Vladimir Moss – Orthodox Christianity Author

• Home
• About
• Books
• Articles
• Publications
• Biography
• Contact

THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN

Written by Vladimir Moss

THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN

 

In the shadow and the letter of the Law, let us, the faithful, discern a figure: every male child that opens the womb shall be sanctified to God. Therefore do we magnify the firstborn Word and Son of the Father without beginning, the firstborn Child of a Mother who had not known man.

Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, Mattins, Canticle Nine, Irmos.

 

There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

Hebrews 9.22.

 

Introduction

 

     The feast of the Meeting of the Lord is one of the most mysterious in the Church calendar. Christ is brought into the Temple by His Mother and Joseph in order to be offered to the Lord in accordance with the word of the Lord to Moses: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whosoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is Mine” (Exodus 13.2). Also, the Mother brought an offering for herself, for her purification. The Law said that this offering should be “a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering”; but “if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtle doves, or two young pigeons” (Leviticus 13.6-8). Since Joseph and Mary were poor – or, perhaps, because they had given away most of their money to the poor[1]– she did not offer a lamb, but two turtle doves.

 

     At first sight, it is difficult to see why this event should be celebrated each year as one of the twelve major feasts of the Church. The Lord’s conception from the Virgin at the Annunciation; His Nativity in Bethlehem; the Revelation of the Holy Trinity and the sanctification of the waters at His Baptism; and, of course, His Death and Resurrection: these are all events that are clearly of the greatest significance, without which our salvation would be unthinkable. But in what lies the exceptional significance of the Meeting of the Lord in the Temple?

 

     In order to answer this question, we need to examine the concept of the sacrifice for sin which clearly lies at the root of the feast’s significance. The importance of this concept cannot be exaggerated: if one had to point to one common denominator of all religions, besides the existence of God, it would surely be: the blood-sacrifice for sin. We find such sacrifices in the true religion and in all the false, pagan ones, in the New Testament and in the Old.

 

The Old Testament Sacrifices

 

     In the Old Testament we find blood-sacrifices for sin carried out by the people of God even before the Law. Abel and Cain offered sacrifices to the Lord – the one pleasing in His eyes, and the other not. Noah offered sacrifices immediately after being delivered from the Flood – and it was after the Lord had smelled its “smell of sweetness” that He vowed that He would not curse the earth again (Genesis 8.21). The Patriarchs offered sacrifices to the Lord. Abraham even offered His only son Isaac – and it was his readiness to do this that caused to God to bless him and his descendants with that extraordinary blessing that contained in itself the promise of the Redeemer.

 

     The Law of Moses institutionalized the offering of sacrifices on a vast scale, with very detailed instructions on how, when and where to offer them. Protopriest-Professor T.I. Butkevich writes: “The Jews unfailingly carried out two daily blood-sacrifices: in the morning and in the evening (Exodus 29.38; Numbers 28.3, 4), besides sacrifices from individual people. There were cases when a very large quantity of blood sacrifices were offered on one day. Thus on the day of his anointing to the kingdom Solomon offered to the Lord in Gabaon 1000 whole-burnt offerings (III Kings 3.4); on the day of the sanctification of the Jerusalem temple he offered 22,000 bullocks and 120,000 sheep in sacrifice to God (III Kings 8.63; compare Chronicles 7.5). In general, Solomon unfailingly offered a multitude of sacrifices three times a year: at the feast of the unleavened bread, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of tabernacles, besides the sacrifices required by the decree of the law for every day, and also on the Sabbaths and new moons. However, abundant sacrifices were also offered by other pious kings, for example, David (II Kings 6.13), Joasaph (II Chronicles 17.4), Joash, Ozias and Hezekiah (II Chronicles 29.32, 33). On returning from the Babylonian captivity, the Jews, celebrating the consecration of the half-built temple in Jerusalem, in spite of all their poverty, offered in sacrifice to God one hundred bullocks, two hundred asses, four hundred lambs and twelve goats for the sins of the whole of Israel in accordance with the number of the twelve tribes of Israel (II Ezdra 7.7, 8). Even Herod, according to the witness of Josephus Flavius, on the day of the triumphant consecration of the temple in Jerusalem restored by him offered in sacrifice to God three hundred bullocks, while the number of animals then offered in sacrifice by individual people, says Flavius, cannot be calculated because of the unusually great number of slaughtered animals. There is an indication that sometimes on the feast of Pascha up to 260,000 lambs were slaughtered in Jerusalem.”[2]

 

     In view of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the centrality of blood-sacrifices in the worship of the Old Testament Church. But this immediately raises the question: why? After all, did not the Lord say through the Prophet-King David: “Shall I eat of the flesh of bulls? Or the blood of goats, shall I drink it? Sacrifice unto God a sacrifice of praise, and pay unto the Most High thy vows” (Psalm 49. 14-15)? And again: “If Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise” (Psalm 50.16-17). In other words, the blood of innocent victims is not what God wanted from the Jews and wants from us. What he wants is “the sacrifice of praise” and “a heart that is broken and humbled”.

 

     There are three possible ways of resolving the apparent contradiction between God’s institution of animal-sacrifices in the Old Testament, and His clear indication that in themselves these sacrifices are not pleasing to Him.

