Icon: St. John Chrysostom
This Sunday, Orthodox Christians around the world celebrated Christ’s resurrection. As part of the Pascha (Easter) service, Saint John Chrysostom’s Pascha (Easter) homily is read out loud in every Orthodox parish around the world. Thus, it can be said that it is the most famous Easter sermon.
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), Patriarch of Constantinople, was known as the greatest preacher in the early Church. He was given the name “Chrysostom” which means “golden mouth.”
- Sermon Style
What is striking about John Chrysostom’s Easter sermon is how different it is from sermons given in Evangelical and Protestant churches today. I found four significant differences.
The first difference is length. It is less than 5 minutes! Many Protestants and Evangelicals expect sermons at least half an hour in length. The attached YouTube video is only 3:45 long. But not all his sermons are that brief.
The second difference is rhetorical style. Saint John used the rhetorical devices of ancient Greece. One example is his use of anaphora, the repetition of one or more words at the head of consecutive phrases, clauses, or sentences. He begins sentences with identical clauses or phrases: “If anyone . . . ,” “Let . . . ,” “It was embittered . . . ,” then he introduce a new thought in the second half of the sentence. This generates a poetic rhythm pulsing throughout the sermon. It ebbs and flows, then reaches a soaring climax.
The third difference is theological. John Chrysostom’s sermon is based on Christus Victor. The early Christians understood Christ’s death on the Cross as his encounter with powers of evil in which he emerged the winner. Orthodoxy still holds to this theological paradigm. In the West, however, it was displaced by the satisfaction theory promulgated by Anselm of Canterbury. In Western theology, our sins have made us deserving of God’s righteous judgment, and Christ by dying on the Cross has paid the penalty on our behalf. In Orthodoxy, our sins have made us captive to the Devil, and Christ the Strong Man set us free from Death by his dying on the Cross and his third day resurrection. Thus, Protestants hearing the Christus Victor emphasis in Chrysostom’s Easter Sermon need to keep in mind that this was not a personal idiosyncrasy of his, but indicative of the theological thinking of the early Church.
The fourth difference is the Eucharistic language. Saint John’s Easter sermon is literally an “altar call,” in that he is exhorting his listeners to approach the altar where the bread and the wine have been consecrated becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. The exhortation for the faithful to come forward to receive Holy Communion can be seen in: “The table is rich-laden; feast royally, all of you!” In my experience, Evangelicals generally refrain from holding Holy Communion on Easter Sunday, even though it is the most logical thing to do. The Apostle Paul wrote: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (I Corinthians 11:26)
By listening to this classic sermon Evangelicals and Reformed Christians can gain a small glimpse into the worship experience of the early Church.
-
St. Ignatius Orthodox mission in Mesa AZ. Click here.
Here is a YouTube video of an Orthodox priest reading out loud this classic sermon on Christ’s rising from the dead. It is brief, to the point, and powerful.
- Sermon Text
- If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let him enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
- If anyone is a wise servant, let him, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
- If anyone has wearied himself in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.
- If anyone has labored from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let him keep the feast. If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; for he shall suffer no loss. If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near without hesitation. If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let him not fear on account of his delay. For the Master is gracious and receives the last, even as the first; he gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first. He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one he gives, and to the other he is gracious. He both honors the work and praises the intention.
- Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward. O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy! O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day! You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today! The table is rich-laden; feast royally, all of you! The calf is fatted; let no one go forth hungry!
- Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.
- Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
- Let no one mourn his transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.
- Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
- He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
- It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
- “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?”
- Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
- Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
- Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
- Christ is risen, and life reigns!
- Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
- For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.
- To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.
- Source: OrthodoxWiki
It was good to read Chrysostom’s sermon. I did have a quibble about the Theological differences you mentioned. First of all, even the first reformers did not lack Christus Victor (as I was so clearly shown when reading Luther’s interchange with Erasmus recently; The Battle over Free Will). In fact, Luther’s argument against free will hinges to a large degree on the idea of the devil holding us captive. In addition, the idea of God’s wrath or anger over sin is not entirely a western concept, nor is Christ paying for us or being a sin offering a western novelty. It is clearly a biblical concept as well. I find that sometimes the Orthodox seem to paint too stark a contrast between East and West in places where they are not entirely different. I guess the question is, was Christus Victor the only paradigm of the early church (no), is it the only paradigm of Orthodoxy (I don’t know), is it excluded in the Western churches (no, though in some it is either ignored or sidelined). As a non-Orthodox, I embrace Christus Victor, but I would critique the Orthodox for making it the only way of describing our great salvation. In my opinion it is not historically tenable to do so. To be fair, neither is promoting penal satisfaction or any other theory as the touchstone of Christian orthodox teaching regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.
Prometheus,
I’m glad that you enjoyed Chrysostom’s Easter sermon. The main point I was trying to make was the differences in sermon approaches to understanding the Cross and Christ rising from the dead. As I looked through John Chrysostom’s sermon I could not find the penal substitutionary theme I used to hear so often when I was an Evangelical. You mentioned Luther’s interchange with Erasmus. That’s interesting but quite academic and historical, and remote from normal church life today. Would you say that the Easter sermons you hear in your local church contain both the Christus Victor theme as well as the penal substitution theme? If so, could you tell us which particular theological tradition your local church is part of? Is it Lutheran? Anglican? Reformed? popular Evangelical? Charismatic/Pentecostal? That would be a big help. Thanks.
Robert
Thank you, Robert.
I would say that in the Protestant churches I’ve gone to, I never recall hearing about Penal Substitution on Easter Sunday. [I’ve been around – Baptist, Anglican, and this last two Easters, Methodist.] Penal Substitution might be a Good Friday service or something. Easter is about the victory Christ brought us when he rose from the dead. The resurrection is what I heard this last Easter. Christ was the downpayment or the seal which guaranteed that we, too, shall rise from the dead.
Did that answer your question?
Prometheus,
Thank you for your quick reply. I would appreciate your clarification of your last sentence. When you said that the sermon presented Christ as the down payment or the seal which guaranteed that we too shall rise from the dead, was the pastor using an economic paradigm, i.e., that we were slaves bought from the Devil? Or was it some other paradigm? What was the paradigm used to link Easter to Good Friday? Thanks.
