What the cross accomplished

[Chad Duskin]

I was wondering if anyone knew what the fathers had to say on the crucifixion and what Christ's sacrifice accomplished. More specifically, I was wondering how Christ could represent a spotless sacrifice yet become sin for us. What does it mean that He who knew no sin became sin for us?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Chad,

As a first offering of quotations from the Fathers, I'll include here one from St Irenaeus and two from St Athanasius. You'll see that both start by reference to the Incarnation (which we might say is Irenaeus' most beloved theme); and after addressing the Word become flesh, they then address the Passion (the expression of which we might say was Athanasius' great effort and accomplishment).

First, from Irenaeus:


"[God's] Word was again manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man and man to Himself, that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but this image was not actually shown; for the Word, after whose image man was created, was as yet invisible. For this reason man did easily lose the similitude (likeness). When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both of these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.

"And not by the aforesaid things alone has the Lord manifested Himself, but He has done so also by means of His Passion. For, doing away with the effects of that disobedience of man which had taken place in the beginning through the occasion of the tree, 'He became obedient to death, even the death of the Cross' (Ph 2.8), rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was worked out upon the tree of the Cross.

"[...] Through the obedience and consent as respects His Word [...] He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning."

(St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses 5.16.2, 3).

It is clear that Irenaeus, who is often maligned as dealing 'only' with the Incarnation and somehow slighting the Passion, clearly taught concerning both. In the Incarnation, God becomes man that man might become fully man - a participant in God. And through the Passion, the obedience lacking in man is, too, perfected and the emnity between God and man, first wrought in the Garden, is healed.

At Athanasius, in his little book on the Incarnation, begins with many chapters on the Word's becoming flesh, of which the following is a sample:


"[Christ] did not offer the sacrifice on behalf of all immediately when He came [to earth as a man], for if He had at once surrendered His body to death and then raised it again, He would have ceased to be an object of our senses. Instead, He stayed in His body and let Himself be seen in it, doing acts and giving signs which showed HIm to be not only man, but also God the Word. Thus there were two things which the Saviour did for us by becoming Man: He banished death from us and made us new; and, invisible and imperceptible as in Himself He is, He became visible through His works and revealed Himself as the Word of the Father, the Ruler and King of the whole creation."

(St Athanasius of Alexandria, De Incarnatione Verbi 16)
The Word is incarnate that man may become new; but also that man may know yet more fully the nature and character of God. And that character shines forth in the Passion and Resurrection:


"'Well then', some people may say, 'if the essential thing was that He should surrender His body to death in place of all, why did He not do so as Man privately, without going to the length of public crucifixion? Surely it would have been more suitable for Him to have laid aside His body with honour than to endure so shameful a death'. But look at this argument closely, and see how merely human it is, whereas what the Saviour did was truly divine and worthy of His Godhead for several reasons. The first is this: the death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall iss and, when worn out, they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and Word of God and very Life itself. If He had died quietly in His bed like other men it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with His nature, and as though He was indeed no more than other men. But because He was Himself the Word and Life and Power, His body was made strong, and because the death had to be accomplished, He took the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice not from Himself, but from others. How could He fall sick, who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others were made strong? Here again, you may say, 'Why did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?' Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body, and to prevent the death would have been to impede the resurrection. And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, 'Did He then not hunger?' Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger, because He whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than Life Himself."

(De Incarnatione 21)
In the Crucifixion God shows forth His infinite power, even as He 'ransoms' man from the bondage to death that sin has held over him since the Garden.

INXC, Matthew

[Chad Duskin]

Matthew,

Thank you for those quotes. If I'm understanding right, because of the Divine nature of Christ he could not die a natural death, but had to be killed in order to experience death, and even then he had to freely allow it to happen. Through his death he conquered death because his divine nature could not be held captive, and thus he freed those who had been held captive by death.

I am beginning to understand the Orthodox view of the passion, but I am still confused over the Orthodox view of what actually transpired at that point. My Protestant background has taught me that it was to pay a debt owed to God, but the Orthodox view seems to be that it was to pay the price demanded of Satan as a consequence of the fall in the garden. Scripture seems to use many analogies to describe what occurred. It is seen in judicial terms and in financial terms, but I'm not sure that one way of viewing it is accurate.

The unworthy Chad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Chad,

In your recent post, you wrote:


If I'm understanding right, because of the Divine nature of Christ he could not die a natural death, but had to be killed in order to experience death, and even then he had to freely allow it to happen.

