Confused About Eastern Orthodox Concept Regarding Jesus' Death

[LittleSoldier]

Originally Posted by mercytruth

Your concerns of overemphasis that reminds you of the blood thirst required of the pagan gods are heard, but I do not know if I am personally aware of such.

(It is my observation either correct, or incorrect), that the Church of the West seems to focus on the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Church of the East seems to focus on the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. If so, maybe we need the balance of both.

God's peace.

Micah

Ah. This makes sense. I think that many Catholics do focus on the Crucifixion and this is also true of Protestants. But, in my view (as a Catholic), both the Crucifixion and Resurrection are important and both are required for our justification.

[LittleSoldier]

Originally Posted by fhansen

I always thought the Catholic Encyclopedia gave a pretty balanced treatment to the various historical theories on the Atonement here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Thank you! I have a problem comprehending most of what is written on NewAdvent but I did get through the entire section and it explained a lot. First, it shows how those in the Church have struggled to understand and explain the Passion of Christ and I appreciate those efforts. I have taken Church teaching for granted. Second, it explains Atonement; a term I admit I had never run across before this thread.

I like the conclusion:

As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".

--------------------------------------------

It is love. It seems that everything goes back to this and that makes sense because God is Love. I now appreciate Jesus' sacrifice even more.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by LittleSoldier

Thank you! I have a problem comprehending most of what is written on NewAdvent but I did get through the entire section and it explained a lot. First, it shows how those in the Church have struggled to understand and explain the Passion of Christ and I appreciate those efforts. I have taken Church teaching for granted. Second, it explains Atonement; a term I admit I had never run across before this thread.

I like the conclusion:

As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".

--------------------------------------------

It is love. It seems that everything goes back to this and that makes sense because God is Love. I now appreciate Jesus' sacrifice even more.

IMO the Atonement can do two main things with the help of the grace that it won, with the grace that it is: 1) it convicts me of sin; it’s hard to go around presuming my own righteousness (which I prefer to do) when someone had to actually die for me because of my unrighteousness-my sin-and, simultaneously, 2) it convinces me of the sheer love and acceptance and forgiveness of God in spite of my unrighteousness.

He knew all along what we need-which is Himself, the cornerstone the builders rejected, the cornerstone our first parents mistrusted and spurned at the Fall, the One mankind “hated without reason”.

The Atonement proves God’s existence, His trustworthiness, His unconditional love. Our part is only to accept the package-to accept Him, reversing the decision, within ourselves, that A&E made, no longer lost but becoming found once again.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by LittleSoldier

Ah. This makes sense. I think that many Catholics do focus on the Crucifixion and this is also true of Protestants. But, in my view (as a Catholic), both the Crucifixion and Resurrection are important and both are required for our justification.

Both the crucifixion and resurrection are undeniably necessary. But I believe mercytruth is correct that the emphasis on that goes with the emphasis on atonement/Christ victorious.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by mercytruth

Yes, but reconciliation with the Father begins with the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, and perfect union with the Father becomes theosis through the perfect faith and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God's peace

Micah

I believe this is the folly or Original Sin. Even if we are personally not responsible for committing any sin we are guilty of offending the Father. We need Christ because while we were created in the image and likeness of God, we lost the likeness through Adam's sin. Thus Christ's divinity added to our wounded nature perfects us worthy of the Father.

[LittleSoldier]

I think that one reason Catholics focus on the Crucifixion is because Jesus made such a point of telling us that we are to literally eat His Body and drink His Blood. When He tells us to do something, we try to do it (I hope most of us do). Doesn't this all tie in with the Crucifixion? I know it ties in with His Resurrection, too, but to me it points straight to the cross.

The Resurrection is the most joyous event that has occurred in the history of the world; the Crucifixion is the saddest, and together they are the most glorious. We celebrate both of them. Perhaps they should always be thought of together.

Or am I completely confused?

[LSK]

I don't think anyone here is confused - this is a wonderful discussion.

My opinion is the 'both / and' approach as well - and I think it is necessary to view both the crucifixion and the resurrection as a kind of continous act, not seperate from each other, because of the manner in which we as Catholics/Orthodox view sin.

If original sin was the kind of ultimate wounding that changed our nature from one of being FULLY human to being one that is open to sin, then the sacrifice Our Lord made in the shedding of His Blood takes the idea of an 'angry God' out of the picture; rather, His Blood becomes a HEALING balm, so to speak, poured on that wound. It becomes the ULTMATE sacrifice - Jesus, Fully Human and Fully Divine, sheds the only blood that could heal such a wound - PERFECT BLOOD.

The Sacrament of Baptism would become the healing balm as well - that which changes us from children of darkness to children of light.

[Madaglan]

In the West, the focus often is on propitiation to effect change in God's interaction with mankind--whether it be to avert God's anger, secure His mercy, be seen as righteous in His sight. Christ died to secure the Father's forgiveness for mankind and bridge the gap created by sin.

