Was Jesus Sent to Heal Man or to Heal God?

[TER]

Was Jesus Sent to Heal Man or to Heal God?

by Eric Hyde

Introduction

This question is not meant to be funny; it’s a legitimate question in light of the prominent western theological view of Christ’s atoning work. According to the general atonement theory among Roman Catholics and Protestants, Jesus’ atoning work is understood as a “propitiation” for sin. What exactly does propitiation mean? In Christian theology, propitiation is a term used to understand the death of Jesus on the cross as a work that appeased the justice of God and effected a reconciliation between God and mankind. A basic knowledge of the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement as it developed in Western Christian thought is of great importance, and if the casual reader who may not have been expecting a history lesson will bear with me I believe this short summary will be well worth the time.

In his work, Cur Deus ****?, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) set forth to answer the question of why God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. His thesis was to become the chief rubric with which both the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations would understand the atoning work of Christ. According to his theory sin is basically the failure to render God his due, and in failing to give God his due mankind not only takes from God what is rightfully his but also offends his honor. Thus, mere compensation for what was taken is not enough, added punishment for the guilty must be inflicted (Anselm, Cur Deus ****, 1.11).* In short, God’s violated honor had to be made right and to accomplish this one of two measures had to be taken: (a) either mankind must be punished (with eternal hell fire), or (b) a worthy satisfaction that could be substituted for mankind’s due punishment must be produced (Cur Deus ****, 1.13). Thus, according to Anselm, the incarnation of Christ was necessary to provide God with a worthy satisfaction for his damaged honor.

If one follows this logic our original question requires serious consideration: for whom did Jesus come to heal, man or God? A dishonored God that requires punishment to reign down on someone or something in order to restore his divine equilibrium is a God who seeks personal healing; not altogether different from a mafia godfather who requires punishment for his wounded ego.

With the presuppositions of this atonement theory in view, it is no wonder that Western Christian thought developed as it did. The idea that “justification” before God is a matter of “imputed righteousness,” rather than an actual living righteousness, makes perfect sense. If it is God’s mind that needed changing, via Christ as a propitiation for sin, then no real change is necessary within man. The believing Christian is merely “declared” righteous but is in no wise subject to actual righteousness. Grace, under this premise, is understood in a one-dimensional fashion as a sort of spiritual covering that disguises the sinner before the eyes of God, causing God to see Jesus instead of the sinner, thus avoiding His wrath.

This entire scenario grows very confusing when the believer attempts to rationally marry the idea of a wrathful, vengeful God with the idea of an eternal loving God; or when one tries to imagine that God’s attitude towards His creation needed changing, which raises the question of whether or not He is eternally consistent within His own being. If one continues this awkward path long enough he or she may as well ask: is it really that “God so loved the world that He sent His only Son…” or did the Apostle mean to say, “For God so detested the world that He sent His only Son…”?

These are only a few observations concerning the idea of propitiation that come to mind. In a future article we will dive deeper into an ongoing debate concerning the very word used in Scripture, “ιλαστηριον” (hilasterion), which most English bibles translate as “propitiation” but has an alternative meaning of “expiation,” the term embraced by both the Jewish and Eastern Christian traditions. Hope you’ll join the discussion.

Thanks for reading!

*In his text, Christian Theology, Millard Erickson notes that Anselm’s writing must be understood in light of the powerful feudal system that structured all of the culture in which he found himself. Justice and law had become more of a personal matter; violations of the law were thought of as offenses against the person of the feudal overlord. In matters of private offense, various forms of satisfaction could be substituted for punishment (p.814).

[Ronin Truth]

I didn't realize that God was broken. Who knew? How did that happen?

[TER]

Was Jesus Sent to Heal Man or to Heal God?

A Look at “Propitiation” vs. “Expiation”


The purpose of this article is to explore in greater depth the Orthodox view of Christ’s atoning work. As a convert from Protestantism I find this topic vital for a proper understanding of the primary differences between the Orthodox faith and its Western counterparts, i.e., Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant faiths. Due to the immensity of this topic I will do my best to condense it down to some primary features. My hope is that a deeper discussion will ensue as contributors to this blog chime in with their added questions and comments.

