Blessed Theophylact on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Galatians 3:13 states: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13).

Commenting on this verse, Blessed Theophylact states:

One might argue: “It is true that he who does not fulfill the law is accursed, and that faith justifies. But how do we know that the curse has been lifted? We fear that having once been under the yoke of the law, we still remain under that curse.” Anticipating such an objection, Paul demonstrates that the curse has been removed through Christ. He paid the price by Himself becoming the curse and thereby redeeming us from the condemnation of the law. Christ (in His human nature) escaped that curse by fulfilling the law, but we, unable to fulfill it, were guilty under the law. This is like an innocent man who chooses to die in place of a guilty man condemned to death. Therefore, Christ accepted the curse of being hung from a tree and thereby loosed the curse to which we are liable for not fulfilling the law. This was a curse that lay upon us, but not upon Him, because He fulfilled the law perfectly, committing no sin.

This comment by Blessed Theophylact echoes that of St. John Chrysostom, who centuries earlier stated of this verse:

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law” (Deuteronomy 27:26). To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22). And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

These two comments both agree in the principle of substitution, where the innocent takes the place of the guilty, dying in his place. In the place of the guilty, Christ received a curse in order to die in his place. Christ received the punishment of the curse in the place of the cursed, and so both of these comments agree on the principle of penalty. In this penal substitution both commentators also agree on the principle of atonement, that Christ paid the price of sin, delivering and redeeming sinful man from the law he was guilty of breaking, having Himself fulfilled the law perfectly. Therefore, both commentators agree to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Deal-Breaker: Voting Christian in a Democratic Constitutional Republic

In approaching the intersection between Orthodoxy and voting, it is vital to distinguish between a political personality and a political platform. In a Republic we do not vote for a personality as much as we vote for a platform. To get lost in personality in regards to political advocacy is a cul de sac.

That being said, if a platform explicitly and directly advocates sin, such as the sin of legalized and even federally funded abortion, then to vote in favor of that platform is to endorse and even participate in that sin, and therefore to be guilty of it. This kind of situation is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. A Christian cannot guiltlessly vote for a platform whose substance includes the explicit advocacy of sin.

The foregoing is different from a situation in which a platform does not advocate some sin, but where some sin may seek to attach itself as a consequence of that platform's position. For the sin which may be consequent to that platform is not necessary to the platform itself. Although the sin may be a result of that platform at the moment, it can be corrected because it is not necessary to the platform itself.

If the position of abortion is a direct platform position of some Party, then it is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. That does not necessitate a vote for any other Party if that Party also has a Platform for direct advocacy of sin, but it does at minimum remove that other Party with a Platform sin from legitimate consideration for an Orthodox Christian.

At this point a confusion may arise, for it could be the case that, say, the Liberal Party has a better policy than the Conservative Party on some important issue, such as access to medical care. Let's say hypothetically this is the case. Now, the Conservative Party does not have a platform position which programmatically denies healthcare to anyone, but perhaps makes it difficult for some people to receive healthcare as an amenable consequence of their position. In other words, the Conservative Platform does not aim to legalize medical discrimination, even if it could happen that medical discrimination might occur as a result of their policy. If in fact this discrimination was the result, then it would be perfectly consistent with their Platform to also try to solve that or any problem created by their policies.

On the other hand, the Liberal Party has a direct aim to legalize the slaying of unborn children. Therefore, abortion is not an accident, not an unintended consequence of their policy, but a directly intended outcome. Thus, even though they may hypothetically have a better position re: access to medical care, their direct advocacy of abortion makes one voting for them for the sake of medical care yet complicit in every abortion that results from their larger platform.

It therefore does not matter if they have a better policy as regards health care. Infanticide is a sin, whereas voting for imperfect healthcare policies that can be amended through further development is not a sin because one is not voting for the unintended consequences of that policy. One can only be held responsible for what the platform directly and explicitly advocates. Although one is not thereby compelled to vote Conservative because of that fact, it would seem that since no Conservative policy directly advocates for medical discrimination, then voting Conservatively in this instance would not be the advocacy of any sin. Voting for the Liberal Party and its abortionistic Liberal Platform, however, certainly leaves the blood of dead infants on one's hands.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping