided for humanity. The humanism of the day recast death of Jesus as a kind of “moral martyrdom” of an idealized human being, not the suffering of the Son of God.

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Dear OneHoly,

The Latin West emphasized the view that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross "paid the debt" to God the Father for our sins etc.

Adam's Sin offended a Divine, Eternal Being. The only way to "pay" for this was for the Son of God, also Divine and Eternal, to assume human flesh and die on our behalf so as to ameliorate the Father's wrath.

This view is, again, the view of the Latin West. John Meyendorff, an Orthodox theologian, showed how such a view came in "handy" to defend the Church against Monophysism and Docetism that denied the reality of the full humanity of Christ.

But the Christian East does not see our salvation in terms of "spiritual accounting."

The entire life of Christ, from His Conception to his Resurrection and Ascension to Heaven where He sits at the Right Hand of the Father is salvific.

By becoming Man, God deified us. He opened to us the possibility of salvation AND Theosis by participation in the Body of Christ through Communion and the other Mysteries and the spiritual life that the Church offers to us through the Apostles.

Rather than "save us from the Father's wrath," Christ uplifted our human nature that fell with Adam's fall and brought us into the very Life of the Holy Trinity through his transforming Incarnation.

What God touched, God healed, and God assumed the whole of me and you and everyone when He took on our nature, being like us in all things, save sin.

Alex

I have never quite understood the divine satisfaction argument.

Why would an all-powerful God need to send himself to die for an all-encompassing divide in order to satisfy himself??? When you look at the Trinity as one essence, it seems strange. I guess if you're looking at the individual hypostases it makes some sense.

Orthodox such as Clark Carlton in his book "The Life" really try to debunk the satisfaction argument. What they say makes sense to me, but then I wonder how that jives with the sacrificial aspect of the cross. Sacrifice without satisfaction? It's confusing to me, too. i need to study more.

In Christ,

anastasios

Does not St.Paul take a very "Western" view of Christs' work in the Epistle to the Romans? He speaks of payment, debt and satisfaction. Actually, St.Paul sounds very "Western" in most of his writings.

Any thoughts on this?

Columcille

Another thought: Doesn't the "satisfaction" theology more closely mirror the Old Testament understanding of God's wrath and need for blood sacrifice in atonement?

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

Let's take your second post first.

St Paul is clear that the Old Testament law was intended not so much to appease Divine wrath, but to keep man in the state of consciousness of his broken relationship with God ie. in the consciousness of his own state of rebellion and sin, beginning with Adam in the garden.

In his writings in which he wrote to many Jews and Jewish converts, St Paul does use a lot of Old Testament IMAGERY to describe how Christ took on Himself our sins and, as the Lamb of God, died once for all.

St Paul also talks of us being "partakers" of the Divinity of the Son of God and therefore, the "Western" view is NOT reflected in the Apostles' writings.

Atonement in the Old Testament has to do with "bringing together as one."

Never does St Paul talk about the appeasement of Divine Wrath. Christ died to destroy our sins, that which harmed our relationship with God. He died to transfigure our sinful nature through divinization or Theosis.

The specifically Western and Augustinian notion that has to do with Christ dying to "pay a debt" or to "save us from the Father" is nowhere present in St Paul.

Alex

Alex,

Actually, I believe it was Peter who spoke of us "sharing the Divine Nature", not Paul.

I must also disagree with you saying that Paul NEVER speaks of debt or satisfaction. Have you read Romans lately?

Columcille

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Columcille ]

The Eastern view is that Christ "trampled down death by death" -- that is, by taking death unto himself he thereby destroyed death from the inside, making it hollow for those who are joined to him and thereby participate in his death.

This is a sacrifice because in taking on our humanity, in bringing our humanity into his pre-eternal hypostasis, the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature and voluntarily underwent human death -- a terrible, painful experience -- that he might thereby hollow death -- ie, make it devoid of its "content" -- by bringing it into contact with the source of life. When death encountered the source of life itself, it obviously could not contain that source of life, it could not enforce "death" on that source of life, and therefore death was defeated by the source of life undergoing death and hollowing it from the inside out.

Obviously, there is a "sacrificial" aspect as well -- but it is not the Father sacrificing the Son as much as it is God the Son sacrificing Himself for the salvation of the world. It is supremely an act of self-sacrifice by the pre-eternal Logos that "redeems" humanity from the bondage of death (= from experiencing death as a finality, as a mortality). Those who die "in Christ" undergo death as a transition to eternal life, and not as an end of life. The focus of the Christian life, therefore, is to remain in communion with God, in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, that we may live God's human life and die his human death -- which was not a death at all, but a passage to eternal life.

Brendan

Dear Columcille,

Actually, I've just finished a reading of Romans, having been inspired to renewed scriptural studies by Cantor and Diaconal Student, Joe Thur.

There is no mention of Christ paying a debt of any kind to God in the "spiritual accountancy" view of Augustinianism.

As sinners, we incur the wrath of God which is His righteous judgement of our sinful lives (Romans 5:9-10).

"For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnss will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." (5:17).

The Eastern Patristic thought here is that Adam's Sin weakened our nature, introducing death and corruption into our lives.

Christ's sacrifice, indeed His entire Life, destroyed sin "Now, if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection." (6:5).

In Romans 3:24 onwards, ". . .through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness . . ."