Robert
The phrase down payment and guarantee was my own. What I meant was that he is the first fruits. Because he rose, we know that we shall also rise. Thus in his rising from the dead, the focus is on his victory over death. I am not sure that there is an explicit reference to how his resurrection connects to any actual payment (to the devil or god or otherwise). I don’t believe there was any explicit reference to how it was accomplished, only that it was accomplished through his resurrection. [This reminds me a bit of how the Orthodox look at the Eucharist. We claim that it is his body and blood, but we don’t explain how.]
The way I have viewed the connection is that through his death, Jesus pays for sin (see my comment below in response to Greg) and through his resurrection, he conquers the effects of sin (death), so that “if we believe in him, though we die, yet shall we live.” I personally would be very uncomfortable saying that Jesus paid the devil. I would be much more comfortable saying that he conquered the devil (if we must bring the devil into it). This is where I presumably would depart from Luther.
Hi Prometheus,
I’m wondering if the distinction between the Franco-Latin Conceptual Framework and that of the Ancient Christian Church touched on by Robert might be more clearly revealed in how the two frameworks understand how Christ makes the “payment” for humanity’s “debt” and thereby is deemed our “propitiation.”
You are correct, the concepts of “debt”, “payment”, and “propitiation/expiation” (for example) are certainly biblical, but it seems that the Franco-Latin Conceptual Framework emphasizes the “debt” we owe as one of punishment for missing the mark. Hence the “payment” required by God and made on our behalf by Christ is likewise one of punishment. Therefore God the Son is our “propitiation/expiation” through His being punished by God the Father.
In contrast, the Ancient Christian Conceptual Framework understands the “debt” we owe as hitting the mark; obedience in perfectly loving God and neighbor. Hence the “payment” required by God and made on our behalf by Christ is His obedience in perfectly loving God and neighbor. Therefore God the Son is our “propitiation/expiation” through His obedience in perfectly loving God and neighbor while suffering at the hands of His creatures even unto death.
The post-Augustinian Franco-Latin development of the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement and the later Penal Substitution Theory both derive naturally from within the Franco-Latin Conceptual Framework. While there may be conceptual overlap in other areas, regrettably both of these theories are novel historically and do not seem to accurately reflect the teachings of the Ancient Christian Church.
Thanks for clarifying the focus. I agree that a focus on what he did (righteousness) to pay what we could not is important (but it begs the question, to whom did he pay it?). However, I just don’t see payment for sin as an innovation, particularly since it is part of Christian tradition to quote Isaiah 53:4-5 (cf. 1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:28). “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” This seems to hint not only that he entered into our suffering, but that he in some way suffered it instead of or at least for us. That is, such suffering would not have taken place if we had not sinned. And since suffering and death is the “wages” of sin, it suggests that Jesus paid the price of sin which was suffering and death . . . as well as paying to God what we owed: perfect obedience. The latter is certainly not ignored in the West (certainly not in Protestant circles)! That is how the Protestants get the idea of us not being able to merit anything. We cannot add to Christ’s perfect obedience. It also makes it sound (to my ears) like what we do is not important anymore. That is we must accept Christ’s work by faith without the addition of our own works. This is surprising inasmuch as it does not sound Orthodox to me, but radically Protestant.
But back to the point, what I see is that this salvation is two-fold. It is not merely Christus Victor (if what you mean, Christ for our righteousness only), but Christ the afflicted (that is, Christ paying for our sins); this is most succinctly put in Romans 4:25 which says “he was delivered over to death” – why? to hit the mark for us? “for our sins” (because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin; Hebrews 9:22). And then “he was raised to life for our righteousness.” I’m not claiming that you don’t believe this, but I think that if you do believe that Christ actually took care of sin through his suffering and that this suffering came upon the human race through sin, and that such suffering and death were wages, then Christ paid the price in terms of suffering. How this substantially differs from Penal Satisfaction or how Penal Satisfaction cannot be seen as a valid way of describing Christ’s work is hard for me to see. His work was more than Christus Victor (if I am rightly understanding Romans 4:25). If you dislike the term Penal Satisfaction, etc, no problem. But Christ did not merely “hit the mark” for us, but also suffered for our “missing the mark” as you put it. [We could have a discussion about the meaning of the Greek terms for sin at another time if you wish.]
Of course, I would personally admit that there is some mystery involved. For instance, in one sense Christians hold on to Christ’s obedience, but that does not mean our own obedience is not necessary. Perhaps (speculation here), through faith, we not only complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Col. 1:24), but also complete was is lacking in his obedience. Not because Christ didn’t suffer enough or obey enough, but because we are his body and therefore more suffering and obedience takes place in his body for the life of the world.
Prometheus,
It is clear that Orthodox also believe that Christ suffered “for us” and on account of our sins (since He clearly had none of His own). What is different, perhaps, is that Orthodox do not use (or accept) Anselm’s “satisfaction (of God’s honor)” to explain how this works in our salvation, neither do we see the ransom Christ pays to free us from our sin and death as being paid to anyone–for the Orthodox, that is taking the metaphor too far. Here’s a link to a pertinent quote from the great Church Father, St. Gregory Nanzianzus:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2008/01/22/st-gregory-the-theologian-on-our-ransom-by-god/
Rather, saying Christ’s life was our “ransom” is just another way of saying this was what was required to save us (without really explaining why, except that we know this effectively sets us free from our sin and from the corruption of death inherited from Adam after the Fall). The Cross and Christ’s entry into death (Hades) is also an expression of Christ’s (and, by extension, God’s) complete solidarity out of His love with sinners.
There is also an essay by Frederica Mathewes-Green in the following link that highlights this same point about the differences in thought and emphasis that developed in the West in the wake of Anselm’s theory:
http://www.frederica.com/writings/the-meaning-of-christs-suffering.html
A couple further thoughts are that the Orthodox understand our Holy Baptism as a real participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (picturing for us a different mode of life that is ongoing in the life of every Orthodox Christian). It is a taking up of our cross (not eschewing it) and following Him. We are called to suffer with Him if we expect to be glorified with Him (Romans 8:16-18). It is not Jesus gets punished (i.e, endures the natural consequences of human sin), but we don’t. Rather, we all endure the natural consequences of the Fall, but in Christ this is not the end of the story–death is overcome and we have the great hope of our own glorious resurrection in Him. In His Self-sacrificial love, the Son of God demonstrates in all its depth on the Cross the very nature of the life of the Holy Trinity, in which to participate is eternal life.
