By H.H. Pope Shenouda
- Did the Lord Christ die alone instead of us and redeem us?
- Or did we die with Him; were crucified with Him; and were buried with Him?
- Was the crucifixion merely [an act of] love unrelated to punishment?
- The Lord Christ is the Redeemer
- The difference between a word (theory) and a word (doctrine)
- The topic of propitiating of the Father in the story of Redemption
- To whom was the ransom paid?
As this issue is of the utmost importance, we will speak of it in all clarity, with regard to specific doctrinal points, for the sake of the integrity of teaching in the Church. We will rely on the Holy Bible, the sayings of the fathers, Church tradition, and the rites of the Church–due to the graveness of this topic with regard to the Christian faith.
1- Man was sentenced to die, according to the Holy Bible.
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12) He also said “death reigned” “by the sin of one death reigned” (Rom 5:14, 17). Man had to die, because God’s sentence was clear from the beginning. It was “You shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Our mother Eve knew this sentence very well before she sinned (Genesis 3:3). Thus, man had to die.
- Saint Athanasius the Apostolic says about this in his book (On the Incarnation of the Word): “If death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue” (Chapter 2)
- Regarding the sentence of death, St. Gregory says in the Holy Liturgy (regarding man): “I plucked for myself the sentence of death”.
- Saint Paul the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Romans: “The wages of sin is death” ( Rom 6:23)
- So what is to be done to save man from death?
2– The only solution to save man from death was the incarnation and redemption.
On this, St. Athanasius says in the second Chapter of his Book (On the Incarnation of the Word): “The Word assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all”.
He repeats the phrase “death instead of all”. He then adds:
“He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling”.
He also says “It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain”. He also says that the Word: “Naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death”.
This is the correct teaching of the fathers regarding the death of the Lord as a ransom on our behalf, instead of all, in order to pay the debt of all.
3- The Lord Jesus Christ carried out this redemption alone, by His death
Regarding this, the Lord says in the book of the Prophet Isaiah “I have trodden the winepress alone and from the peoples no one was with Me.”(Isaiah 63:3). St. Peter the apostle says regarding the Lord Christ “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). No one died on our behalf except Christ. Neither did we die on our own behalf, because humanity is incapable of saving itself. If humans died, this would not be a redemption, but what they deserved, and this would not suffice.
And thus, St. Gregory in his Liturgy says (to God):
“Neither an angel nor an archangel nor a patriarch nor a prophet did You entrust with our salvation. But You Yourself, without change, took flesh and became man, and resembled us in everything except sin alone. You became for us a Mediator with the Father… You reconciled the earthly with the heavenly.”
He also says: “You, O my Master have turned for me the punishment into salvation.”
Thus, the focus in redemption is on Christ alone.
4- Therefore it is wrong to say that we participate in His redemptive sufferings!!
The phrase: “The fellowship of His sufferings” (Philippians 3:10) means that we participate with Him in the sufferings of service and preaching, in enduring hardships, persecutions, and insults. Similarly, St. Paul the Apostle said: “We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken…” (2 Cor 4:8,9).
Also, “But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, in stripes” “In sleeplessness, in fastings” “By honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report” “As deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live” “As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.” (2 Cor 6:3-10).
In this manner and the like (2 Cor 11) we have fellowship with His sufferings. But we cannot have fellowship with Him in His redemptive sufferings, because we do not participate in the redemption–far from it. We don’t take an attribute of Christ as a redeemer, and credit it to ourselves! If we participate in the redemptive sufferings, then the question is: Who do we redeem?!
5- Unfortunately, regarding the issue of participation in the redemptive sufferings:
Some deny that Christ was crucified instead of us and died instead of us and suffered instead of us!! In that regards one literally says: “Christ was not crucified alone, but “we were crucified with Him. How then can we say He was crucified instead of us, when Christ did not die alone but we died with Him? How can we say He died instead of us? Since we previously said that we suffered with Him, so how can we say that He suffered instead of us?”
To justify this idea this author says: “The sacrifice of Christ is the literal death of the sinner! When Christ took a body, it was actually the body of all humanity–the body of all sinners… It was in fact, the body every sinner… So then every sinner can consider that he was in Christ, since what died was in fact the body of our humanity—that is the body of every human. He died with our bodies, with our flesh, and with our blood”.
Let’s discuss all these statements:
6- Did Christ die with the body of all humanity, with the body of all sinners–with the body of each sinner?
The theological truth I would like to convey so that the reader isn’t confused is as follows:
Christ was crucified, suffered and died in a human body, and not with the body of all humanity, nor with the body of all sinners, but with one pure body without blemish. As such, when His blood was shed to redeem us, it was as stated by St. Peter the Apostle: “For you know that it was not with perishable things… that you were redeemed… but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” (1 Peter 1:18)
- It is impossible for Christ to unite with the body of all sinners. For according to the Bible, “What fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” (2 Co 6:14, 15).
- It is also impossible for the body of sinners to ascend to the cross united with Christ because the sacrifice that is offered to God has to be without blame. This is the teaching of the Old and New Testaments. Whereas it was said about humanity: “All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:3) (Ro 3:23).