 

     The first is that animal sacrifices were introduced by God in order precisely to elicit in the Jews the feeling of compunction, of sorrow for sin, that is the real sacrifice unto God. If, when one sins, one has to sacrifice the best lamb in one’s flock, one soon comes to realize the cost of sin - the cost to oneself, but also the cost to others. Nor should this be difficult to understand even for contemporary Americans or Europeans: if we had to sacrifice our favourite pet dog or cat every time we sinned, we would undoubtedly begin to curb our sinful impulses!

 

     Thus animal-sacrifices elicit compassion or pity – pity for the animal, pity for oneself at being deprived of it, - and compassion elicits compunction. It was precisely the method of eliciting King David’s compassion that the Prophet Nathan used in order to elicit his compunction, his sorrow for the double sin of sleeping with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah: “There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. And the rich man had very many flocks and herds. But the poor man had only one little ewe lamb, which he had purchased, and preserved, and reared; and it grew up with himself and his children in common; it ate of his bread and drank of his cup, and slept in his bosom. And a traveller came to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flocks and of his herds, to dress for the traveller that came to him; and he took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that came to him. And David was greatly moved with anger against the man. And David said to Nathan, As the Lord lives, the man that did this thing shall surely die. And he shall restore the lamb seven-fold, because he has not spared. And Nathan said to David: Thou art the man that hath done this…” (II Kings 12.1-7).

 

     Since we have sinned, we “shall surely die” – that was the sentence of God on Adam and Eve. But rarely do we feel the full horror of sin, its full consequences. So God causes another, innocent victim to die in our place in order to elicit our shame, our horror, our pity and our compunction…

 

     A second reason why God may have introduced animal sacrifices was to divert the Jews from the pagan custom of sacrificing, not only animals, but even human beings, to their false gods. David speaks of the sacrifices of children that the Jews made to Baal-phegor during the exodus from Egypt and in Canaan (Psalm 105.28, 35-36). And in Judges 11 we read the tragic story of how Jephtha sacrificed his daughter in fulfilment of a vow made to God – but inspired by the devil, according to St. John Chrysostom.[3]The Law and the Prophets are full of admonitions to the Jews not to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Baal or Moloch: “Do not give your children to the service of Moloch, and do not dishonour the name of your God. I am the Lord… And the Lord said to Moses: tell the sons of Israel: whoever of the sons of Israel or of the proselytes who live among the Israelites shall give of his children to Moloch, let him be put to death” (Leviticus 18.21, 20.1). The Prophet Micah sums up the sinfulness of all such sacrifices, saying: “How shall I reach the Lord, and lay hold of my God most high? Shall I reach Him by whole-burnt-offerings, by calves of a year old? Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of fat goats? Should I give my first-born for the sin of my soul? Has it not been told you, O man, what is good? Or what does the Lord require of you except to do justice, and love mercy, and be ready to walk with the Lord your God?” (Micah 6.6-8). And again the Lord says through Ezekiel: “You took of your sons and daughters, whom you bore, and sacrificed them to be destroyed. You went a-whoring as if it were a little thing, and slew your children, and gave them up in expiatory offerings. This is beyond all your fornication…” (Ezekiel 16.20-22). Since these sacrifices were offered to demons – for “all the gods of the pagans are demons” (Psalm 95.5) – they counted as worse sins than all their previous spiritual fornication: they counted as apostasy from the Lord God of Israel.

 

     But by allowing the Jews to sacrifice, not their own children, but animals, and not on the altars of the demons, but in the temple at Jerusalem, God gradually weaned them from this vice. Thus St. John Chrysostom, commenting on Isaiah 1.2, writes that the Lord instituted animal sacrifices “out of condescension to our weakness. God acted exactly like a doctor, who, seeing that a person sick with a fever is self-willed and impatient, and wants to drink a lot of cold water, and threatens that if they do not give it him he will put a halter around his neck, or cast himself over a precipice, in order to avert the greater evil, allows the lesser, only so as to divert the sick man from a violent death… [However,] having allowed them to offer sacrifices, He allowed them to do this in no other place than Jerusalem. Then, when they had offered sacrifices for some time, He destroyed this city so as… to distract them, albeit against their will, from this matter. If He had said: stop it, they would not easily have agreed to abandon their passion for sacrifices. But now, from the sheer necessity of their being (outside Jerusalem), He drew them away from this passion…”[4] 

 

     Nevertheless, at the root of this horrific sin of child-sacrifice lay a true thought, albeit one perverted by diabolic cunning. For, as Butkevich writes, “the belief that only the death of the most innocent human being is a true sacrifice reconciling man with God runs like a red thread through all the pages of the Old Testament Divine Revelation. Only the blood of a perfect righteous man, according to the teaching of the Word of God, could wash away the impurity of Adam’s fall into sin from man. Paganism wrapped this idea in the crude form of offering infants at the breast, who had as yet no personal sins, in sacrifice to God. Paganism found nobody on earth more innocent, pure and sinless than infants at the breast. This crude form was rejected by the boundless compassion of God, but the idea itself, as the sentence of eternal and absolute Justice, was retained. It lies already at the base of the Old Testament law on the consecration to God of all the first-born. This law was given by God even before the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. ‘And the Lord said to Moses: sanctify to Me every first-born that opens the womb from among the sons of Israel’ (Exodus 13.1, 2). And this law was repeated more than once: compare Exodus 22.29, Numbers 3.13 and 8.17. But what does to sanctify somebody to God mean? First of all (according to the explanation of Moses himself), it means to slaughter the one who is sanctified and offer him in sacrifice; and then already in a figurative sense ‘to give him to the Lord for all the days of his life to serve the Lord’ (I Kings 1.28). God Himself announced through Moses to the Jewish people: ‘Every dedicated thing which a man shall dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether man or beast, or of the field of his possession, he shall not sell it, nor redeem it: every devoted thing shall be most holy to the Lord. And whatever shall be dedicated of men, shall not be ransomed, but shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 27.28, 29).”[5]