Thank you Karen,
I don’t see how I could disagree with you. 🙂
That also brings us back to history. While Anselm and the Western churches historically have said various things, Robert has insisted that we keep things in the now (at least when it comes to me bringing up Luther and Erasmus). If so, then, what use, I wonder, is it to bring up Anselm, if so many Protestants are not conversant or in agreement with satisfaction theory? It seems, though, that in Orthodoxy (as I understand it being explicated on this post), such thought about how Jesus “pays” for our sins is not merely theologoumenon but heresy.
Prometheus,
The post on John Chrysostom’s Easter Sermon was contrasted against contemporary Protestant Easter sermons. This was why I wanted to keep the discussion in the now. I’m not opposed to your bringing up Luther and Erasmus for the most part; I just wanted to keep the focus on Easter sermons for this comment thread.
I think I know how you got the impression that Orthodoxy thinks that the view that Jesus “pays” for our is “heresy.” So far as I know, while many Orthodox Christians have criticized the penal substitutionary model, I don’t it has been formally condemned by the Orthodox Church either by a bishop or a council. I think for many Orthodox Christians the penal substitutionary model has its limitations and the extent to which it has come to dominate Protestant theology is problematic. Hence, the sharp criticisms by Orthodox Christians.
And I just want to let you know I appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to the discussion.
Robert
I should also clarify that we do have some explanation for why the Cross–Christ’s entry into our suffering, death and hell–saves us, which is that it is by His destruction of the same through His Resurrection! The Apostolic teaching is that having overcome our death, Christ removes the “sting” of sin (i.e, death) and thus the “fear of death” which is what keeps us “in bondage” to our sin (1 Corinthians 15:55-57 and Hebrews 2:14-16). This is why Christ’s death doesn’t actually “save” us apart from His “life,” made manifest in His Resurrection (Romans 5:9-11).
Karen, I realize that the resurrection (i.e Christus Victor) is the major paradigm in Orthodoxy for explaining how Christ took care of sin – by conquering death. I still wonder, though, how the death of Christ itself does anything in Orthodox theology. How can/does the paradigm deal with Hebrews 9:22 “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” It seems to me that his death in and of itself does something and is part of the victory (though it cannot be complete without the package-deal of his resurrection). If his death wasn’t necessary, why not just resurrect us without dying?
Prometheus,
I would like to assure you that Orthodoxy does take seriously the need for the forgiveness of sins. I hear it mentioned twice during the consecration of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist. Each time the priest recites the words of institution the phrase “for the remission of sins” is used; once over the bread and once over the wine. Then in the pre-Communion prayer which is said before going up to receive Communion we ask at least two times for the forgiveness of our sins. But as the prayer continues we also pray that our sins will be “consumed by ethereal flames” and that our souls be purged of uncleanness, and that our souls and bodies be cleansed and sanctified. This prayer reflects the Orthodox attitude towards the forgiveness of our sins; it is an important part of our salvation, but it is just one aspect of several. So I do not want to denigrate its importance, but I also believe that the Orthodox approach is more balanced than what I had heard in the prayers given in Evangelical circles during their Communion services.
With respect to Hebrews 9:22, it is part of the lectionary, so I hear it during the regular Sunday Liturgy. I think the real questions here are: (1) How did the early Christians understand Hebrews 9:22? and (2) How does it fit into the Orthodox understanding of our salvation in Christ. These are good questions and I hope to deal with them in the future. Should I write up this article, I look forward to your Protestant response. 🙂
Robert
Prometheus,
I believe the Orthodox would explain the Scripture’s teaching that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” differently than the forensic take on the meaning of this in the West. This, again, has to do with our understanding the Cross as expiation (changing us), rather than as propitiation (changing God).
Essentially, we don’t see the forgiveness of sins (in terms of our appropriating it–we believe God’s will was, and is, always to forgive, since He initiated the plan of salvation “. . . from the foundation of the world”) as something that happens separately and apart from our actual deliverance from our sins and setting us free from sin’s bondage (as in actually, not just legally, setting us in right relationship to God). We see that this “right relationship with God”, that is to say our union with God, could not happen without the whole economy of the Incarnation–Christ’s conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection, ascension and second coming being of a piece in terms of the “work” of our salvation. Without Christ’s death being real, “the shedding of blood” (“the life is in the blood,” hence symbolizing Christ’s giving His life freely for us), there could have been no resurrection demonstrating the destruction of death, and that is why the shedding of blood was needed. There is likely more that could be said, but this is my take based on what I know. I’m speaking as a reflective laywoman, not as an Orthodox scholar or priest.
Following up a little bit on Greg’s thoughts regarding paradigms, one the of the key differences in approach East and West in the wake of the Medieval Scholastic movement in the West, is that Orthodox do not seek to understand or explain any one aspect of Scripture or salvation history apart from all the rest. There is an interrelationship between all different aspects of the truth that cannot be dissected from one another without destroying what that truth means in the whole spiritual reality of which it forms a part. From an Orthodox perspective, if you seek to understand the death of Christ apart from all the other aspects of the Incarnation (or explain it apart from them), you will err in your understanding and explanation. It cannot be properly understood apart from its relationship to all the rest. (I’m indebted for this understanding to Jordan Bajis’ book Common Ground: Eastern Christianity for the American Christian published by Light and Life Publishing. Others may find that resource helpful as well.) Does that make sense?
Hi Prometheus,
Thanks for your response.
(Please forgive me in advance for my labeling of frameworks or concepts. The labels are not intended to prove anything. I could just as easily have named them something else as they are only an attempt to keep my communication as clear as possible.)
In general, this discussion is a great illustration of the challenges we face when discussing the Christian Faith between two distinct conceptual frameworks. One’s understanding of specific biblical concepts/elements (in this case, the concepts of “debt”, “payment”, “propitiation”, “shedding of blood”, how Christ fulfills the “suffering servant” prophecy of Isaiah, etc.) is inescapably informed by one’s presuppositions; i.e. the conceptual framework within which one operates.
