The Concept of Redemption in the Patristic Tradition

4. Special Aspects of Redemption

4. 1 The Ransom and the Liberation From the Power of Satan

The Redemption wrought by Christ liberates us from sin, death, and the devil. More than most modern authors, the theologians of the ancient Church underscore the victory over Satan.¹ Some theologians, such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, indulge an erroneous interpretation of the "ransom" which Christ has paid "for the many" (Mk 10:45 parr.): according to these writers, the ransom (the "price" for liberation) had been paid to the devil.² Gregory of Nyssa especially, describes Redemption as a quasi commercial "deceit": Satan contracts to free his human prisoners, if he can possess Jesus in return, but with this "bait" of the divine "fishing-gear" he swallows the "hook" of divinity and is beaten in the deal.³ This theory, however, is not typical of the entire era of the Fathers. Gregory of Nazianzus energetically refutes such ideas: the precious Blood of Christ is not offered to the devil-which would be unjust to do-but to the Father, even if the Father did not need this price; the ransom was given "to establish the economy of our Redemption and that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God ...."⁴ Cyril of Alexandria (like other Greek theologians before him) presents the death of Christ (who is God and man in virtue of the hypostatic union) as the sufficient price offered to the Father for the sins of the whole human race.⁵ Augustine does not refer the ransom to Satan, but develops a thesis about the "right of the devil" which provides a better synthesis than the presentation of Gregory of Nyssa:

"By the justice of God in some sense, the human race was delivered into the power of the devil ... But the way in which man was thus delivered into the power of the devil, ought not to be so understood as if God did this, or commanded this to be done; but rather that He only permitted it, yet even that justly. For when He abandoned the sinner, the author of the sin immediately entered. ... the devil was to be overcome, not by the power of God, but by His righteousness. ... What, then, is the righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, when he found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. ... And ... He conquered the devil first by righteousness, and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had no sin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, because having been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die."⁶ The main biblical text which associates Mary with Christ's victory over the devil is the Protoevangelium (Gen 3:15). Its Messianic interpretation is already evident in the Septuagint which translates the neutral Hebrew pronoun, linked to the "offspring" who crushes the head of the serpent, with the masculine pronoun "He" (autos in Greek), this in reference to the neutral noun (sperma). In the Greek translation (just as in the Hebrew original), Mary is opposed to the serpent in enmity. It is the "seed" of the woman who bruises the head of the serpent; but the "woman" is often interpreted as the Mother of God who participates in the victory of the Redeemer. Already, the first Fathers who give a Christological reading to the Protoevangelium, e.g., Justin and Irenaeus, link the biblical passage to the parallelism between Eve and Mary. Whereas there is some controversy about the Christological interpretation of Genesis 3:15 in Justin,⁷ there can be no doubt about Irenaeus. According to him, Jesus has recapitulated our struggle as "seed" of the woman and crushed the head of the serpent;⁸ the messianic reading is thus combined with the collective interpretation of the woman's "seed" who triumphs over the devil. The enemy would not have been defeated, if Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary.⁹ The enmity was "recapitulated" in the Lord "who became man by the woman."¹⁰ It is the Lord who "crushes" the head of the serpent; but the Virgin Mary, the "woman" radically opposed to the devil, cannot be separated from the saving work of Christ. The later texts in the Greek Orient do not go further than these pointers of Irenaeus.¹¹

We should also consider the Syrian area, linguistically near to the Hebrew language, where Ephraem can refer the crushing of the devilish head not only to Christ, but also to the Blessed Virgin: "As the serpent has wounded the heel of Eve, the foot of Mary has bruised him."¹²