 

     And yet there was an exception to the rule that that which was dedicated to the Lord could not be ransomed. As Butkevich writes: “Immediately after declaring the law on the dedication of the first-born, the Lord commands the Jewish people through Moses not to offer their first-born in sacrifice, but to ransom them. This is what Moses told his people on this score: ‘Redeem every first-born of man. And when your son will ask you, saying, What is this?, then you will say to him: with a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh was stubborn and would not let us go, the Lord killed all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of man to the first-born of beast. Therefore do I sacrifice to the Lord everything that opens the womb of the male sex, and every firstborn from my sons I redeem’ (Exodus 13.13-15). The Lord repeated His command through Moses a little later: ‘Redeem all the first-born of your sons’ (Exodus 34.20). At first the Jewish first-born to a significant extent were substituted by the Levites, who were separated exclusively for the service of God (cf. Numbers 3.45). Then they were ransomed with money: five shekels per person.[6]But above all, and exclusively later on, [they were ransomed] by sacrificial animals. Prosperous and rich people had to offer for their son a one-year lamb for a whole-burnt-offering and a young dove or pigeon as a sin offering; while poor people who did not have enough to acquire a lamb had to offer two pigeons or two young doves, one for a whole-burnt-offering and the other for a sin offering (cf. Leviticus 12.6-8). In this way we already see clearly here that the Old Testament Jewish blood sacrifices took the place of the sacrifice of people themselves…”[7]

 

The Sacrifice of the First-Born

 

     However, there is more to be said about the sacrifice of the first-born, which will reveal to us both why it occupies such a pivotal place in the whole system of sacrificial worship, and why - the third and most fundamental reason why - God introduced animal-sacrifices in the Old Testament.

 

     Let us recall the Exodus story that gave rise to it. God called the Jews to make a journey of three days into the wilderness in order to offer sacrifices to Himself (Exodus 4.18). Since Pharaoh refused to allow them to go, he and his people were subjected to the ten plagues of Egypt, the last and most terrible of which was the destruction of all the first-born of Egypt. However, since the Jews, in accordance with God’s instructions, sacrificed a lamb and smeared his blood on the lintel and door-posts of their houses, they were spared this destruction, and the Angel of death passed over them. This lamb, the paschal lamb, as we learn from the Scriptures of the New Testament, is a shadow and a type of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Blood of Whose Sacrifice on the Cross redeems us from sin and death, allowing us to pass over from death to life. “For Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (I Corinthians 5.7). And so the primary purpose of the very first animal sacrifice explicitly commanded by the Lord (although the Patriarchs also practised animal sacrifice, as we have seen, there is no record of their being explicitly commanded to do so in the Holy Scriptures) cannot be said to have been to elicit sorrow for sin among the Jews, nor to distract them from idol-worship, but rather to save them from slavery and death. In the Old Testament story, the blood of the lamb saved them from slavery to Pharaoh and physical death. In its New Testament fulfilment in Christ, the Blood of the Lamb saves all believers from slavery to Satan and spiritual death.

 

     So fundamental is the Exodus story and its inner meaning to the true worship of God that the Lord not only commanded its celebration and re-enactment at the most important feast of the Jewish year, Pascha, but also instituted the practice of dedicating the first-born sons of the Jews to the Lord through the Temple priesthood.

 

     This had two purposes. The first was to remind the Jews of how, through the mercy of God, their first-born had been spared the fate of the first-born of Egypt. The second, and more important, was to hint at the real identity of the Lamb Who had delivered them, and at the context in which He would be revealed to Israel…

 

     This is where the Gospel account of the Meeting of the Lord in the Temple becomes so important. Christ is offered as the first-born of His Mother and supposed father. But He is not one first-born among many. He is the only first-born who literally fulfils the commandment of the Law. For, as Blessed Theophylact writes, “The law said, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. Only with Christ did this literally occur. He Himself opened the womb of the Virgin at His birth, while all other wombs which have borne a child have been first opened by a man…”[8]

 

     The virginity of Mary was known to the small band assembled in the Temple that day. For, as St. Demetrius of Rostov writes, “The Holy Fathers [Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria and Andrew of Crete] relate that the Prophet Zacharias, father of the Forerunner, entered the Temple to participate in the rite of the Purification of the immaculate Virgin. He had the Theotokos stand not in the place assigned to mothers waiting for cleansing, but in that for maidens, where married women were not allowed. Seeing this, the scribes and Pharisees murmured. Zacharias announced to them that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth. As they did not believe him, the saint explained that all creation serves its Master and is in His power, and that God is perfectly capable of enabling a virgin to give birth and remain a virgin. ‘Most truly, she is a virgin,’ he insisted: ‘wherefore, I have permitted her to stand in the place appointed for virgins’.”[9]So Christ was the First-Born in a special and unique sense, both Divinely and humanly speaking. As the liturgical text puts it: “the firstborn Word and Son of the Father without beginning, the firstborn Child of a Mother who had not known man”.