Quoting Scripture passages to support our distinct positions, while beneficial, can sometimes require exhausting qualifications. Put simply, we do not understand many passages in the same way. All of the passages you quoted do show that the concepts listed above are in Scripture. But, as I read them from within the Ancient Christian Framework, I understand them differently than you do. Interestingly, I have only found this problem to occur when Orthodox Christians converse with Protestants or Roman Catholics. You might be familiar with this analogical story: “If you put Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, and an Orthodox Theologian in a room, language barriers aside, Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas could debate theology all day long while the Orthodox Theologian would be constantly interrupting saying, “wait a minute, what do you mean by that, I don’t understand that passage/concept/etc. the same way you do…” Well, this story makes perfect sense if Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas are operating within a conceptual framework that is different from that of the Orthodox Theologian.
It seems that we both have pictures composed of hundreds of puzzle pieces. When we ask each other to explain our pictures, we hand each other a piece of our puzzle. Inevitably, we then take each other’s puzzle pieces and try to fit them into our own picture. But, and here’s the point of all this conceptual framework talk, If we try to do that we will find that many of your puzzle pieces will not fit into my picture and many of my puzzle pieces will not fit into your picture.
So in responding to the comparison of the biblical concepts of “debt”, “payment”, and “propitiation/expiation” by showing how the Ancient Christian Conceptual Framework’s understanding of these concepts create tension or even contradiction when forced into the Franco-Latin Conceptual Framework, I hear you essentially saying (very cordially of course), “Greg, the way these terms/concepts are defined from within your conceptual framework don’t fit within my conceptual framework. Therefore, I do not accept your conceptual framework’s definition of these biblical terms/concepts.”
Do you see now the conundrum we get locked into? If both conceptual frameworks are internally consistent and “make sense” of Scripture, what do we do? How are we able to compare our differing understanding of the Christian Faith?
The only answer I’ve come up with to this point is that an attempt could be made to understand the other position’s conceptual framework and mentally “stand within” it as we read Scripture, read the writings of the Early Church, investigate Church History, and so on.
From my own limited experience, when I used to read the Early Church writings as a Protestant (Arminian and later a Calvinist) I was astounded at how often the Church Fathers seemed to contradict themselves on key issues and concepts; even within the same paragraph. I didn’t know what to make of them. Now that I have tried to learn and, hopefully, begun to grasp how they understood the Christian Faith, i.e. “stand within” the Ancient Christian Conceptual Framework, amazingly they no longer contradict themselves like they once did.
I hope my ramblings are in some way helpful to you in your journey. I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to hearing back from you.
: )
In Christ,
Greg
Thank you Greg,
I do understand what you are saying. That is what I like about this website. We are trying to communicate. What I see from the other Orthodox on this site is that “payment” language is Orthodox and that it rightly insists on a metaphorical understanding of “payment” and “ransom.” I do see a disconnect in communication sometimes, but I don’t think the frameworks are so disparate that communication can’t happen. I have a much easier time understanding the internal logic of Orthodox framework for the most part than that of Calvinism (though in the Protestant world I tend towards Arminian theology; nonetheless I find that I am often on the side of Orthodoxy opposing Arminianism).
Robert,
Thanks for the excellent sermon and your comment on its particulars.
Prometheus,
I too have often been frustrated at some Orthodox (not all) who want to so underplay play if not completely write-off all trace of Christ suffering & shedding blood as a substitute for sin. Robert has more than once conceded its presence (though NOT its dominance) in both the early Church Fathers, and still very present within the Divine Liturgy. I also recall a long lecture by Bishop Ware where he too concedes an element of penal substitution in our Salvation in Christ…but hastens to say we must be careful if not silent in decisively saying to whom a ransom is paid…sin and death being his favorite.
I believe the rub comes from some Protestants reducing salvation to a very narrow view of justification, that hinges almost exclusively on Christ the Son placating the wrath of an Angry Father. Thus, the Orthodox over-reaction. Christ did, cry from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me.” The Orthodox would do well to stop shying away from this, and explain as clearly as they can in what sense was Christ was forsaken on the cross.
I do love an appreciate the Orthodox emphasis many other aspect/images of Salvation…seeing it as a Healing, Transformation, Victory, Restoring Humanity — the Love of God, in Christ reconciling the World/Creation to Himself. It is far fuller and seems more balances than most Protestants. I also like that the Orthodox do not allow the Cross to all but completely swallow up the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension. Seizing upon a single East-West difference and nuanced understanding of penal substitution might be helpful in one sense. But over-played into rigid categories ends up being problematic for both sides.
Thank you, David.
I like what you said: I also like that the Orthodox do not allow the Cross to all but completely swallow up the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension.
This I have encountered at the Christian school I teach at. The sense in which all that was accomplished is forensic justification (imputation) and not actual sanctification that allows us to live Holy lives (though, admittedly, this is more a Lutheran thing than a typical Protestant thing).
David,
I think it is a good observation that it is the historic western theological emphasis that has provoked the current counter-emphasis within Orthodox circles, and that the fully Orthodox position certainly doesn’t deny Christ’s suffering. You only have to go through Lent and especially the full week of Orthodox Holy Week services to understand this! On the other hand in Orthodoxy, Christ’s suffering is always (even in the Holy Friday evening services) viewed in the light of His Resurrection (and this is a different emphasis than a lot of the liturgical and devotional practices in the West).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkrSh8y50A
Even our hymn for the veneration of the Holy Cross aptly demonstrates this balance:
Before Thy Cross, we bow down in worship,
And Thy Holy Resurrection, we glorify.
A couple of years ago, a dear Evangelical friend (who was raised in a Fundamentalist Baptist church) shortly after Easter, in genuine perplexity, asked a group of fellow Christian women (of which I was a part) why we make such a big deal out of the celebration of the Resurrection. Her understanding was that it was Jesus’ death on the Cross that saves us, and she could not understand why celebration the Resurrection was so important and even overshadowed Good Friday in most churches! (I kid you not!) So this is by no means a figment of the Orthodox imagination (and, of course, I’m sure you understand that). Just a few days ago also, my boss, a Roman Catholic, was asking about our Orthodox Paschal services. I mentioned that Sunday Divine Liturgy was always a celebration of the Resurrection, and she noted that in contrast for Roman Catholics, the “Eucharist”, Christ’s Sacrifice (which she thought of as separate from His Resurrection life) was central every Sunday. Of course, if you attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, you will note that the Eucharist is central to our worship as well, but this is never seen as distinct from the Resurrection life of Christ, but rather is available to us precisely because of His Resurrection, because of His Living Presence within His Church!