In the Latin speaking world, we have to consider the translation of the Vulgate which refers the crushing of the devilish head to the Virgin Mary (ipsa conteret). It is not certain whether this translation comes from Jerome (who some years earlier referred the personal pronoun to Christ-ipse conteret), or whether it entered into the Vulgate later on.¹³ The female interpretation of the personal pronoun circulates even before the Vulgate: the first trace is already in Philo of Alexandria, Hebrew exegete during the first part of the first century, who commented the Septuagint version(!).¹⁴ The Latin poet, Prudentius, even before the appearance of the Vulgate, read the biblical text with the words Ipsa calcabit.¹⁵ According to the context in Prudentius, Mary crushes the head of the serpent because She bore the Messiah who defeated the devil.¹⁶ The basis of the victory is the saving work of Christ, and only secondarily is the victory also attributed to Mary. In this way, the use of the female pronoun ipsa does not differ essentially from the Greek interpretations in the ancient Church. Nor should we forget that Prudentius also attributes the honor of crushing the head of the serpent to St. Agnes, who by her martyrdom, gains her victory over the evil powers.¹⁷ Augustine read in his Vetus Latina version Ipsa tuum observabit caput, referring the personal pronoun also to the "woman." The "woman," that is the Church, should beware of the devilish serpent and combat the evil powers of superciliousness.¹⁸ In the time of the Fathers, even in the area influenced by the Vulgate, with the exception of Ephraem, we do not encounter the interpretation which attributes the "crushing" of the serpent's head directly to Mary.¹⁹ This accent manifests itself only in the Middle Ages, beginning in the eleventh century, with Fulbert of Chartres.²⁰, Patristic theology already links the virginal Mother of God strictly to the redemptive victory of Christ. It also invites us to evaluate the relation of Mary with the entire "offspring" of Eve, the holy Church, which has Christ as its Head. 4. 2 Sacrifice and Satisfaction Already in the New Testament, especially in the Letter to the Hebrews, the death of Christ is described as a sacrifice which fulfils, in a new way, its preparation in the Old Covenant.²¹ In the time of the Fathers, the doctrine of redeeming sacrifice is particularly developed by Augustine.²² In his famous work De civitate Dei, the North African Bishop explains that God does not need our gifts and that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant are only figures of the spiritual sacrifice in our heart. "For this reason the visible sacrifice is the sacrament, that is, the holy sign of the invisible sacrifice."²³ "A true sacrifice is every work done to be joined to God in a holy communion; so sacrifice is related to the aim of the good which really makes us happy."²⁴ The offering of Christ, our High Priest, took place during His Passion where He offered Himself for us so that we could become the body which has Christ as Head. Christ offered Himself in the form of a slave (His humanity assumed in Incarnation), because in this way He is Mediator, Priest, and Sacrifice.²⁵ His death has been a sacrifice (hostia) for sin²⁶ to restore our friendship with God.²⁷ Christ has intervened in a situation marked by original sin: "all mankind ... is a mass of sin, obligated to punishment by supreme divine justice."²⁸ A certain redressing of evil in the world is necessary, "lest the beauty of creation be defiled."²⁹ Reconciliation with God was possible because Christ offered a perfect sacrifice. This perfection is based on two realities. On the one hand, the sacrifice was offered by a Holy Priest who was without any sin because of His origin from the Virgin, an origin which breaks the chain of sin coming from the fall of Adam.³⁰ On the other hand, the death of Christ was perfectly free: He had the power to offer His life and to take it up again. Jesus Christ, God and man at the same time, was able to die at any moment He chose.³¹ In His immaculate and free sacrifice, the Redeemer was a Priest who offered Himself.³²

A systematic deepening of the priesthood of Christ can be found in Cyril of Alexandria, the great theologian of the hypostatic union. Christ is our Mediator not merely because He is the preexisting Word (according to the Arians), nor merely because He is an assumed man (according to the Antiochene theologians), but because He is the Incarnate Word. His priesthood, exercised in death and Resurrection, is founded on the Incarnation.³³ Only Christ could die for all mankind, "because He is God according to His nature, the Word of the Father, and has offered His body...to God the Father..."³⁴

The sacrifice of Christ has effected reconciliation with God and paid the "price" of our liberation, giving His own body on the Cross. In this way, the Redeemer assumed pain to expiate our sins. The reality of the expiation of Christ on our behalf and as our Representative, is developed systematically by St. Anselm of Canterbury who describes the saving work of Christ as a vicarious satisfaction. Some preparations for this synthesis can already be found at the time of the Fathers.

The concept of "satisfaction" comes from Roman law. It does not mean the total payment of a debt or a rigorous compensation for the evil which had been done, but it denotes the doing of something in a "sufficient" way (satis-facere): the creditor liberated the debtor who had done what he could do.³⁵ The first theologian who uses the concept of satisfaction is Tertullian who might have been a professional advocate (or who, at least, had a good, juridical education).³⁶ In other words: the technical term "satisfaction" is typical for the Latin-speaking West which has a particular sensibility for the juridical dimension of human life, a sensibility which should be taken seriously (also the biblical terms "testament" and "covenant," for instance, have juridical roots). Tertullian uses the concept of "satisfaction" not immediately for the saving work of Christ, but for the penance of the sinner who chastises himself for his sins and who protects himself against temptation.³⁷ Ambrose introduces the term to describe the sacrifice of Christ who "satisfied the Father for our sins."³⁸

Our Savior suffers for sins: not for sins which He had not committed, but in undertaking the penance due to our sins.³⁹ In the early Church, we do not yet find any testimony on the participation of Mary in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross or in the process of saving satisfaction. Ambrose underlines the fact that Jesus Christ did not need any helper for the Redemption of the human race.⁴⁰ Only the Middle Ages, especially the twelfth century, furnish a deeper reflection on the Passion of Christ with which the Holy Virgin is also associated.⁴¹