St. John the Apostle said, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 Jn 1:8) How can sinful bodies be presented on the cross, and united with Christ, who alone is without sin. This is He about Whom was said to His virgin Mother: “The holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)?!
Another point to be added to all that was mentioned earlier is:
7- The body of all the sinners was not redeemed on the cross.
Those who have been redeemed are those who believed and repented. Not all [will be redeemed], although the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to carry the sins of the whole world. But it benefits only those who believe and repent, and are baptized as well.
On one hand, regarding those who believe, the Bible says “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). And [the Bible] also says “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36), and also in (John 3:18).
So those who do not believe are not redeemed. As well as those who did not repent according to the Lord’s words “But unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). On the other hand: baptism “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
So how is it said that in the act of redemption, Christ united with the bodies of all sinners, while some are not redeemed? Did He, among all the sinners, unite with the body of Judas, whom He described as the son of perdition? Did he unite with the bodies of Hanan and Caiaphas, Pilate, Nero and Diocletian? All of them fall under the category of “all sinners”.
† † †
8- There is another phrase which needs to be analyzed, which is:
The phrase “instead of us” or “for us”
It is strange that the matter is portrayed as “a dangerous matter” or a “theological error” while the Bible uses these two expressions, as well as the Divine Liturgy, and also the Nice Creed. Are people told all of these contain this “error”?
The Author says: It is wrong to say He was crucified “instead of us” but rather, He was crucified “on our behalf”. It is wrong to say that He died “instead of us”, but rather, He died “on our behalf”. It is wrong to say that He suffered “instead of us”; rather, He suffered “on our behalf”, and so on …
It is clear that we all use all these expressions to which he attributes “theological error”:
So in the Creed (the Law of Faith),
Where we say “And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate” and not “on our behalf” … So is there an error in which all the believers fall when reciting the Creed?!
And in the Bible:
† The Lord said in the Gospel of Luke “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). The Author says “The translation in Arabic is wrong here” and he cites what is stated in the Gospel of Matthew 26, and the Gospel of Mark 14 “Which is shed for many”.
† So what do we say about the words of the Lord in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28) and (Mark 10:45). Is there also a mistake in the translation of these two gospels as also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:20)?
So why create this confusion in the minds of people with regard to the three Gospels?
And in the Divine Liturgy:
† The phrase which includes “He loved His own who were in the world and, as a ransom on our behalf, gave Himself up unto death” … Is there a mistake also in the Liturgy?
† And also in the Divine Liturgy “For being determined to give Himself up to death for the life of the world, He took bread …” Is this also wrong?!
† And also the words of the Lord “For this is My Body, which is broken for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins”. Is this wrong as well?!
† And His statement: “This is My Blood of New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins”. Is that also wrong?!
† Also in the Divine Liturgy in the last Confession, we say about the Body of the Lord “He gave It up for us upon the holy wood of the Cross, of His own will, for us all”. Is all this wrong, considering that it was mentioned in each of the three Liturgies: the Liturgy of Saint Basil, Liturgy of St. Gregory, and Liturgy of Saint Cyril?
Saint Athanasius used the words “die instead of all”, “ransom for the life of all”, and “substitute for all” (On the Incarnation of the Word, Chapter 9).
Then why all of this uproar about the phrase “instead of us”?
The author says, “Because the word ‘instead of us’ is very dangerous, because it makes death and curse something personally deserved. And this entirely cancels the concept of the ransom.”
No. There is no danger. Because we are the ones who were personally deserving. But the Redeemer carried it instead of us …
† † †
9- The Author says: “We are crucified with Him, and died with Him” (Romans 6:6, 8).
- He continues “He did not die far from us, but died with our body, with our blood, and with our flesh. We are partners in this body and blood”. He says that “the redemptive death that Christ died was our death…The sacrifice of Christ is literally the death of the sinner…He did not die alone on the Cross, but we were in Him on the Cross…’I was crucified with Christ’…When He was buried, we were buried with Him…His resurrection is our resurrection.”
- We note that the use of the phrase “died with Him” is a confusion between the Cross and Baptism. Likewise, is the phrase “buried with Him”. We did not die with Christ on the Cross of Golgotha. We were not buried with Him in the tomb prepared by Joseph of Arimathea! But the Apostle says “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism” (Romans 6:3, 4). He confirms the same meaning in the Epistle to the Colossians when he says “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him” (Colossians 2:12).
So in baptism we die with Christ and are raised with Him. But we neither die with Him on the Cross of Golgotha, nor resurrect from the tomb where He was buried.
Therefore, we find that the Apostle says in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection” (Romans 6:5). And the Apostle goes on to say “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him” (Romans 6:6). All of this is about Baptism, not about the Cross of Golgotha.
And when St. Paul the Apostle says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20) he does not meant that he was crucified with Him on Mount Golgotha. Because at that time he was not a believer, but he was as he said about himself “I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Timothy 1:13). So it is not appropriate to take the verses and use them out of context!
In that context, the Apostle Paul was saying that he was justified by faith and not by the Law. Hence he later says, “Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith” (Galatians 2:20).