Personally, I have found this Orthodox overemphasis helpful because in the Evangelical circles I was formally a part of, this forensic understanding of Christ’s sacrifice as “propitiatory” and the language of Penal Substitution and Anselm’s “satisfaction” was still very dominant and central in the account of what constitutes the “gospel.” If your position in terms of western thought is much more nuanced than that and you are leaning in a New Perspectives or even Emergent or progressive Evangelical direction these days (a la Gustav Aulen) in your understanding of the nature of the Cross, that may not apply so much in your case.
Er . . . make that, “formerly (not ‘formall) a part of.”
Thank you, Karen,
I think you are right that most Protestant Churches focus more on his death than his resurrection and that they are often at a loss as to what to do with the resurrection. The focus is “he died for your sins” with almost no emphasis on “he rose for your justification.” The resurrection of the body is neglected partly due to a sense of “heaven” as our aspiration rather than “a new body in a new heavens and new earth.” If we are looking for “heaven” then our resurrection and Christ’s is undervalued because the point is to be a disembodied Spirit. That said, much of Evangelical and Protestant (even Fundamentalist) Apologetics emphasizes and puts a lot of argument into the resurrection, which shows how much they value it (e.g. Josh McDowell); for most historical apologetics, it is the doctrine by which the veracity of Christianity stands or falls. And at the church I’m at, at the Methodist Church I am currently attending, the Pastor said, “Easter is the most important day of the Christian year – more important than Christmas.”
Since I am a Wheatonite (assuming Wheaton was fairly reformed in your day) I assume that in shying away from the Reformed circles I probably also avoided a lot of the groups of Christians that seem to solely advocate Penal Substitution.
My roots are Methodist as well, Prometheus. And, yes, it was at Wheaton that I was confronted with Calvinism. Bp. Kallistos (Ware) is known to humorously quip when he addresses Evangelicals that in terms of the various theological poles/controversies that exist among Protestants, he is “Arminian” and “charismatic!” He did that when he was at Wheaton in the BGC addressing an audience a year and a half ago or so. 🙂
My observation regarding the importance of Christ’s resurrection to Evangelical apologetics is that it is valued not so much for its role in our salvation (as we have noted, that is often not well understood in Evangelical circles), but its role in proving Jesus was God in the flesh.
I agree with your assessment of the apologetic role of the resurrection. The resurrection is often treated more as proof than as an important concept in itself.
By the way, Robert, blessed Bright Week!
Christ is risen!
Karen,
Truly He is Risen!
And a blessed Bright Week to you as well.
Robert
One last thought is that in my experience, one unfortunate side-effect of the penal and propitiation emphases in Protestant and Roman Catholic theologies is that many Christians today believe deep-down that the obstacle between them and God is not their own sin and their disposition toward God, but rather God’s disposition toward them and their sin. They thus adopt a victim mentality and see God as an Enemy (albeit nominally “righteously”), rather than their own sin as their only true enemy and God as their loving Ally and Savior.
Well said…several times Karen. The thought occurred to me while reading how difficult it is for us to make quick allowances/concession to each other due to our history and “baggage” we bring to our discussions…allowances and concessions that would be far easier to grant in person. (communication being 70-something % non-verbal…so I’m told). Fun talking with y’all. Thanks for your patience with me. (in closing…BACON/GOOD!)
Sorry for leaving so many replies at once!
I wonder exactly what you mean by what you say. In my experience, Westerners make the issue about our sin and our attitude towards God. That is why there is the command to repent. But I would disagree that it has nothing to do with God’s attitude. He is our ally, but not if we continue to choose to sin, to destroy ourselves, and to destroy one another. Nonetheless, I would agree that God isn’t the one that needs to change, we do. The Westerners wouldn’t deny this. However, I have a hard time understanding how those growing up Orthodox wouldn’t ever feel that it is not fair when they don’t feel they are able to overcome their own sin. This seems the very problem that the non-Orthodox face: the feeling that “it’s not fair.” At that point we have to choose whom to believe – our feelings or the promise of God that he gives us the ability to overcome sin. All this is particularly true in Arminian theology, though not necessarily in Lutheran theology (simul iustus et peccator and all that).
I can see how one would feel this way as a Calvinist (or some other variety of Christian that believes in unconditional election and/or some form of determinism) because it is VERY hard to believe both in free will and divine determinism. In my view, free will always suffer and the person will come out doubting that they have any ability whatsoever to live a holy life or repent or anything in a meaningful way; even if they do, they wonder if God’s statement of love for the whole world is true.
Also, if I may put my two cents in (as I suppose I already have!), I think that such a despairing outlook might come more out of the Reformed view of Total Depravity, original guilt, etc. It would feel very unfair to inherit Adam’s guilt. Even inheriting the effects of sin seems unfair at times. 🙂 I would suggest that original sin (and Calvinistic determinism) is the real source of a feeling that God is the problem.
Obviously, I can’t really answer questions about how those who grow up Orthodox feel when they cannot overcome their sin, since I didn’t grow up Orthodox. I will say my cradle Orthodox priest is known to say that he doesn’t worry about whether or not he will be saved (in response to Evangelical’s questions “Are you saved?”), that it is Christ’s job to save him and he’s quite happy to leave it up to Christ’s competence how to work that out. It seems to me I haven’t really seen the neuroses created by some of the western theological approaches to issues of sin and guilt and the assurance of salvation among the Orthodox I know. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist in some form, just that I haven’t really seen it. In the Orthodox Liturgy and prayers of the Church, the focus is very much on Christ and what He has done and continues to do in all our lives, not on our own failings. Orthodox faith is much more practices-oriented (concerned with how I live my life in an Orthodox way and remain faithful in working out my own salvation) than concepts-oriented–trying to read and explain God’s mind and all His ways, i.e., whether He is “fair” or not (to put it kind of bluntly), which I think is a more western hang-up. Also, sacramental Confession is a great healing tool, both in supporting genuine attempts at amending our ways and in helping us really and genuinely appropriate Christ’s forgiveness when we fail. Another priest in my parish has said several times that when we fail (and repent), Christ “makes up the difference” for us.
