 » Site Navigation | | | |  | 
06-04-2009, 10:44 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Elkton, MD
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 91
Thanked 547 Times in 189 Posts
| | | Theodoret, Imputation?
Given some of the questions raised in this thread, Basil of Caesarea on justification, and the comments I posted there by the Eastern Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff on how the Eastern Church never developed a view of atonement that included the Anselmian theory of “satisfaction,” I wanted to follow up to demonstrate that the concepts, as such, of imputation and substitution were expressed occasionally by ancient eastern theologians, even if the specific language was not employed by them. A case in point would be that of Theodoret below. One may be amused by his explanation of why he distinguishes, as he does, between the reasons for the use of a he-goat for the one scenario described versus a she-goat for the other, but leaving that questionable exegesis aside, notice... Quote: Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Why did the priests lay their hands on the victims before sacrificing them?
The priests did not lay their hands on all the victims, but only on those they offered for themselves, especially the sin offerings. In other cases, the person offering the sacrifice put his hands on the victim. This was a sign that the victim took the place of the offerer by undergoing death for him.
We should note that a calf was offered for the high priest, a calf likewise for all the people, a he-goat for the ruler, and a she-goat for each man. It was appropriate, you see, that a male be offered for the ruler, but a female for the ruled, since God at the outset subjected the woman to Adam.
Now the calf sacrificed for sin was burned outside the camp. Therefore, as the holy apostle says, Christ the Lord also “suffered outside the gate.” He, thus, provided the fulfillment of the type. Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, On Genesis and Exodus, Questions on Exodus, LXI (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 327.
| This does seem to indicate that both the concepts of imputation and penal substitution were present in the mind of Theodoret, even though the specific language for them is not employed by him.
DTK
__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DTK For This Useful Post: | |
06-04-2009, 01:02 PM
|  | Use Bat Lip Balm | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 6,659
Thanks: 191
Thanked 2,436 Times in 1,347 Posts
| | |
It seems like it would be quite difficult to avoid those concepts when reading Leviticus.
Thank you for the engaging quote.
| |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