 

     Then the Elder Symeon, having been told by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had seen the Lord’s Christ, entered the Temple, and, taking the Lord in his arms, uttered the famous words: “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people Israel…”

 

     St. Ephraim the Syrian offers a profound interpretation of this act: “Symeon the priest[10], when he took Him up in his arms to present Him before God, understood as he saw [Him] that He was not presenting Him, but was being himself presented. For the Son was not presented by the servant to His Father, but the servant was presented by the Son to his Lord. For it is not possible that He, by Whom every offering is presented, should be presented by another. For the offering does not present him that offers it; but by them that offer are offerings presented. So then He Who receives offerings gave Himself to be offered by another, that those who presented Him, while offering Him, might themselves be presented by Him. For as He gave His Body to be eaten, that when eaten It might quicken to life them that ate Him; so He gave Himself to be offered, that by His Cross the hands of them that offered Him might be sanctified. So, then, though the arms of Symeon seemed to be presenting the Son, yet the words of Symeon testified that he was presented by the Son. There can be no dispute about this, because that which was said put an end to dispute: ‘Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace’. He, then, who is allowed to depart in peace to God, is presented as an offering to God…”[11]

 

     At this moment, therefore, the Old Testament meets the New and gives way to the latter. Or, as St. Ephraim puts it, the priesthood and prophecy of the Old Testament pours itself, in the person of Symeon, into the High Priest and Prophet of the New Testament, in the person of Christ: “Accordingly, the Son came to the servant; not that the Son might be presented by the servant, but that by the Son the servant might present to His Lord Priesthood and Prophecy, to be laid up with Him. For prophecy and priesthood, which were given through Moses, were handed down, both of them, and reached to Symeon. For he was a pure vessel, who sanctified himself that he might be like Moses, capable for both of them… And so Symeon presented our Lord, and in Him offered both these things; so that that which was given to Moses in the wilderness was received from Symeon in the Temple. But seeing that our Lord is the vessel wherein all fullness dwells, when Symeon was offering Him before God, he poured over Him (as a drink-offering) those two (gifts), priesthood from his hands and prophecy from his lips. Priesthood continued on the hands of Symeon, because of his purifications; and prophecy dwelt in operation upon his lips, because of revelations. When then these two powers saw Him Who was Lord of both, they two united together and poured themselves into the vessel that was capable of both, that could contain priesthood and kingdom and prophecy…”[12]

 

The Priesthood of the New Testament

 

     Our probe into the inner meaning of the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord has revealed that at least three major events were concealed within the one:

 

1.      Christ, the Great High Priest of the New Testament and Creator of the Old, the one and only First-Born of both God and man, appeared in the Old Testament Temple before the last worthy representatives of the Old Testament priesthood, Zachariah and Symeon.

2.      The gift of the Old Testament priesthood was returned by Symeon to Him Who gave it, the Great High Priest of the New.

3.      The Ministry of the New Testament Priesthood was begun by Christ’s Self-dedication and Self-sanctification, in accordance with His words in the High-Priestly prayer: “I sanctify Myself” (John 17.19).

 

     As the kontakion of the Feast puts it: “Thou hast even now by anticipation saved us.”[13]So at the Presentation Christ saved us “by anticipation” - in anticipation, that is, of the completion of the Sacrifice on Golgotha. We can put it more strongly: the Sacrifice on Golgotha was not only anticipated but also begun here, in the Temple.

 

     Naturally, therefore, Symeon immediately speaks about the Cross: “This Child is set for the fall and resurrection of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against” (Luke 2.34). “The fall and resurrection of many”, as Blessed Theophylact says, is “the fall of those who do not believe, and the resurrection of those who believe”. And the “sign” is “the Cross, which until this very day is spoken against, that is, it is rejected by those who do not believe”.[14]In other words, the Ministry of the New Testament consists in the Death of Christ on the Cross, and its aim is the resurrection of many to true spiritual life through right belief in His Death and Resurrection.

 

     And so, while the first-born of Israel escaped death in Egypt through the blood of the paschal lamb, and all the following generations of first-born also escaped immolation by being ransomed through the offering of the animals or the five shekels, the one and only First-Born of God the Father and Mary the Virgin did not, and could not, escape death. For of Him alone it was said in the Law that He “shall not be ransomed, but shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 27.28, 29).” For the paschal lamb slaughtered in Egypt, and the lamb offered by the rich in the place of their first-born are, typologically speaking, Christ the First-Born. He must be slaughtered, because while some sacrifices can be ransomed, there is no real forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9.22). Or, to put it more precisely: in the eyes of absolute Justice, the radical extirpation of sin, including the original sin of Adam, is possible only through the supreme Sacrifice, the shedding of the Blood of the most perfect creature…

 

     But since no man born of Adam could offer a perfect sacrifice, being corrupted by sin, the sinless Creator Himself had to become man and offer Himself in sacrifice, becoming the Lamb slain not only in time, but before time, “from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13.8). He could not be ransomed, because He was an offering beyond price; but precisely for that reason His Blood could be a ransom for many, for all those who believe in Him. For “the Son of Man came… to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20.28), “as a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2.6), “as a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2.17).