I also wanted to clarify that God remains our Ally (in the sense I was meaning this), even when we sin, but the fact that He remains our Ally in that case means that (in His faithfulness to us and His unfailing goodness and compassion) He also actively opposes our sin and its destruction of us and others. As an Orthodox, I don’t identify my “self” (my true self in Christ) with my sinful inclinations (think about how St. Paul writes about this in Romans 7). My “self” is not the same thing as what Scripture calls my “flesh” and what bad English translations call the “sin nature” or “sinful nature.” There is nothing natural in the true Orthodox sense about sin! It is a blight on our human nature (that was created, and remains, good and valued by God, even if wounded by sin).
Yes, Karen, I would agree with what you have said. I also get very uncomfortable with the way Western theologians talk about sin nature. These seem to be antithetical concepts. However, what makes things confusing (biblically speaking) is that Paul uses terms like “nature” φύσις to speak of what we are like as sinners. And, as you said, the term “flesh” σάρξ should not be translated “sin nature” for two reasons: a) it uses the word nature rather than perhaps better “sinful tendency” (though “flesh” is better) and b) it breaks the flow of Romans, for example, in which there ought to be a closer connection between the “flesh” as “sinful tendency” and “flesh” as “physical descent” from Abraham. Paul seems to be killing two birds with one stone and emphasizing what he says elsewhere “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” And what John says, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a husband/man but from God.” This seems to be the main thrust of Romans.
Another major difference in east and west is the doctrine of the harrowing of hades. Notice the resurrection icon. Christ isn’t rising from a tomb as is most often displayed in the west but rising from hades with those held captive by the devil. This is a sharp contrast in eastern and western views of the atonement . In the west it is the Father who is appeased by killing his son. In the east the Father needs no appeasement but sin, death and the devil are destroyed by Christ
So for the Orthodox, are all the Biblical ideas of propitiation anthropomorphisms? Is god’s wrath and anger entirely metaphorical?
By the way, Karen, thanks for explaining clearly the difference between East and West as a difference between expiation and propitiation. That helped me to understand better.
Prometheus . Consider the sacrificial system in the Old Testament . Was the wrath of God vented on the animal being sacrificed? Was Gods disposition toward the sinner changed? This is how pagans viewed their sacrifices-as a means of gaining merit or favor with the gods. I would suggest to you that God didn’t need a sacrifice to forgive man but man needed a sacrifice to understand the depths of Gods mercy and the nature of sin. The sacrifices healed man not God. Thus sacrifices weren’t a propitiation to a vengeful God but a expiation for the offerer for the healing and restoration of his soul. Seen in this light penal substitution is what pagans of old believed. Christ died to heal me not to change God. His blood shed forth and his broken body which I receive in the Eucharist heal my wounded soul and restore fellowship with Him. Thus his death changes me not the Father.
Okay, granted, the sacrifice had to do with the healing of man, not the disposition of God. But why did man need the sacrifice, if God could have forgiven without it? What about the death of Christ expiates? And if it does expiate, how does that help your thesis that sacrifice wasn’t needed for God to forgive? It doesn’t seem to me that you can have your cake and eat it too: a) we need expiation for sin b) Christ died to expiate our sins c) God could have forgiven without a sacrifice.
More to the point of my original question, in non-sacrificial language, God has anger and wrath towards sinners and sin. Is this anthropomorphic and metaphorical? Or is it somehow real? Also, the Greek words “propitious” “propitiation” and “to propitiate” occur in the New Testament. While words can change meaning and it is possible that the meaning has acquired the senses “expiatory” “expiation” and “to expiate,” why would the New Testament writers use a word that is so loaded with Greek meaning concerning appeasement? In Luke the verb ἱλάσκομαι is used to say “have mercy on me” or “be propitious towards me.” That it is seemingly synonymous with ἐλέησον “have mercy” and that ἐλέησον is even used suggests something a little different than expiation – that we are asking God to look kindly upon us. Are we asking that God would change his attitude on us from wrath to kindness? Or are these only anthropomorphisms? When we beg for mercy is it just a fancy way in which we get expiation applied to ourselves? Or does God, in his mercy, actually look kindly upon us as a result? I guess I am asking, whether in Luke 18 the man is really just saying “expiate my sins” or whether there isn’t some more personal interaction between the man and God going on. Sometimes I get the impression in Orthodox theology that the unchangingness of God makes relationship impossible. It seems in this framework that relational language (have mercy; be propitious; propitiate) cannot truly be relational because God cannot change. Is the attitude of a Christian, the attitude of repentance, the sense that God loves us, the sense that he is angry at our rebellion merely an illusion or is there interaction between God and man? If so, then unchanging must apply to his character rather than to his interaction with us. If we do this he does one thing, if we do that he does another. Or does Orthodoxy not allow for God to act conditionally? While I would agree that God is not angry at the goat or bull, God is angry about sin – and the only way to take care of it seems to be through the shedding of blood. Now we know that the goat/bull are just types of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. But the question still emerges: is there forgiveness of sin apart from the shedding of blood? What exactly does this mean?
I hope my questions are intelligible. It is hard to write clearly on this subject.
I found this online article covering some the historical background of where the notion of atonement as “expiation” (Eastern Orthodox, and also Hebrew/Jewish), and the notion of atonement as “propitiation” (pagan Greek, Medieval Latin, Protestant churches) come from. It might be helpful. It also answers the question, “Why was it necessary for Christ to shed his blood?” from an EO perspective.
http://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/was-jesus-sent-to-heal-man-or-to-heal-god-a-look-at-propitiation-vs-expiation/
The bottom line, Prometheus, is that we didn’t just need God’s forgiveness, we also needed His resuscitation (resurrection), because we were “dead” in our sins. He couldn’t resuscitate us without giving His life to us, and He couldn’t give us His life apart from becoming one of us–becoming one with us. That is because as creatures we cannot make ourself divine in order to ascend to God in order to connect to God and His life. God must condescend to us in order to connect with us (not just because we are sinners, but also because we are creatures, by definition dependent upon God for our existence/life). Without that connection, we return to the dust from which we were taken (permanently).