In the East, God is understood to be impassible; the Eucharistic offering does not change God's attitude towards man. Instead, this offering is viewed as expiation which transforms the one who offers. Eastern Christians through participation in the mysteries partake truly in Christ's death and ressurrection. Christ died so that we too might die and rise with Him.

Of course there is some crossover, but this is a general difference of emphasis I notice.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Madaglan

In the West, the focus often is on propitiation to effect change in God's interaction with mankind--whether it be to avert God's anger, secure His mercy, be seen as righteous in His sight.

In the East, God is understood to be impassible; the Eucharistic offering does not change God's attitude towards man. Instead, this offering is viewed as expiation which transforms the one who offers.

Hospodi Pomiluj.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Hospodi Pomiluj.

When is He ever not merciful?

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

When is He ever not merciful?

Just underscores the pitfalls in talking about the focus of what others believe - even if the there are texts that seem to make it very clear. We pray for God to hear us and have mercy, we ask that He not turn away from us. We may have developed a more nuanced meaning over time, but we still use these metaphors.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by fhansen

IMO the Atonement can do two main things with the help of the grace that it won, with the grace that it is: 1) it convicts me of sin; it’s hard to go around presuming my own righteousness (which I prefer to do) when someone had to actually die for me because of my unrighteousness-my sin-and, simultaneously, 2) it convinces me of the sheer love and acceptance and forgiveness of God in spite of my unrighteousness.

He knew all along what we need-which is Himself, the cornerstone the builders rejected, the cornerstone our first parents mistrusted and spurned at the Fall, the One mankind “hated without reason”.

The Atonement proves God’s existence, His trustworthiness, His unconditional love. Our part is only to accept the package-to accept Him, reversing the decision, within ourselves, that A&E made, no longer lost but becoming found once again.

Hansen,

I am not picking on you....I honestly thought of something while reading what you wrote...I have always had a hard time hearing the Protestants "he died for my sins"...and well I understand that....and what you said...it is disobedience that He died for by being obedient...because here is what Paul says...

14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

The struggle for obedience continues...although the Original disobedient act has been satisfied...those sins that Paul speaks of that are part of you and me are mediated by the grace that is available as the result of that Death and Resurrection....so that I live apart from the nature that is sin and align myself with the nature that serves the law of God...

Any discussion is welcome...

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Hansen,

I am not picking on you....I honestly thought of something while reading what you wrote...I have always had a hard time hearing the Protestants "he died for my sins"...and well I understand that....and what you said...it is disobedience that He died for by being obedient...because here is what Paul says...




The struggle for obedience continues...although the Original disobedient act has been satisfied...those sins that Paul speaks of that are part of you and me are mediated by the grace that is available as the result of that Death and Resurrection....so that I live apart from the nature that is sin and align myself with the nature that serves the law of God...

Any discussion is welcome...

I don't know-I'd think it'd be quite Catholic to say "He died for my sins" - and here I thought I'd distanced myself from Protestant theology long ago -at least the parts that differed from Catholicism. Either way I'm sure it's one think to say it, and another thing to understand it.

And I don't think the Atonement is so well understood in any case-and I really don't think the love of God is well understood by many of us-or by any of us to a very high degree. And this overwhelming, ineffable, unconditional love of God is what the Atonement reeks of. So yes, all sin is disobedience of God, as the Catechism states, and Jesus was the one perfect man, obedient to the nth degree, and He did it out of a love we can only begin to understand-and be transformed into ourselves-via time and grace.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by fhansen

I don't know-I'd think it'd be quite Catholic to say "He died for my sins" - and here I thought I'd distanced myself from Protestant theology long ago -at least the parts that differed from Catholicism. Either way I'm sure it's one think to say it, and another thing to understand it.

And I don't think the Atonement is so well understood in any case-and I really don't think the love of God is well understood by many of us-or by any of us to a very high degree. And this overwhelming, ineffable, unconditional love of God is what the Atonement reeks of. So yes, all sin is disobedience of God, as the Catechism states, and Jesus was the one perfect man, obedient to the nth degree, and He did it out of a love we can only begin to understand-and be transformed into ourselves-via time and grace.

But in Eastern Theology, the death of Jesus was meant to end death because Jesus is the undying, eternally living God. If Jesus died to atone for something, can't God just write off the debt? There is a parable where Jesus talks about the king forgiving the debt. Why can't God just forgive Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to suffer?

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

But in Eastern Theology, the death of Jesus was meant to end death because Jesus is the undying, eternally living God. If Jesus died to atone for something, can't God just write off the debt? There is a parable where Jesus talks about the king forgiving the debt. Why can't God just forgive Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to suffer?

Constantine,

The way I have heard Scott Hahn explain this is something like this....God is Just, God is Merciful...and in order for humanity to gain reward....Jesus presents himself to the Father and the Father in his Justice must reward the Son...and in that reward as fellow heirs in humanity share that reward...