 

     At His Meeting with the Old Testament priesthood in the Temple, Christ as the High Priest of the New Testament dedicated Himself as an offering to the Lord. This was the beginning of the path to Golgotha, when He could say of His Sacrifice: “It is finished”. It was the beginning of the path that led to His offering the already-completed Sacrifice to His disciples in His Body and Blood. For, as St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: “He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world’. When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples, for this much is clear to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten is preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”[15]

 

     Again, St. John Chrysostom writes: “Why does He say: ‘This cup is the New Testament’? Because there was also a cup of the Old Testament: the libations and blood of brute creatures. For after sacrificing, they used to receive the blood in a chalice and bowl and so pour it out. Since that time, instead of the blood of beasts, He brought in His own Blood. Lest any should be troubled on hearing this, He reminds them of the ancient sacrifice…”[16]

 

     So there is the old sacrifice, and there is the New Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the cup of the New Testament. The former prefigures the latter, and illumines Its meaning, and the coming of the latter makes the former redundant. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law” (Hebrews 7.12). “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering [of animals] Thou wouldest not, but a Body [of the God-Man] hast Thou prepared for Me…” (Hebrews 10.4-5).

 

An Objection Answered

 

     The above understanding of the Sacrifice for sin is rejected by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in his well-known book, The Dogma of Redemption.[17]He rejects the concept of Christ’s redemption as a sacrifice made to the Justice of God, calling this the “juridical theory” of redemption and “scholastic”. In reply to this objection, and in order to consolidate the traditional teaching, we cite here an article by Archbishop Theophan of Poltava:-

 

     “[Metropolitan Anthony] gives a metaphorical, purely moral meaning to the Sacrifice on Golgotha, interpreting it in the sense of his own world-view, which he calls the world-view of moral monism.[18]But he decisively rejects the usual understanding of the Sacrifice on Golgotha, as a sacrifice in the proper meaning of the word, offered out of love for us by our Saviour to the justice of God, for the sin of the whole human race. He recognizes it to be the invention of the juridical mind of the Catholic and Protestant theologians. It goes without saying that with this understanding of the redemptive feat of the Saviour the author had to establish a point of view with regard to the Old Testament sacrifices, the teaching on which has up to now been a major foundation for the teaching on the Saviour’s Sacrifice on Golgotha. And that is what we see in fact. The author rejects the generally accepted view of the sacrifices as the killing of an innocent being in exchange for a sinful person or people that is subject to execution. ‘In the eyes of the people of the Old Testament’, in the words of the author, ‘a sacrifice meant only a contribution, just as Christians now offer [candles, kutiya and eggs] in church… But nowhere [in the Old Testament] will one encounter the idea that the animal being sacrificed was thought of as taking upon itself the punishment due to man.’[19] 

 

     “Our author points to St. Gregory the Theologian as being one of the Fathers of the Church who was a decisive opponent of the teaching on sacrifice, in the general sense of the word. In the given case he has in mind the following, truly remarkable (but not to the advantage of the author) words of the great Theologian on the Sacrifice on Golgotha:

 

     “’We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom this was offered, and for what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, on what principle did the Blood of His Only-begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered up by his father, but changed his sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of his human victim?’[20]”[21]

 

     However, St. Gregory, unlike Metropolitan Anthony, does not reject the juridical model, but rather embraced its essence. If the metropolitan had started quoting the saint a little earlier, then he would have read that the blood shed for us is “the precious and famous Blood of our God and High-priest and Sacrifice”. And if he had continued the quotation just one sentence more, he would have read that “the Father accepts the sacrifice, but neither asked for it, nor felt any need of it, but on account of the oeconomy”.

 

     “Evidently,” writes Archbishop Theophan, “the author understood that this quotation in its fullness witnesses against his assertion and therefore in the 1926 edition of The Dogma of Redemption he does not give a reference to St. Gregory the Theologian”[22]

 

     The archbishop continues: “From the cited words of St. Gregory it is evident that he by no means rejects the teaching that the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha was a sacrifice; he only rejects the theory created in order to explain it that this sacrifice was to be seen as offered by Christ the Saviour as a ransom for the sinful race of men to the devil[23]. As is well known, such a theory did exist and was developed by Origen and in part by St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory the Theologian with complete justification recognizes this theory to be without foundation, as did St. John of Damascus later (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book III, ch. 27). He thought it just and well-founded to consider the sacrifice as offered to God the Father, but not in the sense that the Father ‘demanded or needed’ it, but according to the economy of salvation, that is, because, in the plan of Divine Providence, it was necessary for the salvation of the human race.[24]Besides, although it is said that the Father receives the Sacrifice, while the Son offers it, the thought behind it is that the Son offers it as High Priest, that is, according to His human nature, while the Father receives it indivisibly with the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Triune God, according to the oneness and indivisibility of the Divine Essence.”[25]

 

     Still further proof of St. Gregory’s real views is provided by his writing that “Christ Himself offers Himself to God [the Father], so that He Himself might snatch us from him who possessed us, and so that the Anointed One should be received instead of the one who had fallen, because the Anointer cannot be caught”.[26]And again: “He is called ‘Redemption’ because He set us free from the bonds of sin and gives Himself in exchange for us as a ransom sufficient to cleanse the world.”[27]

 

     Returning now to the question of the Old Testament sacrifices, Metropolitan Anthony rejects their prefigurative significance. However, as Archbishop Theophan writes, “in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, these sacrifices were, on the one hand, concessions to Israel’s childishness, and were designed to draw him away from pagan sacrifices; but on the other hand, in these victims the Old Testament law prefigured the future Sacrifice on Golgotha[28]. In particular, the Old Testament paschal Lamb had this mystically prefigurative significance[29].