- Here I ask a question about this confusion between the Cross and Baptism: If we have died with Christ on the Cross, because we were crucified with Him, so what is the need for baptism then? Is it a repetition of the death and Crucifixion? And if we died with Him in baptism, and our old man was crucified in baptism, then we did not previously die on the cross with Him or in Him … Otherwise we would have died twice and been crucified twice. This is why the Apostle Paul uses the phrase “likeness of His death” along with the phrase “died with Him” (Romans 6).
- Likewise is the phrase, “For Your sake we are killed all day long” (Romans 8:36), and also “always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Corinthians 4:10), and “For we who live are always delivered to death” (2 Corinthians 4:11). These phrases do not literally mean that we die with Him on the cross because the words: “all day long” and “always” do not apply to the death of the Cross. But they are all understood in a spiritual sense with regard to subjection to suffering on account of the Christian faith, or deaths in the spiritual struggle, or crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24). Likewise is the case with: “if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world…” (Colossians 2:20).
Again: What is more dangerous than using verses out of context!
† † †
10– A comment on the phrase “He died with our flesh, with our blood, and with our flesh”:
Was the redemption accomplished via the Blood of Christ alone? Or via the blood of us all!
The Bible focuses on the Blood of Christ alone, as it says:
- “Having now been justified by His blood” (Romans 5:9) – “propitiation by His blood, through faith” (Romans 3:25).
- “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).
- “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).
- “And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
- “The church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).
But the phrase “our blood, our flesh, and our body” is nonexistent. It also reduces the value of the ransom of Christ, who died alone for us, and who has trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with Him (Isaiah 63:3).
Additionally, the phrase “our blood and our flesh”- exalts humanity “more highly than he ought to think” (Romans 12:3).
We add an additional point to the previous, which is:
11- Was the sacrifice of Christ a sacrifice of love or punishment?
It is a question to confuse the mind, similar to the discussion about the words “instead of us” or “for us”! Because the matter is very clear which is: The sacrifice of Christ was out of His love for us, as well as a fulfillment of the punishment that was upon us, which is the sentence of death. So it combined the two together.
But an author says:
“God sacrificed his Son because of His love for the world, so that the world would not perish … There is not even the least suspicion of the presence of a punishment! There is not even the least sense of punishment!”
Then the author goes back to say about the Lord Christ:
“But His death with our body, is accredited to us because it is the satisfaction of a punishment. So when He fulfilled His death, He fulfilled His love. So for us it was the fulfillment of a punishment, but for Him, it was a fulfillment of His love through death!”
So then there is a punishment, but Christ carried it instead of us, because of His love for us. Otherwise, what is the meaning of the phrases “the fulfillment of a punishment” and “satisfaction of a punishment”? Who fulfilled the punishment except Christ? And who satisfied the punishment except Christ? All of this was instead of us. As the Bible says “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). And because of “the iniquity of us all”, Christ suffered, died, and was buried. Otherwise why did He die if it were not for the punishment that was upon us?
But the author says:
“If death is the punishment for sin, and this was truly the case in the Old Testament: ‘The soul who sins shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:20), this would mean that the Son carried the punishment of death from the Father’s hand instead of us to fulfill the justice of God. And this would be estranged from the spirit of the New Testament and is not possible.”
† † †
12- Here we ask: Is there a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament?
God, as the Bible says, “Is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) and “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17).
If in the Old Testament “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20), so the same sentence is in the New Testament as well. We can see this in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). We see this with the death of Judas “the son of perdition” (John 17:11) and in the plagues of the book of Revelation. We also see this in First Epistle of John “There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that” (1 John 5:16).
So then the expression: “The Son carried the penalty of death at the hand of the Father instead of us to fulfill Divine Justice” is not estranged from the spirit of the New Testament, as the author claims. This is the faith of the whole Church and the faith of its fathers and saints.
The author continues with his opinion saying, “It is impossible for the Father to gather in His heart the vengeance of punishment and pour it on His Son for Him to die for us and instead of us!”
Are these words consistent with the words of the Bible “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6)? And are they consistent with the words of the Bible: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10) and “He bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12)?
† † †
13- Here we ask: Is death considered as a punishment according to the Bible? Or not?
Since the beginning of mankind, God warned Adam with the penalty of death, and told him regarding eating from the tree: “You shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Also, Eve confirmed her knowledge of this penalty in (Genesis 3:3). The author himself acknowledges that the punishment of sin is death in the Old Testament according to Ezekiel 18:20.
The New Testament also confirmed that the punishment of sin is death.
As stated in (Romans 6:23) “the wages of sin is death”. As also stated in (Romans 5:12): “And thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”, and in (Ephesians 2:1) “who were dead in trespasses and sins”. In His letter to the Church in Thyatira in the Book of Revelation, the Lord says about Jezebel the sinner “I will kill her children with death” (Revelation 2:23).
If death is the punishment of the sin, and Jesus Christ is holy without sin, then why did He die? There is no answer, except that he died instead of us, and that He bore the punishment of the sin instead of us. This is the redemption.
