You can find Dr. Edith Humphrey's full article on the atonement here: journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/12/18/reclaiming-all-pauls-rs-apostolic-atonement-by-way-of-some-eastern-fathers/ ***Here is an important note she makes: "We need not follow that influential French theologian, who (unfortunately) reads Chrysostom’s sermon by way of Leo’s Latin translation, which emphasizes ‘appeasing the Father’[26] by sacrifice. This crude view of propitiation is enjoined neither by St John Chrysostom nor the apostle Paul, his source. Instead, Jesus’ priestly nature is connected by the Golden-Mouthed without embarrassment to the Creation, Fall, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension, and promises divine glory, or theōsis, to those who are in Him."
I love the verbage on Chrysostom's expanded thoughts regarding reconciliation. The Orthodox model of atonement is just one topic (of many) that Orthodoxy paints such a whole picture with Theology of God compared to the Penal Substionary Model. On a journey of my own that way to Orthodoxy, thanks for the share ☦️
Is punishing a just man for the sake of the unjust a just thing to do? Is pushing an innocent man for the crimes of others justice? This is where a penal substitutionary atonement breaks down for me and for many others. In my mind, God the Father pouring out his wrath on Jesus in order to satisfy his demands that justice be served is a travesty of justice.
"God the Father pouring out his wrath on Jesus in order to satisfy his demands that justice" Right. That is the view of Reformed Calvinism and many Protestants. Lewis nor the Fathers nor Dr. Edith Humphrey hold that view. Chrysostom states that the wrath was "lifted" meaning that it went away. It wasn't poured out on the Son as someone like Dr. R.C. Sproul states with quite hellish language!
You can find her full article here: journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/12/18/reclaiming-all-pauls-rs-apostolic-atonement-by-way-of-some-eastern-fathers/ Here is an important note she makes: "We need not follow that influential French theologian, who (unfortunately) reads Chrysostom’s sermon by way of Leo’s Latin translation, which emphasizes ‘appeasing the Father’[26] by sacrifice. This crude view of propitiation is enjoined neither by St John Chrysostom nor the apostle Paul, his source. Instead, Jesus’ priestly nature is connected by the Golden-Mouthed without embarrassment to the Creation, Fall, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension, and promises divine glory, or theōsis, to those who are in Him."
Thank you and forgive me. I didn’t mean to imply that Chrysostom or Dr Humphrey teach a reformed view of the atonement. I tend to struggle with any “punishment” language used when referring to Christs death on the cross.
Fr Stephen de Young talks about how on the day of atonement neither goat was tortured, and that a valid sacrifice never involved punishment or torture. There was no prescription as to how the goat of Yahweh was to be killed, the point was to use the blood to smear/cleanse holy space. How was Chrysostom inferring a need for punishment?
@@doulos44 Listen again to long quote from Chrysostom that Dr. Humphrey reads: "He himself took on the punishment that was due to us from the Father, and endured both the punishment from there (from heaven), and the reproaches from here, that is from earth, from human beings". It is this sort of language that I have a hard time coming to terms with, even when spoken by the Fathers of the Church.