 

     “’Everything that took place in the time of the worship of God in the Old Testament,’ says John Chrysostom, ‘in the final analysis refers to the Saviour, whether it is prophecy or the priesthood, or the royal dignity, or the temple, or the altar of sacrifice, or the veil of the temple, or the ark, or the place of purification, or the manna, or the rod, or anything else – everything relates to Him.

 

     “’God from ancient times allowed the sons of Israel to carry out a sacrificial service to Him not because He took pleasure in sacrifices, but because he wanted to draw the Jews away from pagan vanities…. Making a concession to the will of the Jews, He, as One wise and great, by this very permission to offer sacrifices prepared an image of future things, so that the victim, though in itself useless, should nevertheless be useful as such an image. Pay attention, because this is a deep thought. The sacrifices were not pleasing to God, as having been carried out not in accordance with His will, but only in accordance with His condescension. He gave to the sacrifices an image corresponding to the future oeconomy of Christ, so that if in themselves they were not worthy to be accepted, they at least became welcome by virtue of the image they expressed. By all these sacrifices He expresses the image of Christ and foreshadows future events…’[30]”[31]

 

     After quoting from St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria to similar effect, Archbishop Theophan continues: “But if the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church look at the Old Testament sacrifices in this way, then still more significance must they give to the redemptive death of Christ the Saviour for the human race on Golgotha. And this is indeed what we see. They all recognize the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha to be a sacrifice offered by Him as a propitiation for the human race - and that, moreover, in the most literal, not at all metaphorical meaning of this word. And from this point of view the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is for them ‘the great mystery’ of the redemption of the human race from sin, the curse and death and ‘the great mystery’ of the reconciliation of sinful humanity with God.

 

     “St. Gregory the Theologian, in expounding his view on the Old Testament sacrifices as being prefigurations of the great New Testament Sacrifice, notes: ‘But in order that you should understand the depth of the wisdom and the wealth of the unsearchable judgements of God, God did not leave even the [Old Testament] sacrifices completely unsanctified, unperfected and limited only to the shedding of blood, but to the sacrifices under the law is united the great and in relation to the Primary Essence, so to speak, untempered Sacrifice – the purification not of a small part of the universe, and not for a short time, but of the whole world for eternity’.

 

     “By this great Sacrifice he understands the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, Who shed His blood for the salvation of the human race on Golgotha, which is why he often calls Him ‘God, High Priest and Victim’. ‘He gave Himself for us for redemption, for a purifying sacrifice for the universe’.[32]

 

     “’For us He became man and took on the form of a servant, he was led to death for our iniquities’.[33]

 

     “’He is God, High Priest and Victim’.[34]

 

     “’He was Victim, but also High Priest; Priest, but also God; He offered as a gift to God [His own] blood, but [by It] He cleansed the whole world; He was raised onto the Cross, but to the Cross was nailed the sin of all mankind’.[35]

 

     “He redeems the world by His own blood’.[36]

 

     “St. Athanasius of Alexandria says about the Sacrifice of the Saviour on Golgotha: ‘He, being the true Son of the Father, later became man for us so as to give Himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father and redeem us through His sacrifice and offering (Ephesians 5.2). He was the same Who in ancient times led the people out of Egypt, and later redeemed all of us, or rather, the whole human race, from death, and raised us from hell. He is the same Who from the age was offered as a sacrifice, as a Lamb, and in the Lamb was represented prefiguratively. And finally He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. “For even Christ our Pascha is sacrificed for us” (I Corinthians 5.7).’[37]

 

     “’By His death was accomplished the salvation of all, and the whole of creation was redeemed. He is the common Life of all, and He gave His body to death as a sheep for a redemptive sacrifice for the salvation of all, though the Jews do not believe this.’[38]

 

     “St. Gregory of Nyssa reasons in a similar way.

 

     “‘Jesus, as Zachariah says, is the Great High Priest (Zachariah 3.1), Who offered His Lamb, that is, His flesh, in sacrifice for the sins of the world, and for the sake of the children who partake of flesh and blood Himself partook of blood (Hebrews 11.14). This Jesus became High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not in respect of what He was before, being the Word and God and in the form of God and equal to God, but in respect of that fact that He spent Himself in the form of a servant and offered an offering and sacrifice for us’.[39]

 

     “’He is our Pascha (I Corinthians 5.6) and High Priest (Hebrews 12.11). For in truth Christ the Pascha was consumed for us; but the priest who offers to God the Sacrifice is none other than the Same Christ. For in Himself, as the [Apostle] says, “He hath given Himself for us as an offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5.2).’[40]

 

      “’By means of priestly acts He in an ineffable manner unseen by men offers an offering and sacrifice for us, being at the same time the Priest and the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world’.[41]

 

     “We find much material on the given question in the same spirit in the works of St. John Chrysostom.