† † †
14- Christ’s suffering instead of us, and His redemptive death instead of us are at the heart of the rituals of the Church during Holy week:
Christ’s sufferings instead of us are the reason for our sad tunes during the Holy Pascha Week. They are the reason for the black curtains which surround the church. They are the reason for all the readings and prophecies we read, and the reason for our deep fasting that week.
In all of this, we remember that cup which the Lord drank, but we were the ones who deserved to drink it. We are the ones who deserved the sufferings, the cross, and death, and not He. But because of His ineffable love for us, He carried all this instead of us. He carried our sins, although He is the Holy One. He carried our punishment, although He was innocent. The Father concealed His Face from Him, when He should have concealed His Face from us!
If this matter were merely about love, and there was no hint of punishment (as the author claims); yes, if the matter was merely about love, then Holy Week would have turned into a week of joy in the Church, with joyful tunes! But Christ’s love for us was transfigured in His enduring the punishment instead of us. His love for us was inseparable from the thorns, nails and the Cross. His love for us was the reason He bore the shame and mockery befitting us, “despising the shame” (Hebrews 12:2). This is what we remember in our Liturgies and say to Him: “You have borne the oppression of the wicked. You have given Your back to the scourge. Your cheeks You have left open to those who smite. For my sake, O my Master, You have not hidden Your face from the shame of spitting…”
Do we forget all this and say that the crucifixion was merely about love? And in our enjoyment of this love, forget our punishment which this love carried instead of us?!
† † †
15- Is the story of the cross free of punishment?
The author says:
“This is the fundamental reason for the incarnation of the Son of God; it is primarily an love act, completely estranged from any concept of punishment. The Father did not punish His Son, but sacrificed Him out of love. Neither did the Son punish himself, but He loved us and gave Himself for us. And in reality we were not subjected to any punishment, but we were granted innocence, love, and adoption…”
What joy do we want with this alleged innocence, which causes us to forget all our sins, guilt, and uncleanness, as well as forget all the sufferings and shame we caused for our Redeemer? For we did not ever attain innocence, but only escaped judgement. If we were not condemned to the fullest extent, and were not dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), and were not deserving of punishment–if it were not for all of this, Christ would not have been crucified. Neither would He have suffered.
Because “the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6) was laid on Christ the Redeemer, did we ever become without sin and innocent. To this extent do sinners forget their sins which their loving Redeemer carried on their behalf, and say we have become innocent? Is this not a self-centeredness (the self which the Redeemer saved by His death) as well as a forgetfulness of the sufferings which the Savior endured as well as of the price He paid dearly for us?!
The mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God is not estranged from a sense and concept of punishment. If it were not for the punishment upon us, the incarnation would not have taken place. The redemption is the primary reason for the incarnation, and our salvation from punishment is the reason for the redemption.
Thus, at the annunciation of the conception of Christ to Joseph the Carpenter, Joseph was told “You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). He was therefore born to be a Savior– to save the faithful from the punishment of their sins. This is same meaning which the angel conveyed when he preached to the shepherds, “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11).
So then salvation is the reason for the incarnation. And redemption is that Christ the Lord saves us from the punishment of our sins, and from death which reigned over us, by which we were bound and sold on account of our sins–as we say in the Divine Liturgy.
If there were no the punishment of death, which reigned over all on account of sin (Romans 5:12, 14), and if it were not for the redemption from this death, neither the incarnation nor the crucifixion would have taken place. How then can it be said that the incarnation is completely estranged from the concept of punishment?! It is such talk which is completely estranged from the teaching of the Bible and from the teaching of the fathers.
† † †
Let’s return to the discussion of the phrase “The Father did not punish His Son, but delivered Him up out of love.” Together we will discuss an important topic, which is:
16- The Father’s relationship with the Son with regard to the Crucifixion:
The phrase “the Father punished his Son” is a provocative phrase, because the Son did not sin that the Father should punish Him! Rather, what is more correct is that the Father accepted that the Son should bear the punishment of humanity, and so sent Him to be a propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10). The phrase “gave Him out of love” is not to be passed over lightly. But we stop at the words “gave Him” which mean gave Him over to death and Crucifixion– gave Him as “an offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:10). He was numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). He gave Him as “wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5) and “we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4). “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent” (Isaiah 53:6, 7).
Do we pass by all of this lightly and say “He delivered Him up out of love”?! Yes, the Father loved us and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins. But what does all of this mean? What are the meanings behind the expressions?
It is sufficient to place before us the following verses which clearly express the relation of the Father towards the Son with regard to the cross:
“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Romans 8:32). This phrase partly explains the meaning of the words “delivered Him up”.
“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10). Let us contemplate the word “bruise” here, along with the word “grief” added to them: “He was bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5).
The statement of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34); His statement also in the Garden of Gethsemane, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done”(Matthew 26:42); His statement before that “Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” (John 18:11)
All these words warrant deep contemplation. We understand from Him that His Father’s forsakenness of Him is not one of separation. Never! But of forsaking Him to suffer pain; to drink the full cup of suffering and shame. The Father was pleased with this that the price of sin had been totally paid via the body and soul; the pain of the flesh and the bitterness of the soul.