This is the impression one can easily get from the tenor of many of the discussions on the Crucifixion - including that of the quotations from St Athanasius I included in my last post. However, one who emphasised the fully human nature of Jesus Christ as much as did St Athanasius, would certainly have admitted (as much as he would have allowed himself any such speculation) that Christ could have died a 'natural' death, since He had become a 'natural man'. But the fact remains that Christ did not die such a death - and Athanasius, with so many others, points out that it was supremely 'fitting' and 'becoming' of God that He should not, in His power, meet death in such a manner.

But the greatest mystery of the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection was that death itself could not conquer one who is the essence of Life itself. When Christ died upon the Cross, He really and truly died. A man, who was God, was dead. But because that man was God, His power was greater than that of the death that had killed Him: He succumbed to the latter power, specifically so that He could overpower it with His own.

And it was to this end that the Passion became the 'conquering of death by death'; for when Christ was crucified, human nature, which He had taken on as fully His, underwent a change. This nature had long been bound to death, and it had no power to defeat the death in whose bondage it was held. Men died, and they stayed dead. But in the Incarnation, human nature and God's own divine nature were joined; and by being so joined, the former was given new strength. The greatest power of this renewed strength was the power over death, which Christ granted when His two natures conquered death and raised the dead Man back to life. From that act, human nature itself was made able, through union with God, to likewise rise above death and live past the cessation of this physical life. This is what 'happened' at the Crucifixion: Man died, but for the first time, He died in perfect union with God; and in that union, He defeated death.


"If any honest Christian wishes to know why [Jesus Christ] suffered death on the Cross and not in some other way, we answer thus: in no other way was it expedient for us, indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good. He had come to bear the curse that lay on us; and how could He 'become a curse' (Gal 3.13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Galatians%2B3%3A13&NKJV_version=yes&language=english)) otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the Cross; for it is written, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree' (ibid. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Galatians%2B3%3A13&NKJV_version=yes&language=english)). Again, the death of the Lord is the ransom of all, and by it 'the middle wall of partition' (Eph 2.14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Ephesians%2B2%3A14&NKJV_version=yes&language=english)) is broken down and the call of the Gentiles comes about. [...]

"Again, the air is the air is the sphere of the Devil, the enemy of our race [...] But the Lord came to overthrow the Devil and to purify the air and to make 'a way' for us up to heaven, as the Apostle says, 'through the veil, that is to say, His flesh' (Heb 10.20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Hebrews%2B10%3A20))."

(St Athanasius of Alexandria, De incarnatione verbi, 25)
INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Another quotation from a recent post:


I am beginning to understand the Orthodox view of the passion, but I am still confused over the Orthodox view of what actually transpired at that point. My Protestant background has taught me that it was to pay a debt owed to God, but the Orthodox view seems to be that it was to pay the price demanded of Satan as a consequence of the fall in the garden.

There is an interesting subtelty here -- which is only subtle at first, and then is overwhelmingly vast and important.

In Orthodox thought, the Devil is paramountly a liar. He has no right to man. When he claims to have any kind of 'due ownership' to humankind, he is lying. When he promised Eve the power to become 'like god', his promise was a lie. When he tempted Christ in the desert with promises of power and sovereignty, he was lying. Even in the present day, when the Devil asserts his 'right' to man through the latter's willing assent to the Devil's sin, even here his assertion is a lie. The Devil has no rights, to anything, because 'rights' are a matter of justice and justice is attainable only in the Good, which is God. In the frequently occurring patristic and ecclesiastical passages where humanity is referred to as being in 'bondage to Satan' or 'handed over to the Devil' or 'held captive by the Evil One', there is no assertion that the Devil has the right to such captivating power: he doesn't. Human persons who are subject to the will of the Devil are so because of their willing submission (even if this submission be brought on by deception, or weakness, or any number of external influences) - not because Satan himself has any 'right' to them. Every claim that the Devil makes upon man is a lie.

For this reason, we must be careful with such thoughts of Christ as ransom, as 'the Orthodox view seems to be that it was to pay the price demanded of Satan as a consequence of the fall in the garden'. Interestingly, this is a widely held Protestant view! I recall very clearly reading the explanatory footnotes in an old edition of the Ryrie Study Bible (Protestant fundamentalist in orientation) to the occasion of Jesus' temptation by Satan in the desert. The notes asserted unequivocally that the Devil's promise to grant Jesus sovereignty over all the empires of the earth was 'his right', since the empires of the world were 'rightly his' due to human sin.