 

     “’The oeconomy that was to be accomplished in the New Testament,’ says this Holy Father in his interpretation on the Gospel of John, ‘was foreshadowed beforehand in prefigurative images; while Christ by His Coming accomplished it. What then does the type say? “Take ye a lamb for an house, and kill it, and do as He commanded and ordained’ (Exodus 12). But Christ did not do that; He did not command this, but Himself became as a Lamb, offering Himself to the Father as a sacrifice and offering’.[42]

 

     “’When John the Forerunner saw Christ, he said to his disciples: “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1.35). By this he showed them all the gift which He came to give, and the manner of purification. For “the Lamb” declares both these things. And John did not say, “Who shall take”, or “Who hath taken”, but “Who taketh away the sins of the world”, because Christ always does this. In fact, he took them away not only then when He suffered, but from that time even to the present He takes away sins, not as if He were always being crucified (for He at one time offered sacrifice for sins), but since by that one sacrifice He is continually purging them.’[43]

 

     “’This blood was ever typified of old in the altars and sacrifices determined by the law. It is the price of the world, by it Christ redeemed the Church, by it He adorned the whole of her.’[44]‘This blood in types cleansed sins. But if it had such power in the types, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality?’[45]

 

     “’David after the words: “Sacrifice and offering hast Thou not desired”, added: “but a body hast Thou perfected for me” (Psalm 39.9), understanding by this the body of the Master, a sacrifice for the whole universe, which cleansed our souls, absolved our sins, destroyed death, opened the heavens, showed us many great hopes and ordered all the rest’.[46]

 

    “St. John Chrysostom’s reasoning on the mystery of the Sacrifice on Golgotha is particularly remarkable in his discourse, On the Cross and the Thief, which he delivered, as is evident from the discourse itself, on Great Friday in Holy Week. ’Today our Lord Jesus Christ is on the Cross, and we celebrate, so that you should know that the Cross is a feast and a spiritual triumph. Formerly the Cross was the name of a punishment, but now it has become an honourable work; before it was a symbol of condemnation, but now it has become the sign of salvation… It has enlightened those sitting in darkness, it has reconciled us, who were in enmity with God… Thanks to the Cross we do not tremble before the tyrant, because we are near the King. That is why we celebrate in commemorating the Cross…. In fact, one and the same was both victim and priest: the victim was the flesh, and the priest was the spirit. One and the same offers and was offered in the flesh. Listen to how Paul explained both the one and the other. “For every high priest,” he says, “chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins… Hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer” (Hebrews 5.1, 8.3). So He Himself offers Himself. And in another place he says that “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation” (Hebrews 9.28)….’[47]

 

     ”St. Cyril of Alexandria reasons as follows with regard to the words of John the Forerunner on the Saviour: ‘”Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1.29). It was necessary to reveal Who was the One Who came to us and why He descends from heaven to us. And so “Behold”, he says, “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world”, to Whom the Prophet Isaiah pointed in the words: “As a sheep for the slaughter is he led and as a lamb before the shearers is he silent” (Isaiah 53.7) and Who was prefigured in the law of Moses. But then He saved only in part, without extending His mercy on all, for it was a figure and a shadow. But now He Who once was depicted by means of enigmas, the True Lamb, the Spotless Victim, is led to the slaughter for all, so as to expel the sin of the world and cast down the destroyer of the universe, so that by His death for all He might abolish death and lift the curse that was on us, so that, finally, the punishment that was expressed in the words: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3.19) might cease and the second Adam might appear – not from the earth, but from the heaven (I Corinthians 15.47) – and become for human nature the beginning of a great good, the destruction of the corruption wrought [by sin], the author of eternal life, the founder of the transformation [of man] according to God, the beginning of piety and righteousness, the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. One Lamb died for all, saving for God and the Father a whole host of men, One for all so that all might be subjected to God, One for all so as to acquire all, “that those who live might live no longer for themselves but from Him Who for their sake died and was raised” (II Corinthians 5.15). Insofar as we were in many sins and therefore subject to death and corruption, the Father gave the son to deliver us (I Timothy 2.6), One for all, since all are in Him and He is above all. One died for all so that all should live in Him.’[48]St. Cyril’s general view of the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is such that on Golgotha Emmanuel ‘offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father not for Himself, according to the irreproachable teaching, but for us who were under the yoke and guilt of sin’.[49]‘He offered Himself as a holy sacrifice to God and the Father, having bought by His own blood the salvation of all’.[50]‘For our sakes he was subjected to death, and we were redeemed from our former sins by reason of the slaughter which He suffered for us’.[51]‘In Him we have been justified, freed from a great accusation and condemnation, our lawlessness has been taken from us: for such was the aim of the oeconomy towards us of Him Who because of us, for our sakes and in our place was subject to death’.[52]

 