† † †
† We turn to the phrase “The Son did not punish Himself, but loved us and gave Himself for us”. The expression “the Son punished Himself” is neither theological nor spiritual, because it carries the meaning of suicide, and for no reason! It is better to say:
17- The Son’s Sufferings in the Act of Redemption:
The prophecies explain this in Psalm 22, which pertains to the sufferings of Christ, which starts with “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” As some contemplated, when the Lord Christ said this phrase on the Cross, He partly intended to draw attention to what was prophesied about Him in this Psalm. This includes:
“They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones” and “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots”. And also:
“All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him; let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!’”. “I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws”. “Many bulls have surrounded Me; strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me”.
Added to all this suffering was the scourging, nails, thorns, mockery, spitting, and ridicule, along with the prophecy about him in the Psalm “And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:21) which was fulfilled in (Matthew 27:34) “they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink”. From the intensity of His fatigue He said on the Cross “I thirst!” (John 19:28).
Can all of this and other [sufferings] be passed over lightly or ignored by the expression, “He loved us, and gave Himself for us”? What is the meaning of the phrase “gave Himself for us”? He surrendered Himself to what? To the scarlet robe and smiting of the face accompanied with the ridicule: “Hail, King of Jews!” “Prophesy! Who is the one who struck You?” (Luke 22:64). Or as the prophecy says about Him “I gave My back to those who struck Me, and My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6) So we forget all of this and remember only the phrase “He loved us and gave Himself up”? And what did He pay for the sake of that love?
After all of this, do we say all that happened was totally alien from any concept or sense of punishment?! Were we worthy of all that Christ sacrificed for us? Or do we only think of ourselves, and say “He loved us” and “we attained innocence” and do not think about the crucified One Who loved us, and the punishment He endured instead of us!!
† † †
Another point seems obvious, but we are obligated to explain it:
18- Did Christ bear the punishment or abolish the punishment?
† The author says “Punishment does not create love, but love cancels punishment” as if by this he views all punishments by which God punished the world in the Old and New Testaments were devoid of love! While the Bible says “Whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Hebrews 12:6).
† Then the author objects to the punishment which Christ endured instead of us, saying “How then can we say that by His death, Christ endured the punishment instead of us? What is correct is that by His death He cancelled the punishment, because His death was motivated by love from God, not punishment.”
† If Christ did not endure the punishment instead of us, what is the meaning of the redemption then? If there is no punishment at all (but the removal of punishment), how then is divine justice fulfilled? Did Christ suffer and die for no reason?
The removal of the punishment from us was the result of Christ enduring it instead of us. This is the teaching of the Church throughout the generations and also the teaching of the Bible.
† † †
And this brings us to a strange point raised by the author, which is:
19- Who fulfilled the divine justice: We or Christ?
The author raises a strange question by saying, “Christ died in the body which is our body and our sin was upon it. So God’s justice is fulfilled in us, not in Christ.”
It is an astonishing phrase which leads to the destruction of the entire doctrine of redemption!
If God’s justice is fulfilled in us, then what did Christ do? And why was He incarnate? And why did He suffer, die, and was buried? And what is the meaning of His title (the Savior) who saves His people from their sins? And what is the necessity of His name “Jesus”?
As for His “dying in our body”, our body is sinful. It is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice. But Christ died with a pure body – as of a Lamb without blemish (1 Peter 1:19). And since He had no sin, He died for the sins of others–for the sins of the whole world.
The basis of redemption is that man was completely incapable of redeeming himself–unable to repay his debts before Divine justice, as the Lord God said about the debtor who owed fifty and the debtor owed five hundred, “When they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both” (Luke 7:42) And how did He forgive them? The Bible says “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).
† † †
20- Did Christ die of His own will or merely out of obedience to the Father?
Is He the Redeemer or a Ransom?
Some people want to destroy Christ’s role in redemption, either by involving us humans in the act of redemption, and saying that we fulfilled the demands of Divine justice, or by focusing on the role of God the Father as the Redeemer, and [saying] that Christ is merely a Ransom offered by the Father. “He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). The verses about Christ Himself as our Redeemer could not be more numerous. We will mention here a few verses [to prove] that He gave Himself, delivered Himself up, and sacrificed Himself:
† “I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17, 18)
† “Who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6)
† “He poured out His soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12)
† “Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed” (Titus 2:14)
† “Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age” (Galatians 1:4)
† † †
As for the role of Christ in the redemption of mankind, we would like to offer some verses that indicate the following truth:
21- The Lord Christ laid down Himself, delivered Himself up, and surrendered Himself unto death to redeem us and save us:
This is because the Author says “The Father is the Redeemer, and the Son is the Ransom. Accordingly, the title ‘Redeemer’ was not given to Christ all the books of the New Testament, and this is the result of precise and noticeable theological awareness. For the Father is the owner of the eternal counsel and economy in offering His Son as a Ransom…”
Although we do not wish to discuss the theological relationship between the Father and the Son in these matters now, even though the Author himself says in the same book a few pages later “The Redeemer calls upon you: behold my wounds, the sin that I carried, and the curse that I accepted” as he is referring to Christ of course, I want to prove here that Christ redeemed us by His choice and will, not merely to obey the Father “became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). This was said about His humanity, because death cannot touch the Divinity, and Christ died in the flesh. The word “obedient” here means the agreement of will.