This is the grossest departure from Orthodox belief. The empires of the earth have fallen into sin, and are truly in 'bondage' to Satan by their act of uniting themselves to him; but the Devil himself has no 'right' to these kingdoms, or to groups of men, or even to a single human soul. He has no authority to demand a 'price' be paid for humanity's life as a result to its submission to him in the Garden; he has absolutely no claim to 'satisfaction'.

When the Church speaks of Christ 'paying the ransom' on the Cross (which it does often), this is not a judicial ransom paid to one who has any kind of genuine 'legal claim' upon humanity. It is a ransom paid for man, in response to the Devil's provocation and deception of man. Humankind was bound to death, and death did have an authoritative hold over man; for once humanity had heeded the Devil and cut itself off from life, it could not break loose from the bonds of death by its own accord or power. Where the Devil lied in his deception, death actually bound humanity. The ransom offered by Christ was the ransom of death: Christ succumbed to the same deadly power - and then defeated it.

The Fathers are able to speak of this act both as 'paying the ransom of death' and 'paying the ransom to the Devil', because the Devil is understood as the bringer of death. The one who brings and the object that he brings are often spoken of as one. Yet one must read the words of the Fathers through the mind of the Fathers, and understand such passages from within the larger picture of their thought.

The Christian faith is built upon the idea that man wilfully submitted to the wicked, deceitful provocations of a liar -- of the author of lies; and a liar may speak only lies, but his lies can still kill. Christ showed the Devil for the liar that he is, and by His death ransomed man from the death into which the Devil's lies had bound him.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Matthew,

Is it the Church's teaching that there was no life after death before Christ's resurrection from the dead? No immortality? If so, what was there? (since presumably there was a hell -- the harrowing of hell being an important aspect of the Church's theology) And what about the Transfiguration? Were the prophets transfigured resurrected souls or no?

Is the change in human nature that "happens" with Christ's victory over death primarily in the form of a new revelation and a new consciousness on the part of man of the possibilities and promises of eternal life, presumably because we have arrived at the fullness of time when it is right for us to receive this revelation, or is that too existential an interpretation of the change?

[Chad Duskin]

Matthew,
Your last post clears up a lot for me. It is interesting to note that Satan bound man to sin and death through a lie while Christ came proclaiming to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Quite a contrast! I guess one should say that Christ paid the wage of sin - death - and conquered it. It is the price sin demands. Sin is willfully acting apart from the will of God, and in separating ourselves from God's will we separate from our source of life. The lie was that we would not die apart from God and on the surface it seemed to be true as death was a process and not an immediate consequence of disobedience. The interaction between Cain and Abel surely showed how wrong that lie was.

[Jackson]

Just thanks to everybody for this thread. I've just read the messages, and really enjoyed the recent one by Mark. It goes well with the new article on the web site, on the cross in the Old Testament.

Thank you to everyone for this discussion.

Jackson

[Anna Thompson]

Hi everyone. I have a question about the relationship of the cross to the Incarnation. St. Athanasius and other fathers teach that it was by "becoming man" that Jesus made man "into God," and St. Gregory Nazianzen has the famous phrase "What is unassumed is unsaved." These are some of the clearest teachings I know about salvation happening through the Incarnation. Could somebody offer some thoughts on how the cross fits into this? If it is by becoming man that Jesus Christ saves us, what is the purpose of the cross? And I would really like to know more about what it means for the cross to be a "sacrifice." Thank you. Anna

[Alec Lowly]

Anna writes:

"Hi everyone. I have a question about the relationship of the cross to the Incarnation. St. Athanasius and other fathers teach that it was by "becoming man" that Jesus made man "into God," and St. Gregory Nazianzen has the famous phrase "What is unassumed is unsaved." These are some of the clearest teachings I know about salvation happening through the Incarnation. Could somebody offer some thoughts on how the cross fits into this? If it is by becoming man that Jesus Christ saves us, what is the purpose of the cross? And I would really like to know more about what it means for the cross to be a "sacrifice."

This is a subject that may well be beyond my competence, but let me try.