I also wanted to mention that the use of the term “have mercy” in the cry “Lord, have mercy!” is not, strictly-speaking, talking about turning away divine wrath/punishment (or “not giving us what we deserve in terms of punishment” as in Reformed Protestant understanding). This was the cry of the blind men in the Gospels who wanted Jesus to heal their blindness, for instance, and the Reformed take would not have been the sense there. The Greek term translated “mercy” is also the term in the LXX (Greek version of the OT) that is used to translate the Hebrew term “chesed” (which is translated God’s “tender loving-kindness” or sometimes as His “steadfast love”). When the Orthodox pray, “Lord, have mercy” this is asking God to pour out His love upon us for healing, cleansing, forgiveness, life, etc.–basically asking for the restoration of wholeness of our personal being in every sense. God can indeed forgive us without the shedding of blood. There are many indications in the OT that God forgave people when they simply repented (e.g., Jonah 3, the people of Ninevah repent, expressed in fasting and prayer, not sacrifice, and God spares them) and other places where God declares (or the Scripture writer declares) He doesn’t want sacrifices, but rather repentance (e.g., Psalm 51). The reason we need Christ's blood (his sacrifice, life from Him) is for the healing/cleansing of our malady of corruption and death, inherited from Adam and compounded also because of our own personal sins. We may be forgiven without the Incarnation, but we cannot be reunited with God's life (and thus set free from corruption and the power of sin) apart from the Incarnation and apart from becoming partakers of Christ's life, as Chris also points out in his comment (which is also why the Eucharist is so central to Orthodox worship and why we understand it as a true participation/sharing in Christ's life–in His Body and Blood).
Oops! Only the initial italicized word, “we” should have been italicized in that comment. Maybe Robert can correct that for me. Thanks!
Did I make the change you wanted?
Robert
Yes. Thanks, Robert!
Christ could not fully heal us and unite man to God without experiencing death. In regards to shedding of blood it goes back to being united to His life . The life is in the blood according to Leviticus. We personally experience the life of God through the sacramental impartation of His life in the Eucharist . In regards to Gods wrath it is always corrective in nature and not an inherent attribute of his character . In regards to your statement about a “personal relationship” with Christ I can only speak of my experience . I am a graduate of a leading evangelical seminary and have many years ministering in and planting churches. Never in my life have I experienced the depths of intimacy and beauty in my relationship with The Lord sice converting to Orthodoxy. Maybe part of your struggles with Orthodoxy is we tend to have an apothethetic theology that leaves things less defined that the west likes to create volumes of systematic theology. Consider the words of St Anthony
God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.”
It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us.
Chris, I don’t know Evangelicals or Protestants who would disagree with the above quote. But it seems when one talks about impassibility in this way that one is treating God like a rock. If one stands upon the rock, one is upheld. If one falls from a great height onto the rock, one is crushed. But again, this seems to preclude any personal relationship with the rock. I’m not saying there isn’t any, but it is hard to see how there can be. It sounds as though we are dealing with physics rather than God. This seems foreign to a God who is free to choose. Who created this world freely, but did not have to. It also seems foreign to a God who listens to prayer. Is prayer merely an exercises in physics whereby if we pray we get certain results? Or is it a true interaction with the living God? Does he listen or is prayer just like something we do with the rock, which reacts to what we do unchangingly as a rock? I’m not trying to be facetious, I’m trying to understand how immutability is meant. Same with impassibility. As I understand it, God is impassible by nature (i.e. he cannot suffer or experience), but by choice he is not (i.e. Jesus was not subject to suffering, but chose to suffer on the cross; that is why in John Jesus says that no one takes his life from him but that he gives his life and he will take it up again).
Also, while I would like God’s wrath to be always corrective in nature, it is hard for me to reconcile Orthodoxy to the certain descriptions of God. An Old Testament example would be how he wiped out the Canaanites once and for all after the exodus – they had gone too far in their sins. The book of Hebrews in the New Testament also suggests that there is such a thing as a point of no return. How can that be reconciled with a purely corrective wrath? Let me hasten to add that all the Evangelicals I know (who are not Reformed or Calvinist) would say that we are at the point of no return only because we ourselves have put ourselves in that position. In that sense I don’t think that Evangelicals differ far from the Orthodox. We both emphasize that the change occurs due to a decision of the human, not because God’s fundamental attitude towards mankind differs. It is just that the way you seem to be describing God sounds less personal – that they (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are less than persons.
I would like to clarify more on “the shedding of blood” issue, but maybe in another comment, so that this one can receive a more complete response.
You might want to read some of Gregory Palamas works. He wrestled with this very issue and concluded God is unknowable in His essense but knowable in his energies. He explains in detail the distinction.
It sounds like you are confusing unknowable and knowable with impassible and passible. I think I have already wrapped my mind around what is meant between the former. But if you say that God’s essence is unknowable it is not to say that his essence is impassible. It also isn’t to say that just because his essence is knowable it is passible.
If I am wrong about this issue and unknowable implies impassibility and knowable implies passibility, then what we end up with sounds an awful lot like both Luther and Calvin’s distinction between the “hidden God” and the “preached God.” That is, we know God as he has revealed himself in Christ Jesus, but we cannot know him as he has not revealed himself. While I don’t, in principle, have a problem with a distinction between what God has revealed about himself and what he hasn’t, the key problem is that God may have revealed himself as kind and merciful, but in his hidden self he actually intends the opposite of what he reveals. So that it is preached that God wants all to be saved, but in his hidden will he has only willed some to be saved. Do you mean that in God’s unknowable essence he is unable to suffer, but in his essence he is able to suffer? If not, why bring up Palamas?
Also, Chris, it would be nice if you actually discussed the issues. I, of course, could just read Orthodox writers, but sometimes it helps to discuss. Much of what you have to say seems to be assertions rather than discussions. You don’t seem to address how the idea of the point-of-no-return fits into a purely rehabilitative view of God’s wrath.
Prometheus,
Forgive me for butting in, but I don’t think the issue of impassibility and unknowability are related in the way you are positing. Impassibility, as I understand it, only refers to the fact that God’s nature is complete, perfect and unchanging–not reactive (dependent) and developing the way that human, creaturely nature is (James 1:17). Also, I think it would be safe to say that what we can know of God (experientially) through Christ is also true to what we cannot know (intellectually comprehend) of God (His essence/transcendence/infinitude). So He does not reveal Himself as mercy, while truly being something else in His hiddenness from us. Rather, what little we are able to experientially understand (as a result of our limitations, not God’s) is true to what He is.