† † †
22- And the Lord Christ Himself made this truth clear:
† And that’s by saying about Himself: “I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18).
† He said in the same Chapter, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). And after that He said “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:15).
† He also said, “This is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). So He gave Himself, and was not merely given.
† Likewise we say in the Divine Liturgy “For being determined to give Himself up to death for the life of the world”. That is, it is His will and His plan to give Himself up for the life of the world.
† Because he knows completely that for this reason He came into the world.
† † †
23- And the Fathers the Apostles also confirm this truth:
† “Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age” (Galatians 1:4). He said He gave Himself and did not say “was given”.
† In Galatians 2:20: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me”.
† And in Ephesians 5:2: “As Christ also has loved us and has given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma…” He has given Himself.
† And in Hebrews 9:14: “Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God”.
† Also in Ephesians 5:23-26, the Apostle says about the Church and its relation to Christ: “Just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word”.
† In 1 John 3:16, he says about Christ that He “laid down His life for us”.
† † †
24- The Lord Christ is the One who redeemed us:
† The Apostle said in Galatians 3:13: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law”. He did not say that The Father is the One who redeemed us.
† And in (Ephesians 1:7) He says about Christ “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace”.
† And in (Romans 3:24): “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.
† Also in (1 Timothy 2:6) “Who gave Himself a ransom for all”.
Jesus Christ then redeemed us, gave Himself [for us], justified us freely by His redemption, and by His blood we received the forgiveness of our sins. He delivered Himself up to death.
† † †
25- Ignoring the will of Christ in redemption undermines His love for us
Whoever says that Christ is not the Redeemer, but merely a ransom offered by the Father, Who [happened to] accept this out of obedience—whoever says this, undermines the love of Christ for us, and His giving of Himself for the forgiveness of our sins.
And this is unacceptable by the Church, about which the Apostle said, “Just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). This is also unacceptable by any one of us who says with the Apostle regarding the Lord Christ, “The Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).
The loving Christ was not merely the executor of the Father’s will in redemption for the sake of obedience, but His will was the will of the Father with regard to redemption.
† † †
26- There is a big difference between a theoretical word and a doctrinal word!
We all believe that redemption means that a soul redeems another by taking its place, dying instead of it, and paying the price instead of it. But another opinion says: “There are three theories of redemption: The substitutionary atonement theory, the satisfaction of God theory, and the ransom by paying the price theory.”
And the matter turns from an explanation of doctrine to theories being discussed, as if the Fathers did not leave us an established doctrine regarding redemption!
The matter turns into an acknowledgment that a soul replacing another soul was [supposedly only] prevalent in the Old Testament, but that this changed in the New Testament, and that a union replaced substitution!
Why remove the ancient landmarks so fast?! And why attack the early holy Church fathers with regard to the doctrine they presented? And why present new beliefs from which we are required to protect the people? Did not the Bible say “Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28).
And why all of this confusion and attempts to remove what the Church has received from generations long ago through its established traditions?
† † †
27- The topic of “appeasing the heart of God”:
It is known that the sin had two consequences:
A) Angering God’s heart through disobedience and rebellion against him, and obeying Satan more than Him. The burnt sacrifice pointed to propitiating God and fulfilling His justice.
B) One of the consequences of sin was also that man perished and was sentenced to death. The sin offering was [offered] on his behalf, to die instead of him.
The burnt sacrifice was a symbol of the Lord Jesus Christ in pleasing the Father as well as offering absolute obedience to Him. The sin offering was also a symbol of the Lord Jesus Christ in His death instead of us, and the fulfillment of divine justice which condemns the sinner to death.
This is what we have learned of old, and continue to teach others.
† † †
28- The burnt offering and it’s symbolism in propitiating God:
† The burnt offering was the oldest sacrifice people used to draw closer to God. For this reason it was called an offering (Genesis 4:5). After the Ark rested, we read that our father Noah “built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:20, 21).
We notice here that the burnt offering was a reason for God’s appeasement and the lifting of His wrath. It was [offered] from clean animals and birds.
The Fathers continued offering the burnt offering before the Law of Moses.
† From the sacrifices which God ordered Moses to offer in Leviticus, the burnt offering was first on the list, because pleasing God should come first. The burnt sacrifice was called an offering (Leviticus 1:2), because through it, people drew near to God.
† † †
29- The burnt offering was for the satisfaction, as well as a pleasing aroma for the Lord. And it was all for God, to the fire of the Divine justice:
The Bible says about the one who offers that it “will be accepted on his behalf before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:3, 4). This burnt offering was referred to as an “an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord”, and this description is repeated three times with regard to all its types (Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17).
The whole burnt offering was for the fire of the Divine justice. The fire would continue to consume it until it was turned into ashes, without any one eating it. Neither the priest would eat of it, nor the one who offered it, nor his friends. It was all for the fire. The Book of Leviticus says regarding the “law of the burnt offering”:
“The burnt offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it … And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it; it shall not be put out. And the priest shall burn wood on it every morning … A fire shall always be burning on the altar; it shall never go out” (Leviticus 6:8-13) until it is turned into ashes. (Leviticus 6:10).
