Orthodox view of atonement and 'substitution'

Theologian's van spilled no small amount of ink talking about substitution and penal substitution as it relates to views of the atonement. In this video, Fr. Jeremy Davis, an orthodox monk, share's his perspective on the orthodox view of substitution and atonement.

Support Gospel Simplicity:

Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:

About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a YouTube channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.

About the host:

Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Edited in FCPX

Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel

*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.

[confectionarysound]

This explaination just crystalized an idea for me; that Christ is the embodiment of both God's full commitment to man, and also of man's commitment to God. Glory to Jesus Christ.

[VidBint]

Honestly, it was the very concept of substitutionary atonement that made me reject Christianity completely & become a staunch atheist for almost 20 yrs.

And it was this understanding that brought me back

[SaintGeorge]

Fr Jeremy! One of the best priests! He is an instrumental part of my learning of orthodoxy. He is absolutely amazing. He has an amazing presentation of orthodox on YouTube. He was a wonderful priest at Holy Ascension and a deep inspiration to me on my orthodox journey.

[WorldStory]

Well expressed from Fr. Jeremy. Everything 'substitutionary' about Christ's work opens the door to us for deeper participation in his work. Thanks for this clip and your full interview with him, Austin.

[flickering_wick]

I appreciate when you release these short excerpts from longer interviews, even if I already watched the full interview.

[hughmccann]

“Tell us you don’t believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ without outright saying it!”

[believewithyourheart]

Thankyou, my Lord and Saviour from the depth of my heart.

[IHIuddy]

Geez this was good. So simple. It makes perfect sense. I’ve already been so confused on the PSA model.

[smccarthymi]

“‘In our place’ means he offers a sacrifice and then his sacrifice has nothing to do with us.” What a misunderstanding of penal substitutionary atonement! Classical Protestantism says “in our place” AND “on our behalf”, not requiring this either/or.

[SF.B]

Saint Polycarp
” Therefore we should persevere unceasingly in our hope and down payment of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree(CROSS), 42 who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth, 43 but because of us, in order that we might live in Him, endured all things. 2 Therefore let us be imitators of His endurance, and if we should suffer because of His name, we should glorify Him. For this [is] the example He set for us in himself, and this we have believed.”

[mertonhirsch]

Christ's death was mechanistic. He was the archetypal/true Passover lamb (that the O.T. Passover prefigured) that was sacrificed (slain) to pay the wages of sin, which is mortal death, and by which mechanism he created a path (Passover) for ALL FLESH from mortal death to resurrection. (For those who have done good, to the resurrection of life and for those who have done evil to the resurrection of damnation). The resurrection is for all flesh. Not only can't it be earned but it can't be avoided.

The process of salvation occurs by faithfully uniting yourself to Christ which means to make God's will your will. If humans had never sinned, Christ would not have needed to destroy, death (the wages of sin), but not sinning means not exercising our own will, so faith is submitting entirely to God's will. We have faith to walk the path that he wills us to walk.

Western Christianity came to see salvation as how we get into heaven. For the Orthodox, since death is destroyed, we participate in heaven to the degree that we faithfully walk the path of God's will even in this life, so faith, salvation and doing God's will are all the same thing.

[angelahull]

There needs to be an interview with either an Eastern Orthodox priest or a Roman Catholic priest of the Order of Discalced Carmelites on the topic of theosis/diefication.

[Troy-Moses]

The entire premise to the subject of Penal Substitution is, To whom was the Ransom paid? The following is an exchange I once had with my diocese:

QUESTION: To whom/what was the ransom paid? to Death or to the Father? From a simplistic point of view, a ransom is paid to a captor by a redeemer; so I surmised that the ransom was paid to Death by the Father -- Jesus' life being the currency. Some Fathers seem to believe that the ransom was paid to the Devil (which is troublesome for me) -- some Protestants argue, to the Father (which is equally confusing). Was the ransom paid to the Father, the Law, the Devil, to Sin, or to Death? to all, or some of the above?

RESPONSE: Patristics is an amazing and enlightening study and I commend you for your interest and passion for the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Regarding to whom the ransom is paid, it is like when in war when soldiers die to free their nations, their life is paid not to any one but as a price to save their country. If a parent saw a car about to hit his child so he jumped to save his son and he did save him but he died, so he paid his life to save his child but we cannot say that he paid his life to someone. In the same way the Lord Jesus Christ paid His life as a ransom to save us but He did not pay it to anyone.

[augustuslc]

I find that Orthodox and Catholics have very similar views on the vast majority of their theology, sometimes they express it with different words but the inner meaning is the same.

[scottforesman]

"Man was led into his captivity when he experienced God's wrath, this wrath being the good God's just abandonment of man. God had to be reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set free from the servitude. A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified and sinless priest" (Christopher Veniamin, trans. Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009) p. 124).

[Ben-Mosley]

Father Jeremy is wonderful. Is there a full interview coming soon?

[chiefamongsinners]

St. Justin Popovich, Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.- 1 John 2:2

“The Lord Christ is the propitiation of the Father for our sins, because praying to the Father for us sinful bearers of flesh, He points out His wounds for our sake, on His Body, the human body, which was sinless on earth, and forever remained that way. He is the propitiation of the Father for the sins of the whole world, because for the sake of all, and in the place of all, and in the name of all, He bore countless sufferings from the cradle all the way to the death on the Cross, the ultimate sacrifice, and He bore it in His infinite love of man. If it were not for the salvific propitiation for the sin of mankind, the world, by God’s righteousness, would have been destroyed many times because of its sins.”

[СаваСтанковић-ск]

Austin, this is an honest question, I know you've got more of an ecumenical stance, that Christians should reunite, and I believe you are coming from a good place, but as a monastic convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy put it: "The problem between East and West aren't that they are different, but that they are incompatible.".
You've put "versus" in the title, and I agree with that phrasing, I don't see how both can be right, so one of us can be right, or both of us could be wrong, but we can't both be right. What is your view on this?
(Don't feel pressured to give a response, I know it's a difficult question, maybe deserving of a video, or even quite a bit more time to ponder, so don't let my curiosity put you in a position where you feel like you have to give an answer)

[PaulOutsidetheWalls]

“In our place” DOES NOT have “nothing to do with us.” It is in OUR PLACE! It has everything to do with our personal salvation. Nothing could be more applicable to us. Christ is serious about our salvation by dying in our place.
Orthodoxy is anything but.

[GeorgeK]

I do feel like clarification may be needed because the analogy leaves one to believe Christ's sacrifice is incomplete in some sense or an insufficient payment.

The best analogy is the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant from Matthew 18:23-35. The debt and payment for our sake is complete and full, but it requires our participation in it. Like in the parable, if the free gift if something not embodied in our lives, it is not a reality for us.