Here are some thoughts on the issue:

The Eastern Church has always understood Christ’s atoning work as that which accomplished true healing of the entire person; a reconstitution of human nature from that of death to that of life; a cleansing of sin rather than a substitution for the punishment of sin. The differing views between the East and West concerning the atonement are animated in large part by how the two sides understand a very important word in the Greek text of Scripture: “hilasterion” (ιλαστηριον).

It is from hilasterion that our English Bibles usually derive the term “atonement” and more specifically “propitiation,” as in Romans 3:25 (“Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” NKJV).

The discussion over the proper translation of hilasterion has been en vogue for quite some time in theological circles, and for good reason. If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: “to make favorable,” with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity) then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well. However, if one chooses to interpret it as “expiation” (literally: “to make pious,” with the implication of removal or cleansing of sin), one can conceivably force a substitutionary view, but with much difficulty. Instead, expiation leads one to understand the atonement of Christ as a cleansing act of mercy and love rather than an act of pacifying God’s anger and punishment.

The Orthodox Church understands Christ’s atonement in light of expiation, and has not changed this stance in over 20 centuries. Historically, one finds that hilasterion took on the translation of propitiation in the Latin Church after the rediscovery of Greek literature during the Renaissance. Propitiation was the usual Hellenistic rendition of hilasterion and reflected the ancient pagan Greek and Roman idea of placating the gods. For the Jews during the same period, hilasterion was understood as expiation. In a very real sense, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (known as the Septuagint), the Jews adopted a different understanding of hilasterion which complied with their Hebrew notion of atonement (often the term “kaphar,” literally meaning: “to wipe out,” and not merely “to cover up,” as found in many Latin commentators). One will find this translation trend in Rabbinic literature and in the English version of Hebrew Tanakh. The Apostles and early Church Fathers carried on this understanding and it became the paradigm for which they understood Christ’s atonement, hence its dominance in Orthodox theology; and hence why the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement doesn’t make its way into the Roman Catholic conscience until Anselm – over 1000 years into the story, and the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement does not make its way into the Western Church conscience until the Reformation – over 1500 years into the story.

For the Orthodox, Christ’s work on the cross was necessary, not to satisfy an angry God, but to effect a reconstitution of human nature—to bring about a literal change in human ontology. Christ’s death and resurrection joined human nature with God’s nature. I recently came across an ancient Orthodox hymn of praise which beautifully captures this reality:

“The Lord united two natures; He does not separate them anymore: human and divine. He does not separate them anymore: God and man—One Person. In both respects undiminished, the God-man and Savior” (Prologue of Ohrid, Feb 28th reading).

For me, the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ clarifies Christ’s atoning work better than any other interpretive method. The purpose of God taking on human flesh was to join human nature with the divine nature, a union that was lost by Adam and Eve in the primordial garden. Mankind needed not only forgiveness of sin but also salvation from an ontological constitution of death in their very beings; according to Romans 5:12, it was death, and not sin-guilt, which spread to all mankind due to Adam’s sin. By reconstituting human nature with the life of God mankind once again had the potential to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2Peter 1:4). This understanding of salvation—as a living and dynamic reality—allows the Orthodox mind to conceive of ‘working out one’s salvation’ without falling into the trap of ‘works righteousness’ (a phrase that has become a doctrinal boogieman for many Protestants); the general Reformed Protestant view of salvation as a static event in which the believer is “once saved, always saved,” forces the false dichotomy of grace vs. works into the believer’s theology of salvation, but I digress.

Under the view of expiation a person is called to become truly united with God—he or she is called to participate in the great and heavenly re-union. Conversely, under the view of propitiation a person is called to merely accept Jesus and to have righteousness ‘imputed’ or ‘declared’ over him or her. Thus salvation is seen as a passive, one-time event in which, after confession and/or baptism into Christ is accomplished, the person plays no effective role in the relationship.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology summarizes well the differing approaches of propitiation and expiation:

“In discussing reconciliation and atonement it has become customary to draw a distinction between propitiation and expiation. In propitiation the action is directed towards God, or some other offended person. The underlying purpose is to change God’s attitude from one of wrath to one of good will and favor. In the case of expiation, on the other hand, the action is directed towards that which has caused the breakdown in the relationship… In short, propitiation is directed towards the offended person, whereas expiation is concerned with nullifying the offensive act” (DNTT, Vol. III, p. 151).

