HOW THE EO BLASPHEME THE CROSS OF CHRIST
So far on this blog I have chosen to deal with the sides of EO that defy common sense. However, some readers take issue with the seriousness of the themes about which I have written. While they agree that the issues I have raised are problematic, they allege such issues are ultimately marginal and unimportant. I respectfully disagree with dismissing these themes as minor (as explained here).
Regardless, there is an issue that is central to the meaning of Christianity and the Gospel itself, and it is an issue where significant conflict exists between the teachings of God’s Word and EO: The meaning of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Did Christ take our punishment? Did He die so that those who repent and believe in Him as Lord and Savior would have His righteousness imparted to them? Bible believing Christians would answer a resounding "yes" to these questions.
Eastern Orthodox teachers, however, not only deny that Jesus died to propitiate the wrath of God on sinners who believed and repented, they even accuse those who believe Jesus died to bear our sin as blasphemers.
Which position is faithful to God’s Word? Who is misrepresenting Jesus Christ? Who is blaspheming?
The reader might consider these questions as “fighting words”. But this language is not foreign to some adherents of EO. One reader wrote in and stated that I blaspheme the cross (probably referring to me using an EO style cross for the website header).
However, as we shall see, it's really the EO who blaspheme the cross of Christ by denying its full meaning. Ironically. however, by doing so they even contradict their own traditions!! They deny teachings of numerous early teachers who professed Christianity, the so-called “church fathers”!!!
Christ Died In Place of Sinners
The Bible clearly teaches that on the cross Jesus took the punishment we should have received for our sins. Protestant/Evangelical theologians call this the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. By Jesus's death on the cross, God's justice was satisfied, and those who believe in Christ receive his righteous standing before God (a.k.a. imputed righteousness), just as Jesus on the cross received God's righteous wrath in place of sinners.
The Bible teaches this consistently, starting with the Old Testament events and laws that foreshadow the substitutionary work of the Messiah. As early as in Genesis 3:21 we see that God used animal skins to cover Adam and Eve, hence the skinned animal's death served to cover the consequence of sin. In Exodus 12:13 only the homes which were marked by the blood of the slain lamb were "passed over". Later, God commanded Moses to sacrifice animals to atone for the sins of humans (Leviticus 4-5; 17:11; etc.), and the reason is later summarized in the book of Hebrews:
"...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Hebrews 9:22b, ESV)
All these substitutionary sacrifices consistently foreshadowed the work of Christ. In the same vein, Isaiah prophesied about Him, saying:
"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5, ESV)
The New Testament is unequivocal about this doctrine. Peter says that Jesus bore our sins:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24, ESV)
Peter then clarifies that this death was the atonement that brings the believers to God:
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit..." (1 Peter 3:18, ESV)
Paul confirms that Jesus, who had no sin, took the punishment for our sins in order to justify us before God:
"For our sake he [God the Father] made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV)
The book of Hebrews says our sins are removed once and for all by Jesus' sacrifice, as opposed to constantly repeated Old Testament sacrifices:
"Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, or then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:25-26, ESV) [1]
Since all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), we are as such subject to God's righteous wrath (John 3:36) and deserve eternal death. The only way for this to be remedied is for us to put our trust in Jesus and receive life as a free gift (Romans 6:23), because, as we saw, He took the punishment in our stead.
So, we see that God’s Word teaches clearly that Jesus Christ bore our sins on the cross as a substitution for us to atone for the transgressions we had committed before God.
EO Contradicts the Bible and the "Fathers"
Even though the Bible is clear and consistent on this subject, the contemporary EO seem to firmly deny this doctrine. Ignoring what the Bible teaches, they claim that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was ultimately an invention of the Protestant Reformation, based on the wrong understanding of human depravity, and having its roots in the work of Anselm, an eleventh century Roman Catholic archbishop who taught that sin wounded God's honor, and thus requires punishment. They claim that this is a product of the Western legalistic mindset. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galich says:
"If we trace all follies of the West, those developed in its religion as well as those rooted in its customs, which are transmitted to us through the "window of Europe," we will see them all stemming from ignorance of the nature of Christian faith as a personal struggle for gradual self-perfection. Such, for instance, is the Latino-Protestant concept of the Redemption as the revenge of the Divine Majesty, once offended by Adam, on Jesus Christ -- a concept which grew out of the feudal notion of knightly honor, restorable by shedding the blood of the offender..."[2]
The church fathers, say the EO, never taught this doctrine, and it was unknown for at least 1000 years. For one example, modern Orthodox teacher Alexander Renault alleges, “Penal substitution was absent from the entire Church (both east and west) for at least 1,000 years.” [3]
But this assertion is simply not true, and hiding behind the "fathers" does not do the EO any favors in this case. In fact, many ancient theologians and works which the EO recognizes as authoritative did indeed believe in this doctrine, and have written about it. Here is a small sample of 3 examples of church teachers who believed Jesus Christ died to suffer the punishment for our sins on our behalf:
John Chrysostom (c. 350-407) affirms his belief in the substitution of sin’s punishment to Christ: “If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation..."