† † †
30- The burnt offering is a symbol of the Lord Christ in the satisfaction of Divine justice:
The burnt offering was a symbol of [Christ] satisfying the Father in the work of redemption, as was the grain offering a symbol of [His] satisfying the Father via His righteous life through His incarnation before His crucifixion (Leviticus 2).
It was also said about the grain offering that is “made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2: 2, 9, 12) and it is “most holy of the offerings to the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 2: 3, 10).
The burnt offering and the grain offering were a symbol of the Lord Christ in his incarnation, and in His work of redemption. Both were “a sweet aroma to the Lord”.
Neither of them was a symbol of the remission of human sins. But the sin offering and the trespass offering were symbols of that. Also the Feast sacrifice was the symbol of the salvation of man from destruction.
And the phrase “a sweet aroma to the Lord” reminds us of the prophecy of Isaiah about the crucifixion of Christ, as it says about the Father, “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him”. (Isaiah 53:10).
† † †
31- And the satisfaction of God is a great virtue in the Bible:
The psalm starts with this, which says “You have been favorable to Your land” (Psalm 85:1). And about the offerings, the Bible says, “Who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings … it must be perfect to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:18, 21).
With regard to celibacy, the Apostle says “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32). And in the Liturgy and worship he says “Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).
About pleasing the Lord the psalm says, “The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear Him” (Psalm 147:11). The Bible says “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7).
About pleasing the Lord, we find in the Ten Commandments that the first four commandments are specific to the Lord, [and come] before the commandments dealing with humans. Likewise in the Lord’s Prayer, we ask for what pertains to God first, before we ask for what pertains to us.
One of the beautiful things regarding pleasing God is that the Psalmist addresses the angels in the psalm and says, “Bless the Lord, all you His hosts, you ministers of His, who do His pleasure” (Psalm 103:21).
But the most beautiful thing said about pleasing the Father is what the Lord Christ Himself said, “And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him” (John 8:29).
† † †
Some may ask: Why did we cite all these references about pleasing God. The answer is:
32- Because the writer – unfortunately – scoffs at pleasing God:
He says, “We find in the Satisfaction of God atonement theory that the act of redemption ends with the Son’s appeasement of the Father. Then all dialogue ends, and the tragic story ends with God’s restoration of His honor!”
It is not a restoration of honor, but a fulfillment of Divine justice.
He says “The idea of satisfying God, although it is derived from the Old Testament, ‘Yahweh’ – The consuming fire – in the Old Testament, has become by birth of the Son of God and the revelation of His Sonship, a Father who pours out His Spririt- instead of the curse – upon all humans. Therefore, the image of God in this theory (the One who demands satisfaction for His justice and dignity), does not fit now with “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son …” And we say there is no difference between the Old Testament and New Testament.
There is no difference between Yahweh and The Father!!
And the term “consuming fire” – is found in the New Testament, where St. Paul the Apostle says “Our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29).
Our God about Whom he says is “A Father who pours His Spirit instead of the curse”, is the One Who permitted Christ to be a sin and curse for us, as St. Paul the Apostle says in (Galatians 3:13) “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’”. And he said about God in (2 Corinthians 5:21) “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”.
Also, the God of the New Testament, about Whom it was said “For God so loved the world …” and Who “poured His Spirit upon all humans” is the One who permitted Ananias and Sapphira to die, and to die immediately because they lied to the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 5:3-10).
God is the same in the New Testament and the Old Testament, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17). There is absolutely no need to mock Him by saying He “Demands someone to satisfy His justice and honor”!!
The Author’s statement that “God the Father here is the One who seeks to satisfy the humiliated and victimized human who is insulted and cast out, seeking to restore him to his first dignity” makes us ask:
If man is a victim who victimized him?!
Man is the one who victimized himself by his sin, and lost his honor by his pride…
† † †
A question pertaining to the topic of redemption remains, which is:
33- To whom was the price of redemption paid?
The price paid by the Lord Christ is His death on the Cross. That’s because the Bible says “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). And for this reason, His pure honored blood was shed for us.
Obviously, the price was paid to whom it was due, which is Divine justice.
It was Divine justice that demanded the death of the sinful human, who became subject to the judgment of God “You shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17); and also according to the word of the Lord at the mouth of Ezekiel the Prophet “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20).
When Christ died instead of us, He offered His Life to Divine justice instead of the life of man. So the right of Divine Justice was fulfilled…
But the Author says: “The Blood that Christ has offered as a price and a ransom, He has not offered it to anyone except to us. So we own the Blood of Jesus Christ. We drink It, but without a price, and It is a price for our redemption added to our account.” And he says that Christ: “Gave us His death to be our death. And gave us His blood which was shed to be our blood. He did not die away from us, but died in our body, blood, and flesh. So we are partners in this Body and Blood, and we continue to share in it…”
Here we would like to discuss this point of view.
† † †
34- Was the price of redemption paid to us?
We are not the right holders; to the contrary, we are debtors, whether some of us are greater debtors or lesser debtors. And the Lord Christ said about these two types: “And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both” (Luke 7:42). But we are as Paul the Apostle said: “were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).
The price of redemption was paid to Divine justice. But the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a price that we deserve, but it is a free gift given to us and not a price.
If the Blood of Jesus Christ has become our blood, as the Author says, do we drink our own blood?! If Christ died with our flesh and blood, as he says, did we also participate in the payment of the debt? Or was the debt paid on our behalf?
Such is strange view, unheard of from any of the Fathers!
† † †
After all this, we may ask: What is culprit for all the theological errors into which this Author has fallen? It is his view on intentional sin.
† † †
35- The writer sees that that no sacrifice was offered for the forgiveness of the willful and intentional sin!
He says: “There was no atoning sacrifice for deliberate sins deserving of death in the entire Old Testament Law, under any circumstances. All sacrifices were for unintentional sins only. All the sin offerings in the Old Testament were, as we have already pointed out, valid only in the case of the sin of forgetfulness, which means unintentional sins. As for deliberate sins, which were committed intentionally and willingly, there was no sacrifice for them at all in the Law of Moses. In other words, it was impossible to replace or exchange one soul for another in the case of deliberate sins. Hence it is impossible for the sacrifice of Christ to be considered a substitute for the sinner, or on behalf of the sinner, or instead of the sinner, because if sin is deliberate, the the sinner must die. And no sacrifice of any kind can be offered on his behalf. So what is the sacrifice of Christ? The sacrifice of Christ is the literal death of the sinner! Christ took a body that is in fact the whole body of humanity, the body of all sinners. It is the exact same body of every sinner”.
This view is based on all we have already discussed in the previous points. We must therefore discuss his view on deliberate sin.
† † †
36- This idea creates confusion and despair:
The remission of sins in the Old Testament was associated with offering a sacrifice: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22).
If no sacrifice was offered for deliberate sins, the majority of the sins of the people were deliberate. So how would people feel if they saw that their sins had no forgiveness, and that they would live and die without the forgiveness of their sins? Would this though not lead people to despair and confusion?
And what would they say about God and all the verses related to His forgiveness of sins? What about the Psalm which says “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity” (Psalm 32:1, 2).
What about what the Lord said in the book of the Prophet Ezekiel about the repentant person: “He shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him” (Ezekiel 18:21, 22). Or what about what the Lord said in the Book of Jeremiah the prophet “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).
So how were forgiveness and remission accomplished if there were no sacrifices and no shedding of blood?!
† † †
We will mention a clear example of sacrifices for the intentional sins:
37- Example of sacrifices on the Day of Atonement:
Whether they are offered by the High Priest himself or for the sins of the people, On that day the high priest offered a goat as a sin offering to “Make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:11). Then he offered another sin offering to “Make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16).
Did all of those sins, transgressions, and impurities, which were attributed to Aaron and his entire house as well as to all the children of Israel, not include intentional sins? Are all of these sins unintentional sins?
Impossible: Who can believe that the Day of the Atonement was only for unintentional sins?!!
Amazing is this audacity by which one says: “There is no atoning sacrifice for intentional sins deserving of death, in all the Law of Moses.”
† † †
38- Other examples of the sacrifices for forgiveness:
Behold Nehemiah in correcting the situation after the return from captivity, he spoke about “The sin offerings to make atonement for Israel” (Nehemiah 10:33). It is known that they committed deliberate and willful sins. They were married to foreign women, which made Ezra the priest cry, pluck out the hair of his head, and tear his garment and robe (Ezra 9:3).
And St. Paul the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins … Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins” (Hebrews 5:1, 3). Is the High Priest required to offer gifts and sacrifices only for unintentional sins committed by the people?!
† † †
39- And what about the intentional sin of King David?
There is no doubt that the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, an intentional sin, along with his attempt to cover this sin by deceit, his attempt to kill Uriah, and then marry his wife (2 Samuel 11). Did the Prophet David die without forgiveness of his sins, as there was no sacrifice for deliberate sins, according to the Author’s point of view?
No, the Prophet David praised the Lord for his forgiveness and said:
“Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name! Who forgives all your iniquities” (Psalm 103:1, 3). And how did David know about the remission of all his (deliberate) sins? It was from through the words of Nathan the Prophet to him: “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Samuel 12:13).
† † †
40- Finally, let us know exactly the meaning of redemption:
Redemption does not mean the literal death of the sinner!! It is the death of Jesus Christ instead of him.
The death of a sinner is a punishment, not redemption. But redemption is that the Redeemer dies instead of him or in his place. The Lord Christ did this on the Cross because of the excess of His love for us. He did not take the body all sinners and die with it, as one Author says. Rather, He died with His pure Body, which is alone without sin.
But the Author calls this foundational Church doctrine the theory of “Substitutionary Atonement” — a mere “theory” that he feels the need to discuss– not a doctrine that all believe in!! And he thinks that it was only applicable in the Old Testament for unintentional sins only!!
But in the New Testament it does not apply, but the sinner must literally die!