I know that much has been left unsaid in this brief article, but in closing I’d like to offer an illustration that aided me significantly when I was first attempting to adjust my theological paradigm to this new found understanding of Christ’s atonement. One can think of Christ’s blood as expiation similar to a healing antibiotic when applied to an infection (in this case, that of death and sin). When the blood of Christ is applied to a repentant believer it acts not as a covering that conceals the Father’s view of the believer, as is often taught in the West, but rather it acts to heal, to remove, to expunge the illness of death and sin from the believer—conforming the believer to the image of Christ. This is why the Scriptures continually refer to Christ’s blood as that which “cleanses sin” (1Jn 1:7), as the “washing of sin” (Rev 3:25), as that which “cleanses conscience” (Heb 9:14), and the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:15). The object of concern for Christ’s blood was not to change the mind of the Father but to change the condition of fallen man. God sent His Son to die for mankind not so that He could love us, but rather because He already loved us (John 3:16, Rom 5:8).

Thanks for reading. And please offer any comments and/or corrections you may have. I would especially like to hear from fellow Orthodox Christians who have more ‘time on the clock,’so-to-speak, in the faith than myself and who may have helpful corrections, as well as those from the various Western traditions who either agree or are at variance with what has been said.

May the Lord bless you and keep you, cheers!

[TER]

I didn't realize that God was broken. Who knew? How did that happen?

It didn't. That is why you should read the article.

[Ronin Truth]

It didn't. That is why you should read the article.

It's just a whole lot easier to only be a smart aleck sometimes. Carry on.

[Ronin Truth]

I usually find man's attempts to explain and justify God both highly presumptuous and humorous.

In another vein, isn't the thread question handled adequately by John 3:16?

[fisharmor]

This was incredibly helpful to me.
It seriously boils down to interpretation of one word? I can see how many western theologians in good faith would have interpreted further Scriptures to support their claim, too. Both East and West would cite John's references to being washed with the blood of the Lamb, but the East would focus on the washing, and the West would focus on the blood's obscuring nature.

[James Madison]

I didn't realize that God was broken. Who knew? How did that happen?

No, you see God predestined everything, including the fall and our sinful nature, then got upset when man disobeyed him, even though God predestined that, too. To atone for the predestined sins of man, God sacrificed himself to himself to wipe away the sins that God predestined in the first place. Unless God doesn't like you, then you are tormented forever for those sins, again predestined.

[TER]

This was incredibly helpful to me.
It seriously boils down to interpretation of one word? I can see how many western theologians in good faith would have interpreted further Scriptures to support their claim, too. Both East and West would cite John's references to being washed with the blood of the Lamb, but the East would focus on the washing, and the West would focus on the blood's obscuring nature.

It is interesting how a small word and a different translation/interpretation of that word can lead to such different understandings in time. It is akin to a group of people walking next to eachother in the same direction, all moving east. One person then shift 1 degrees to the left as they all continue to walk side by side. In the beginning this slight deviation is unnoticable. But down the road, miles later, the distance between them grows so much that in time, they cannot even see eachother on the horizon. Where they once were together, they are now apart. Where they once walked in communion to the same destination, they are now on different paths.

For this reason it has always been the upmost importance to keep the faith pure, the doctrines undefiled, in a unity of one faith in one mind and one spirit. The Holy Eucharist is that bond which works to keep all in the same direction, so that when one person deviates from the rest, it serves to guide them back with the group of believers (the ekklesia, the Church), while at the same time protecting the group and the faith itself.

[Terry1]

This is all simply a type and shadow of the Mercy Seat.

Hebrews 4:
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[erowe1]

A better way to ask the propitiation question:

Was Jesus sent to please man or to please God?

[erowe1]

It seriously boils down to interpretation of one word?

No. It definitely doesn't. There are many biblical passages that teach that Jesus' death was a sacrifice offered to God, offered in the place of others, using a variety of words.