One of the most important things that Christ had to "assume" for us was our deaths. Only by assuming our deaths could the Ever-Living One trample down death, by death. By dying and rising to new life, Chrust made it possible for us to do the same.

Then there are all the over reasons and metaphors that scriptures offers -- ransom, redemption, the nailing of the divine indictment of sinful men to the cross, and so on.

Regarding sacrifice: Christ, the innocent and righteous one, voluntarily took upon himself all the sin, debt, punishment, and so on, of guilty and sinful men. If that isn't sacrifice, I don't know what the word "sacrifice" would mean.

The Law states: No forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Christ, the perfect victim, obeyed that Law in our stead, thereby fulfilling it and abolishing it. No more blood sacrifice -- now the unbloody memorial of Christ's sacrifice in the Eucharist. Or, better put, the unbloody anamnesis.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Anna,

You wrote:


If it is by becoming man that Jesus Christ saves us, what is the purpose of the cross? And I would really like to know more about what it means for the cross to be a "sacrifice."

This is a very important, but also huge question. Surely the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection each play a significant role in Christ's saving work; one does not cancel out or render the other redundant in some way. I leave it to theologians to elaborate on the meaning of "sacrifice", which is far beyond my limited knowledge and understanding. Presumably you are asking something about how the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit each participated in this "once for all" sacrifice on the cross - is that correct?

In Christ
Byron

[Anna Thompson]

Hi Alex and Byron, and thanks for your responses. They've been very helpful. I think I understand that idea that assuming death is part of the "what isn't assumed isn't healed" idea that St. Athanasius talks about. But I'm still not really sure I understand what is meant by "sacrifice." Yes, there's the idea that a sacrifice is like an offering, so the "sacrifice on the cross" means that Jesus "offers" Himself on the cross. But this isn't the same as the idea of blood offerings, or sacrifices like that (which you talked about Alex). Animals in sacrifices in the Old Testament didn't "offer themselves" in this way. They were a kind of propitiation. It's this idea that confuses me. How does this fit in? Anna

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Ms Thompson,

These are very interesting questions you raise. There tends to be emphasis in two directions between eastern and western Christianity: at least stereotypically, western Christianity is presented as focussing strongly on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and eastern Christianity as focussing strongly on the deifying incarnate life of Christ. Unfortunately, this kind of dichotomy is rather false to both sides. As you rightly point out in your posts, and as Alec and Byron have both noted in different ways, life and sacrifice are united in Christ.

Perhaps just a quick thought (as I must run momentarily, and cannot write a great deal at the moment): 'sacrifice' is a multifaceted reality, in any context - not just that of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. There is always a sense of offering (even in the Old Testament temple sacrifices), but who is offered, and who does the offering, are variable. There is always a notion of propitiation and appeasement, else no offering would be made; but there is not necessarily need to read 'propitiation' in a purely (or even primarily) legal sense. One offers on behalf of something or someone, not as simple act for the sake of act.

The questions relevant to Christ are: who is offered, by whom, and for whom? What is the nature of that offering and what does it accomplish? How is this sacrificial?

INXC, Matthew

[Alec Lowly]

Anna writes:

"Yes, there's the idea that a sacrifice is like an offering, so the "sacrifice on the cross" means that Jesus "offers" Himself on the cross. But this isn't the same as the idea of blood offerings, or sacrifices like that (which you talked about Alex). Animals in sacrifices in the Old Testament didn't "offer themselves" in this way. They were a kind of propitiation. It's this idea that confuses me. How does this fit in?"

Dear sister,

I think it would be helpful if you were to read the Epistle to the Hebrews, which "translates" Old Covenant understandings into New Covenant understandings.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Anna Thompson]

Hi Alec. Thanks so much for your post. Actually, it's the Epistle to the Hebrews that's part of the whole reason for my curiousity! It was when I was reading that that I started to get confused about the things I was talking about in my earlier posts.

Are there any specific passages that you think I should be focusing on? Anna

[Alec Lowly]

"Are there any specific passages (from Hebrews) that you think I should be focusing on?"

Dear Anna,

Yes. Have a look at (A) Chapter 4, verse 14, through Chapter 5, verse 10, and also (B) Chapter 7, verse 12 through verse 28. For that matter, all of chapters 8 and 9 and Chapter 10 up until verse 18.

If you've got further questions, come back with them and I'll do my best. But I'm sure there are better qualified people than I in this community, and perhaps they'll help, too.

In XC,
Alec, sinner