     “St. Basil the Great in his epistle to Bishop Optimus writes: ‘The Lord had to taste death for each, and having become a propitiatory sacrifice for the world, justify all by His blood’.[53]He develops his thought on the death on the Cross of Christ the Saviour in more detail as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of the human race in his interpretation of Psalm 48, at the words: “There be some that trust in their strength, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches. A brother cannot redeem; shall a man redeem? He shall not give to God a ransom [exilasma] for himself, nor the price of the redemption of his own soul” (Psalm 48.7-9): ‘This sentence is directed by the prophet to two types of persons: to the earthborn and to the rich…. You, he says, who trust in your own strength…. And you, he says, who trust in the uncertainty of riches, listen…. You have need of ransoms that you may be transferred to the freedom of which you were deprived when conquered by the power of the devil, who, taking you under his control, does not free you from his tyranny until, persuaded by some worthwhile ransom, he wishes to exchange you. And the ransom must not be of the same kind as the things which are held in his control, but must differ greatly, if he would willingly free the captives from slavery. Therefore a brother is not able to ransom you. For no man can persuade the devil to remove from his power him who has once been subject to him, not he, at any rate, who is incapable of giving God a propitiatory offering even for his own sins…. But one thing was found worth as much as all men together. This was given for the price of ransom for our souls, the holy and highly honoured blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for all of us; therefore we were bought at a great price (I Corinthians 6.20)…. No one is sufficient to redeem himself, unless He comes who turns away “the captivity of the people” (Exodus 13.8), not with ransoms nor with gifts, as it is written in Isaiah (52.3), but with His own blood… He Who “shall not give to God His own ransom”, but that of the whole world. He does not need a ransom, but He Himself is the propitiation. “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and become higher than the heavens. He does not need to offer sacrifices daily (as the other priests did), first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 7.26-27).’[54]

 

     “’The Scriptures do not reject all sacrifices in general,’ writes St. Basil the Great in his interpretation on the book of the Prophet Isaiah, ‘but the Jewish sacrifices. For he says: “What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices?” (Isaiah 1.11). He does not approve of the many, but demands the one sacrifice. Every person offers himself as a sacrifice to God, presenting himself as “a living sacrifice, pleasing to God”, through “rational service” he has offered to God the sacrifice of praise (Romans 12.1). But insofar as the many sacrifices under the law have been rejected as useless, the one sacrifice offered in the last times is accepted. For the Lamb of God took upon Himself the sin of the world, “gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5.2)… There are no longer the “continual” sacrifices (Exodus 29.42), there are no sacrifices on the day of atonement, no ashes of the heifer cleansing “the defiled persons” (Hebrews 9.13). For there is one sacrifice of Christ and the mortification of the saints in Christ; one sprinkling – “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3.5); one propitiation for sin – the Blood poured out for the salvation of the world.’[55]

 

     “Finally, St. John of Damascus says the following about the mystery of the sacrifice on Golgotha: “Every action and performance of miracles by Christ are most great and divine and marvelous: but the most marvelous of all is His precious Cross. For no other thing has subdued death, expiated the sin of the first parent [propatoroV amartia], despoiled Hades, bestowed the resurrection, granted the power to us of condemning the present and even death itself, prepared the return to our former blessedness, opened the gates of Paradise, given our nature a seat at the right hand of God, and made us children and heirs of God, save the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’.[56]Therefore, according to the words of the holy father, ‘we must bow down to the very Wood on which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us, since it is sanctified through contact with the body and blood’.[57]

 

     “This is what the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church teach about the mystery of the sacrifice of the Saviour on Golgotha for the sins of the human race. But that is not all. This teaching was even formally confirmed by a whole local council of the Church of Constantinople in 1156. This council was convened because of different understandings of the well-known words in the liturgical prayer, where it is said of Christ the Saviour: ‘Thou art He that offereth and is offered, that accepteth and is distributed’.[58]The initial reasons for this difference, according to the account of a contemporary historian, Kinnamas, was the following circumstance. A certain Deacon Basil during Divine service in the Church of St. John the Theologian declared while giving a sermon on the daily Gospel reading that ‘the one Son of God Himself became a sacrifice and accepted the sacrifice together with the Father’. Two deacons of the Great Church who were present at this found in the words of Basil an incorrect thought, as if two hypostases were thereby admitted in Jesus Christ, of which one was offered in sacrifice and the other accepted the sacrifice. Together with the others who thought like them they spread the idea that the Saviour’s sacrifice for us was offered only to God the Father. In order to obtain a more exact explanation and definition of the Orthodox teaching, the conciliar sessions took place, at the will of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, on January 26 and May 12, 1156. The first conciliar session took place in the hall attached to the Great Church as a result of the inquiry of the just-appointed Metropolitan Constantine of Russia, who was hastening to leave: was it truly necessary to understand the words of the prayer as he understood them, that the sacrifice was offered and is offered to the whole of the Holy Trinity? The council, under the presidency of the Patriarch of Constantinople Constantine Kliarenos, confirmed the teaching expressed of old by the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, whose works were read at the council, that both at the beginning, during the Master’s sufferings, the life-creating flesh and blood of Christ was offered, not to the Father only, but also to the whole of the Holy Trinity, and now, during the daily performed rites of the Eucharist, the bloodless sacrifice is offered to the Trihypostatic Trinity”, and laid an anathema on the defenders of the error, whoever they might be, if they still adhered to their heresy and did not repent. ”[59]

 

     “From this historical note it is evident that the council of 1156 considered it indisputable that the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is a propitiatory sacrifice for the human race. It was occupied only with the question to which this sacrifice was offered and decided it in the sense that the sacrifice was offered by Christ the Saviour to the All-Holy Trinity. Moreover, Christ the Saviour Himself was at the same time both the sacrifice and High Priest offering the sacrifice in accordance with His human nature, and God receiving the sacrifice, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to the resolution of the council, the eucharistic sacrifice is the same sacrifice, by its link with the sacrifice on Golgotha. Those who thought otherwise were subjected by the council to anathema…”[60]

 

Vladimir Moss.

January 25 / February 7, 2008.

St. Gregory the Theologian.

‹‹ Back to All Articles