God in His essence cannot suffer (in the sense of incurring injury to His Being), but God become Man, i.e., the human Person of Jesus Christ, can and has suffered in every way that we have, yet without personally sinning. God being omniscient, has nevertheless, always fully understood our human suffering.
Does this help?
Karen,
Thanks for clarifying. So much of what we say (it seems) requires working out since the frameworks are so different. Thanks for clarifying how you see impassibility. [Though I made some mistakes in my last post above where I should have said energies instead of essence twice.] This is how I have seen it as well. I just felt that Chris had brought it up in such a way that it made God different in his essence than he is in his energies . . . sounded eerily like Calvinism to me. Also, I would love to hear your reaction to Fr. Hopko’s musings on the wrath of God: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_wrath_of_god.
Prometheus,
I recommend you search Fr. Stephen Freeman’s blog site here:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2009/01/15/gods-wrath/
He has written a lot about the meaning of the wrath of God from an Orthodox perspective, and is also coming from Protestant roots.
Karen,
I don’t think that “Glory2God” has it stated well. One of his posters did a better job:
“Father, I am agreeing whole-heartedly with you. But there is perhaps more precise ways to say what we are trying to say. God’s actions are his energies, fully divine. The righteous perceive these energies as everlasting delight for they desire the Kingdom of God above all things. The evil hate these energies because they hate God who is life itself. Just because the evil hate God does not stop the “coming down” of His energies. The more we rebel against them, the more we suffer. Yet, the energies are still from God. In this sense we say that it is God’s wrath, because it ultimately comes from Him. However, it cannot, by definition, be wrath without our avarice towards it. What you revile against is the Calvanist (and others) sentiment that, lacking free will, the differentiation between love and wrath is not within our own heart, but within God’s. This is truly heresy! I think what I have described is the consensus of the Orthodox Church. Forgive me if I am wrong.”
“Glory2God” agreed with this.
But I have read enough evangelical stuff to know that a great number believe in God’s anger/wrath towards rebellion, but they would ALWAYS attribute it to man’s will against God. This, again, narrows the problem to Calvinists and any other reformed who make the evil that visits mankind located in God rather than in man. But, then, how are we disagreeing? Unless, truly, the commenter on “Glory2God” was not quite right. Anyway, I don’t think that anthropomorphism is the problem. Does not God hate sin – that which destroys his creation, that which is good, that which flows from love? It seems to me that God is truly angry about the evil that we do and destroys it. But what is wonderful is that his intent is not to destroy us, but to destroy our evil. So instead of wiping us out (which would be counterproductive to his intent) he finds a way to destroy death – the thing that destroys his creation. Yet there IS a sense in which he does not want those who remain in rebellion to infect his creation for all eternity. They will not win. But they will suffer.
Nonetheless, there is a parable in the gospels that make most sense in light of the Orthodox explanation, namely that of the talents. Those who worked for the master received a good reward. The one who thought the master evil, found the master evil. there is another verse in a proverb “he shows himself perverse to the perverse and upright to the upright.”
*** Yet, the energies are still from God. In this sense we say that it is God’s wrath, because it ultimately comes from Him. However, it cannot, by definition, be wrath without our avarice towards it.***
Interestingly enough, this doesn’t seem all that difference from the medieval scholastic “notional distinctions” pace divine simplicity. That would help explain what Palamas meant when he called “simplicity” a divine energy.
Prometheus,
You seem to be grasping what is the Orthodox perspective is on the nature of God’s “wrath.” I agree the commenter you quote expresses it quite well, and I think the Proverb you mention is very appropriate as well.
What you and some commenters may perceive as a defect in Fr. Stephen’s writing, however, I perceive as a strength of his approach. He purposely states things in a way that make the reader have to wrestle (and even argue) with what he says in ways that may be spiritually profitable to them (given some cultural spiritual deficits we all struggle with on some level). So I think it just depends on what you’re looking for and what your vantage point is. His whole approach is pastoral and pedagogical–he is not going for theological precision in a scholarly or academic sense (though he is certainly capable of clarifying on this level when it is called for), and I notice that this often throws some of his readers off at first (but even those who are most prone to see the weaknesses in his approach almost always keep coming back and interacting with the material and gaining an increasing respect for his perspective because his pedagogical approach is effective). I’ve been reading him for a number of years now. I have found his writing very validating of my own experiences and he has helped me to articulate some of the convictions that I have formed over my years as an Evangelical Christian in interacting with my own Christian experience and the biblical texts and then in coming to Orthodox faith. But, as I said, I think it depends on what you’re looking for at this juncture.
I just thought it was worth revisiting what you see in a typical Protestant church regarding the resurrection. I just went to a Southern Baptist Church this Sunday, and I thought the words of a song they sang were really interesting.
By His stripes we are healed
By His nail pierced hands we’re free
By His blood we’re washed clean
Now we have the victory
The power of sin is broken
Jesus overcame it all
He has won our freedom
Jesus has won it all
Hallelujah
You have won the victory
Hallelujah
You have won it all for me
Death could not hold You down
You are the risen King
Seated in majesty
You are the risen King
Our God has risen
He is alive
He won the victory
He reigns on high.
So is it accurate to ask “where is the resurrection” in Evangelicalism?
Prometheus,
In my blog I did not say that Evangelicalism does not emphasize Christ’s resurrection, but that it lacks the Christus Victor motif. The hymn that you cited mentions Christ’s victory but it seems to be a victory over sin, but not necessarily victory over the Devil. The hymn says that death could not hold down Christ for long but it seems rather removed from the Orthodox Paschal hymn that declares that Christ has defeated death for all mankind. The hymn you cited is a fine hymn theologically and as an Orthodox Christian I have no major problem with it. But the question I have is: Is the Christus Victor a theological theme that is consistently presented in this Southern Baptist church? And how often does this Southern Baptist church emphasize the Incarnation, that is, Christ as the God-Man who came down from heaven to destroy death on our behalf?
Robert
Yes, one might say that the song is underdeveloped. But the “victory” mode is there. Whether “incarnation” is spelled out is another question.