Clement of Rome stated: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.”
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339) wrote: “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on ourbehalf… And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.”
In his essay "Penal Substitution in Church History" Dr. Michael Vlach quotes numerous theologians and works in the early centuries of Christianity. Names and works include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, etc. [4]
"If we trace all follies of the West, those developed in its religion as well as those rooted in its customs, which are transmitted to us through the "window of Europe," we will see them all stemming from ignorance of the nature of Christian faith as a personal struggle for gradual self-perfection. Such, for instance, is the Latino-Protestant concept of the Redemption as the revenge of the Divine Majesty, once offended by Adam, on Jesus Christ -- a concept which grew out of the feudal notion of knightly honor, restorable by shedding the blood of the offender..."[2]
The church fathers, say the EO, never taught this doctrine, and it was unknown for at least 1000 years. For one example, modern Orthodox teacher Alexander Renault alleges, “Penal substitution was absent from the entire Church (both east and west) for at least 1,000 years.” [3]
But this assertion is simply not true, and hiding behind the "fathers" does not do the EO any favors in this case. In fact, many ancient theologians and works which the EO recognizes as authoritative did indeed believe in this doctrine, and have written about it. Here is a small sample of 3 examples of church teachers who believed Jesus Christ died to suffer the punishment for our sins on our behalf:
John Chrysostom (c. 350-407) affirms his belief in the substitution of sin’s punishment to Christ: “If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation..."
Clement of Rome stated: “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.”
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339) wrote: “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on ourbehalf… And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.”
In his essay "Penal Substitution in Church History" Dr. Michael Vlach quotes numerous theologians and works in the early centuries of Christianity. Names and works include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Severus of Antioch, etc. [4]
Will Those Who Blaspheme the Cross Please Stand Up?
As we see, not only do the contemporary EO contradict the Bible, they also contradict the ancient theologians they themselves hold as authoritative.
The latter, of course, makes no difference to Christians who submit to God’s Word. The Bible is our ultimate authority.
However, it does reveal that contemporary EO do not faithfully follow the teachings of the "fathers" as they claim. Ultimately, by denying penal substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness, the EO blaspheme the cross of Christ, as they strip away from Christ’s death on the cross its most powerful aspect.
“Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left its crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.”
Elvina M. Hall, 1865 [5]
The latter, of course, makes no difference to Christians who submit to God’s Word. The Bible is our ultimate authority.
However, it does reveal that contemporary EO do not faithfully follow the teachings of the "fathers" as they claim. Ultimately, by denying penal substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness, the EO blaspheme the cross of Christ, as they strip away from Christ’s death on the cross its most powerful aspect.
“Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left its crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.”
Elvina M. Hall, 1865 [5]
[1] The book of Hebrews also stands as a clear condemnation of EO and Roman Catholic system of priesthood, but this warrants a separate article.
[2] http://www.stxenia.org/difference.html#part8
[3] See https://preachersinstitute.com/2011/06/02/orthodox-problems-with-penal-substitution/
[4] See his article on https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf
[5] http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Jesus_Paid_It_All/
“Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. May not copy or download more than 500 consecutive verses of the ESV Bible or more than one half of any book of the ESV Bible.”
[2] http://www.stxenia.org/difference.html#part8
[3] See https://preachersinstitute.com/2011/06/02/orthodox-problems-with-penal-substitution/
[4] See his article on https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf
[5] http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Jesus_Paid_It_All/
“Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. May not copy or download more than 500 consecutive verses of the ESV Bible or more than one half of any book of the ESV Bible.”