Justification by faith is a defining issue for the Reformed faith, but it is a matter of some indifference to the Orthodox. There are a number of reasons for this. In the first place, justification by faith has no clear liturgical expression. There is little in the liturgical riches of Orthodoxy that reflects on our forgiveness and acceptance with God the equivalent of "On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand" or "Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness." Such themes do not belong to the genius of Orthodox hymnology. Orthodoxy does not sing of divine grace and human sin, but of divine grace and human accomplishment. Much of Orthodox hymnody celebrates the heroes of the faith. Second, justification receives little attention in the writings of the Fathers. Here or there one will find a brief acknowledgment or comment, but it was not a matter of extended reflection as it would become with the Reformers. Third, the emphasis in Orthodoxy is heavily on matters that we would classify under the locus of sanctification. Deification, not justification, is the predominate concern of Orthodoxy. These three reasons would seem adequate to explain the "two ships passing in the night" feel of Orthodox/Reformed discussions on justification. But there is one more reason, not as obvious, but much more profound. Orthodoxy and the Reformation have strikingly different understandings of who God is! This may seem an extreme statement since, with the exception of the procession of the Spirit, the Reformed and the Orthodox are one in their doctrine of God as trinity. Because both communities share such a unanimity on the question of who God is, it may sound irresponsible to say that these two communities have different conceptions of God. Yet both my reading and my personal conversations with the Orthodox have convinced me that this is true.
As a Reformed Christian the idea of God as holy underlies all of my theology. Closely related to holiness is the idea of God’s justice. Because God by his very nature hates and opposes all that is evil (holiness), God will give to each according to the merit of his deeds (justice). This exercise of justice is often expressed as God’s wrath. As holy and just, God is always opposed to the evil of men. His nature requires that that the evildoer be punished. Forgiveness, therefore, must be based on some satisfaction of the divine justice. The very nature of God as holy excludes the possibility that God would merely "look the other way" in regard to evil. By his own definition, God’s name signifies "by no means clearing the guilty" (Exodus 34:7). The Old Covenant economy impressed this conception of God upon the Israelites by the requirement that sin had to be atoned by the offering of an animal sacrifice in place of the worshipper. Sacrifices were required both for sinfulness in general (whole burnt offerings) and for specific sorts of sins (sin and trespass offerings). The writer of Hebrews sums this up by saying that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." In Isaiah 53 the notion of a sacrifice of atonement as the basis for forgiveness is transferred from the liturgy of the temple to the coming servant of the Lord. "But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." In the New Testament, this idea is expressed in the language of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice (Romans 3:24 ilasthrioV) or simply as propitiation (1 John 2:2, 4:10: ilasmoV). Common to all of these passages is the underlying conviction that sin must be punished, either in the person of sinner, or in a substitute. Without such a satisfaction of divine justice by a substitute sacrifice there can be no forgiveness of sins. The writer of Hebrews reminds us that if we turn away from Christ, there remains for us no sacrifice for sins, and therefore only the horrible expectation of divine wrath (10:26-29). Salvation in Reformed theology is primarily deliverance from divine wrath by divine mercy through the sacrifice of Christ.
Contemporary Orthodox sees the matter very differently. There is a considerable reluctance to speak of Christ’s death as a propitiation offered to God to turn away his just wrath. Gregory of Nanzianzus (d. 389) is often quoted as expressing the reserve of the Orthodox on this matter. In Oration 44.22 he writes: "Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth inquiring into. To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous blood of our God and high priest and sacrifice. 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 was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, lie 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 by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?"
Gregory finds himself between a theological rock and an hard place. He cannot accept the idea that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to the devil. This idea had some currency among the eastern Fathers, but for Gregory it was unthinkable. But neither can he see how the ransom was paid to God. Gregory gives two reasons for his unwillingness to see Christ as offering a ransom to God the Father. First, we were not oppressed by God. Second, God would not accept such a payment as can be seen from the offering of Isaac. As a result, Gregory can only affirm that Christ’s death ransomed us, but he cannot say how it has ransomed us. What is missing from Gregory’s theology is the biblical notion of God’s wrath. To be sure, God does not oppress us. But he does visit upon us the penalty of our wrongdoing. He does hold us accountable and culpable for our sin. He is justly angry at us (wrath) for our transgressions. He does demand that our sin be punished. Such an estimation of our situation in sin is absent from Gregory, and absent from much of Orthodoxy.
From the Reformed perspective, the obvious alternative to a payment to Satan is to affirm that Christ’s death is a payment to divine justice. Though Orthodoxy and the Reformed both reject the idea of Christ’s death as a payment to Satan, Orthodoxy is uncomfortable with the notion that God’s wrath was placated by Christ’s death. There seem to be two reasons for this. First, Orthodoxy does not consider man’s problem as "primarily" the just anger of God addressed to men for their sin. Sin brings estrangement from God to be sure, but this is rarely conceived of as God’s estrangement from men because of his holiness. God does no so much condemn sinners, as sinners condemn themselves by their alienation from God. John Zizioulas writes that "death intervenes not as a result of punishment for an act of disobedience…" (Being as Communion, p. 103).
Second, when the question of divine wrath is raised, the Orthodox tend to respond by asserting that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). We Reformed agree, but it appears that the Orthodox mean something different by that assertion than we do. For the Orthodox, the truth that God is love annuls, or at least softens, the emphasis on divine wrath in the Old Testament. In Reformed theology, because God is holy, the forgiveness of sinners requires the satisfaction of divine justice and the turning away of divine wrath. But this satisfaction is provided by the divine love. God is holy and God is love. In Reformed theology there is no tension between these two notions. However, in Orthodoxy, the concept of God’s love tends to "eat up" the notion of God’s holy justice. Therefore, God’s justice becomes a secondary concept in the Orthodox doctrine of God. Correspondingly, man’s justification before God is not a pressing matter.
Orthodoxy falls short of a consistently biblical view of who God is. This is the case, at least in part, due to a neglect of the Old Testament. The Orthodox lectionary does not include Old Testament readings. Though the psalms are extensively sung in the liturgy, they are sung selectively. Furthermore, in Orthodoxy there is a perceived tension between the revelation of God in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. No such tension exists for the Reformed.
Dr. Jack D. Kinneer