[I've posted this before, but it serves as an interesting counterpoise to the Gerhard citation]
We must now consider a problem and a doctrine often passed over silently, which in my view, nevertheless needs deep study. The blood shed for us, the most precious and glorious blood of God, the blood of the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice – why was it shed and to whom was it offered? We were under the reign of the devil, sold to sin, after we had gained corruption on account of our sinful desire. If the price of our ransom is paid to him who has us in his power, I ask myself: Why is such a price to be paid? If it is given to the devil, it is outrageous! The brigand receives the price of redemption. Not only does he receive it from God, he receives God Himself. For his violence he demands such a disproportionate ransom that it would be more just for him to set us free without ransom. But if the price is paid to the Father, why should that be done? It is not the Father who held us as His captives. Moreover, why should the blood of His only Son be acceptable to the Father, who did not wish to accept Isaac, when Abraham offered Him his son as a burnt-offering, but replaced the human sacrifice with the sacrifice of a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or had any need for it but by His dispensation? It was necessary that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God; it was necessary that He Himself should free us, triumphing over the tyrant by His own strength, and that He should recall us to Himself by His Son who is the Mediator, who does all for the honor of the Father, to whom He is obedient in all things… Let the rest of the mystery be venerated silently. St. Gregory Nazianzus, (Oratian 45:22, Lossky 102)
Try the Preface to the Canon of St. Basil, which compactly summarizes the patristic teaching on Christ's sacrifice -- in sum He sacrificed his incarnate Life to death (mortality) itself -- not to his Father or Satan.
ReplyDeleteFor in the Old Covenant, Death passed over (or through) the Faithful, in the New, the Faithful pass over (or through) death -- not of their own power but by unity with Him alone who has that power. This is why Christ is our Passover -- not because his suffering in and off itself overcomes the consequences of the Fall -- but rather because he has blazed for us a path through or over death such the Fall is negated.
This is the teaching of the universal Church until Anslem and Acquinas turned the Passion into the Old Covenant Passover Sacrifice "writ large," rather than realizing the the old passover and passover sacrifice is but a type pointing to the unique and effectual New Covenant solution. The New Testament references to Christ as our true Passover are explanations of the type, not an substantive identification of Old and New Covenant soteriology.
But then, the Holy Athanasios does speak of the sacrifice being offered to the Father, as well as to death:
ReplyDeleteSt. Athanasios the Great, Contra Arianos I.41,60 “[T]he Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father…Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all”.
St. Athanasios the Great, De Incarnatione, 20 “But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.”
St. Athanasios the Great, De Decretis, 14 “Now as to the season spoken of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord always is, at length in fulness of the ages He became man; and whereas He is Son of God, He became Son of man also. And as to the object he will understand, that, wishing to annul our death, He took on Himself a body from the Virgin Mary; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our life through subject to bondage.”
Someone(I think it was G. Forde) once made the connection, between Judas' betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, and the ransom which Christ paid on our behalf to free us from sin, death, and the devil.
ReplyDeleteThe ransom was very much paid to Luther's unholy Trinity, but it's often been construed as some kind of agreement or deal between God and Satan. But the deal wasn't between God and Satan, but between Satan and us (in a manner of speaking), we being typified by Judas. He was sold, not by God, but by us, like Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. But God turned this around for our benefit, and what we thought we were selling off, to get rid of, in turn bought our own redemption, just as Joseph's slavery eventually brought about his family's salvation from the seven year famine.
"And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! Zech 11:13
The problem with Gerhard's viewpoint, like Anselm's is that in their scheme justice and mercy are having to be reconciled, "Well may we wonder at this stupendous reconciliation of divine justice and mercy". In fact, that's the whole basis to their scheme (imho). But for Luther, divine justice, was the righteousness whereby we are made just.
A tertium quid on this question from George MacDonald:
ReplyDelete"Did not the Lord cast himself into the eternal gulf of evil yawning between the children and the Father? Did he not bring the Father to us, let us look on our eternal Sire in the face of his true son, that we might have that in our hearts which alone could make us love him-a true sight of him? Did he not insist on the one truth of the universe, the one saving truth, that God was just what he was? Did he not hold to that assertion to the last, in the face of contradiction and death? Did he not thus lay down his life persuading us to lay down ours at the feet of the Father? Has not his very life by which he died passed into those who have received him, and re-created theirs, so that now they live with the life which alone is life? Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! We sacrifice to God!-it is God who has sacrificed his own son to us; there was no way else of getting the gift of himself into our hearts. Jesus sacrificed himself to his father and the children to bring them together-all the love on the side of the Father and the Son, all the selfishness on the side of the children. If the joy that alone makes life worth living, the joy that God is such as Christ, be a true thing in my heart, how can I but believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ? I believe it heartily, as God means it."