[Terry1]

A better way to ask the propitiation question:

Was Jesus sent to please man or to please God?

I'd say both, wouldn't you?

[Ronin Truth]

No, you see God predestined everything, including the fall and our sinful nature, then got upset when man disobeyed him, even though God predestined that, too. To atone for the predestined sins of man, God sacrificed himself to himself to wipe away the sins that God predestined in the first place. Unless God doesn't like you, then you are tormented forever for those sins, again predestined.

His universe his game his rules. Not playing does not seem to be an option long term. So, whatcha gonna do?

[eduardo89]

No, you see God predestined everything, including the fall and our sinful nature, then got upset when man disobeyed him, even though God predestined that, too. To atone for the predestined sins of man, God sacrificed himself to himself to wipe away the sins that God predestined in the first place. Unless God doesn't like you, then you are tormented forever for those sins, again predestined.

Makes perfect sense, especially since God is loving, merciful, and just.

[TER]

Makes perfect sense, especially since God is loving, merciful, and just.

Actually, James Madison forgot to add that it was God's good pleasure to have His Son tortured and killed in order to pay a debt He owed to Satan. Sounds very reasonable and consistent with what a loving, just, and merciful father would do. /s

[eduardo89]

Actually, James Madison forgot to add that it was God's good pleasure to have His Son tortured and killed in order to pay a debt He owed to Satan. Sounds very reasonable and consistent with what a loving, just, and merciful father would do. /s

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to reading that part. I have a Catholic Bible and it doesn't include Epistle to Sola and the Gospel of FreedomFanatic. My Church is Satanic because we consider those two books to be apocryphal.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to reading that part. I have a Catholic Bible and it doesn't include Epistle to Sola and the Gospel of FreedomFanatic. My Church is Satanic because we consider those two books to be apocryphal.

My Orthodox bible also lacks those books. There is also no Gospel of Nang in it. /heretic

[purplechoe]

No, you see God predestined everything, including the fall and our sinful nature, then got upset when man disobeyed him, even though God predestined that, too. To atone for the predestined sins of man, God sacrificed himself to himself to wipe away the sins that God predestined in the first place. Unless God doesn't like you, then you are tormented forever for those sins, again predestined.

touche...

he also predestined me to give +rep to you...

It's like a computer program being punished for doing what it was supposed to do. Burn in hell program!

[RJB]

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to reading that part. I have a Catholic Bible and it doesn't include Epistle to Sola and the Gospel of FreedomFanatic. My Church is Satanic because we consider those two books to be apocryphal.

My Orthodox bible also lacks those books. There is also no Gospel of Nang in it. /heretic

Come on guys. That's uncalled for! I've found them to be very pleasant once I put them on ignore.

[heavenlyboy34]

Come on guys. That's uncalled for! I've found them to be very pleasant once I put them on ignore.

A little silliness once in a while keeps a man from going insane and killing the neighbors. (FWIW, I also have them on ignore )

[jkr]

The relationship BETWEEN man & GOD

[RJB]

A little silliness once in a while keeps a man from going insane and killing the neighbors. (FWIW, I also have them on ignore )

I should use smileys more often.

[Kevin007]

Actually, James Madison forgot to add that it was God's good pleasure to have His Son tortured and killed in order to pay a debt He owed to Satan. Sounds very reasonable and consistent with what a loving, just, and merciful father would do. /s

God owing a debt to satan? You GOT to be kidding!

[Kevin007]

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to reading that part. I have a Catholic Bible and it doesn't include Epistle to Sola and the Gospel of FreedomFanatic. My Church is Satanic because we consider those two books to be apocryphal.

how Christian of you.

[Miss Annie]

A little silliness once in a while keeps a man from going insane and killing the neighbors. (FWIW, I also have them on ignore )

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heavenlyboy34 again ....... I would if I could! And for me........ it takes A LOT of silliness! :P

[AFPVet]

The curtain to the 2nd covenant was riped away... not moved away... riped away... the Holy Spirit being available to all once again.

[heavenlyboy34]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heavenlyboy34 again ....... I would if I could! And for me........ it takes A LOT of silliness! :P

I accept your IOU. I know you're good for it. ~hugs~