"Propitiation" refers to the mercy seat in the tabernacle where God was thought to have His throne, The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat, a picture of forgiveness of sins and hope for eternal life in God's presence. Heaven holds the true mercy seat and Christ's atoning blood is sprinkled on it.

This has nothing to do with "debts" or "appeasement" in the legalistic sense, however.

Yes, St Peter uses the very words of "partakers" in the Divinization process, but so does St Paul in Ephesians 3:14-20 and in other places where he talks of our transfiguration in the same way as does Peter.

The Latin Church's "substitutionary" view of salvation is certaily allowable, but it was never defined as a doctrine, as neither was Augustine's view that we somehow inherit Original Sin, rather than the effects of Adam's Sin.

The Eastern Church view is more ancient and was shared by the entire Church, East and West (and South for you Floridians ).

Anyway, my purpose was not to annoy, but to alloy.

Forgive me a sinner. I deserve to be beaten about the calves and ankles. Or at least so my Latin teacher always said.

Alex

Alex,

A thoughtful post indeed. Thank you for the explanation.

Columcille

Colm --

It's true that Paul uses a more juridicised framework in Romans, but I think that the metaphoric expressions found there are also illuminated by, and to a certain extent qualified by, other parts of the NT -- most notably Hebrews.

Of course, biblical texts are a part of tradition and relying on the bare texts themselves can be dangerous, but I find the following passages of Hebrews interesting in relation to what we're discussing here:

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage" (Hb 2:14-15). This is an interesting passage because it indicates that the "bondage" comes through fear of death -- that is, we are bound to sin because we are afraid of death, we are tied up in our mortality and therefore in our myopia we sin. That's quite an insight, but I digress...

"He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself" (Hb 7: 27). I like this passage as well because it points to self-sacrifice.

"But when Christ appered as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once and for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." (Hb 9: 11-12). Here we see the language of redemption -- a redemption achieved through self-offering, self-sacrifice. What is that redemption? I think that Hb 2: 14-15, quoted above, offers a clue as to what is meant here: that redemption is a deliverance from the slevery to sin that has happened because of death -- ie, by sacrificing himself in undergoing a human death, God has destroyed death, thereby redeeming humanity from the bondage of sin. I think this is confirmed by the following subsequent passage as well"

"But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hb 9: 26).

It's true that Romans speaks about being saved by Christ from the "wrath of God". IMO, it seems like this is a reference to death, since death is seen as the ultimate expression of that "wrath". Romans 5 is a complex meditation on the nature of salvation, and is largely slanted by its own rhetorical and polemical style and purpose, but as I read Rom 5, what I hear the Apostle saying, in essence, is that Christ's redemptive death destroyed death, thereby making possible a reconciliation between God and man to those who life Christ's life and die his death. Rom 5: 15-21 uses various analogies and comparisons to make a rhetorical point (condemnation/acquittal; disobedience/obedience; law/grace; sin/grace; death/eternal life). The Apostle, as I read him, seems to be using a series of comparisons, of contrasts, to make his point in terms of rhetoric -- and it's true that he uses principally juridical analogues, but this is not surprising as he is writing to a mostly Jewish convert audience who were interested in legal analogues principally -- that is summed up in his final statement that "as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 5:21). As I understand it, the Apostle is here saying that Christ's righteousness -- which Hebrews tells us is his self-sacrifice -- death is destroyed and replaced with eternal life, thereby ending the reign of sin and ushering in the reign of grace, the reign of communion with God.

Brendan

Dear Columcille and Brendan,

Is this a Celtic festival or what?

Do both of you celebrate St Patrick's Day? We have a BIG parade here for it!

The interesting point about Hebrews is that it was written, or so they say, by St Clement I, Pope of Rome with St Paul.

As such, it is a representative theology of the Roman Church in the time of the Apostles.

We Ukies celebrate the 1900th anniversary of St Clement this year and his martyrdom in Kazachya Bay in the Crimea.

Icons of him have been produced with pieces of rock from the bay where he was martyred glued on.

The little bay next to it has been renamed for St Clement and schoolchildren in the former Soviet Union will now learn about St Clement for the first time since 1917.

He not only assisted in the writing of Hebrews, but also his Epistle was once read as Scripture, his Clementine Liturgy was once celebrated East and West and his Apostolic Constitutions established an early Apostolic witness to Church order.

The Ethiopian Church still considers the Constitutions as part of the New Testament.

I'm going for a coffee. Anyone want me to bring back anything?

Alex

Yes...an answer ...who's the "they" that say Saint Clement wrote Hebrews with Saint Paul?

Lex orandi, lex credendi...

It is fitting to magnify You, the Giver of Life, Who extended Your Hands upon the Cross, and shattered the power of the enemy.

It is fitting to magnify You, the Creator of all; for by Your sufferings, we are delivered from suffering the corruption.

The earth shuddered and the sun hid itself, when You, O Christ, the invisible Light, bereft of breath, and hidden in the grave.

O God, the ineffable and eternal Word, Your pure Mother, beholding You in a Tomb, wept bitterly.

When Your All-pure Mother beheld Your death, O Christ, she spoke mournfully: "O Life, do not be long among the dead."

The fearful Hades trembled when it saw You, O Immortal Sun of Glory,and hastily gave up its captives.

Now, all the faithful, redeemed from death by Your Burial, extol with hymns Your Crucifixion and Your Burial, O Christ.

ER