Poetic Licence: Eastern Orthodoxy and Mariological Metaphor

Many in the Eastern Orthodox Church will make the claim that the hyperbolic ascriptions given to Mary are simply metaphors. As such, when Mary is called in the Akathist Hymn dedicated to her a “propitiation for the whole world,” it is explained away as meaning something other than what it is saying. The problem with this is typically defined by the Orthodox as being that Protestants simply do not understand how metaphor works. In short, Protestants are too obtuse. There is, however, another possibility, and that is that Eastern Orthodox Christianity teaches falsely about Mary, and explains away their obvious errors by calling them “metaphors” in order to avoid the painful reality that they have departed from the truth as given in the clear witness of holy Scripture.


In order to get a better picture of the situation, it could be helpful to look at the manner in which Scripture uses metaphor. One famous example given in the Bible is that of Jesus being a ransom. This metaphor is based on clear testimony:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον, antílytron) for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESV)

The word translated as ransom here is antílytron (ἀντίλυτρον), and means “what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom,” which itself comes from lýtron (λύτρον), meaning “the price for redeeming, ransom.” Here is a corresponding example of the second term:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (λύτρον, lýtron) for many. (Mark 10:45 ESV)

Of course, the notion of ransom is not novel to the New Testament, but is grounded in the logic of the Torah. One key term translated as ransom in the Old Testament is kōp̄er (כֹּפֶר), and the following Exodus Case Law shows just how the forensic logic of this ransom works:

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. (29) But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. (30) If a ransom (kōp̄er) is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption (פִּדְיוֹם, piḏyôm) of his life whatever is imposed on him. (Exodus 21:28-30 ESV)

The notion of ransom is also here associated with the idea of a kind of exchange, one which will deliver a person from a sanction against their life due to some transgression.


From that same passage, the notion of redemption (piḏyôm) is seen to be relevant to that of ransom, and comes from pāḏâ (פָּדָה), which means, similarly, “to ransom, redeem, rescue, deliver.” In other words, if a ransom is imposed due to the ill effects of some unlawful action, then a redemption price proportioned to the ransom is assigned in order to free the person from its legal obligation.


Another key verse informing the concept of redemption comes from elsewhere in Exodus:

Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem (pāḏâ) with a lamb, or if you will not redeem (pāḏâ) it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem (pāḏâ). (Exodus 13:13 ESV)

The explicit association of ransom with the payment of an established price is also given in the Torah:

Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the LORD, shall be yours. Nevertheless, the firstborn of man you shall redeem (pāḏâ), and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem (pāḏâ). (16) And their redemption price (pāḏâ) (at a month old you shall redeem (pāḏâ) them) you shall fix (עֵרֶךְ, ʿēreḵ) at five shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. (Numbers 18:15-16 ESV)

In other words, there is a kind of formal exchange rate implied in the notion of redemption. The term ʿēreḵ means “estimate, valuation,” and is intimately connected with the notion of establishing a fair exchange by which one can justly be redeemed, ransomed. 


Now, the metaphor here is that Jesus Christ was not literally a “ransom,” for there was no literal “price.” God, in other words, did not “pay Himself off,” and certainly God did not owe Satan any payment. God owes no one anything, and owns all things implicitly. The Lord’s substitutionary death on the Cross was therefore not paying anyone literally. The Law functioned as a shadow and type, a forensic metaphor for something the Law can only point to. One might be reminded of this by the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians, where he writes:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, (14) by canceling (ἐξαλείφω, exaleiphō) the record of debt (χειρόγραφον, cheirographon) that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14 ESV)

This example is apropos because it makes clear that God did not literally blot out (exaleiphō) a handwritten receipt of debt (cheirographon). It is a metaphorical description of the manner in which Christ freed man from his spiritual bondage to the destructive power of the Law incurred through sin. He didn’t literally nail a written record to the Cross. Jesus in His flesh was literally nailed to the Cross, not a piece of handwritten paper of debt. And if there be no literal "payment" for sin, it should be obvious that the Holy Spirit is likewise not a literal "downpayment" (arrabōn):

He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee (ἀρραβών, arrabōn). (2 Corinthians 5:5 ESV)

Now, all of this should be fairly unsurprising, even uninteresting, because as Protestants we implicitly understand how metaphor works. Indeed, that is the real problem: We find calling Mary a "propitiation for the whole world" a problem because we understand the function of metaphor, not because we do not. For the point of the metaphor, though not literal, is in the case of Jesus no less real as regards its referent, for it does refer to a reality that exceeds the economic and legal examples that are made to serve as metaphors. In short, the Biblical metaphor is pointing to something real.


Thus it can and ought to be affirmed that Jesus really does ransom and redeem fallen man, even though the language of ransom and redemption has a metaphorical dimension. It is not “merely poetry.” But in the case of Mary, calling her by way of metaphor a “propitiation for the whole world” is utterly false, for it either refers to nothing or to something. If it refers to nothing, then it is vain, idle speech that is finally offensive insofar as it obscures the singularity of Christ’s utterly unique propitiation. But if it refers to something, then it is false because Mary did not propitiate God the Father in the past, and does not propitiate God the Son now. 


Calling her a propitiation is therefore worse than false, rather deceptive, and is a kind of blasphemy, for if Christ did not propitiate the Father, then her efforts to do so will certainly not accomplish it. And if Christ did indeed propitiate the Father, then her propitiation is imaginary, and so to affirm it is a lie against her and, worse, against God.


In conclusion, “honoring” Mary with vain metaphorical ascriptions is not an innocent use of metaphor. But the Eastern Orthodox know this. They know that the Akathist Hymn to Mary is not “mere poetry,” especially given its place within the canonical and devotional life of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and as such it is a theological statement. The use of metaphor is thus not without risk, and does not automatically confer upon its user a “get out of jail free card.” The Eastern Orthodox claim that calling Mary a “propitiation for the whole world” is but the innocent use of metaphor and poetry is a ruse, for it is not its being metaphorical that makes it a problem; it is the fact that it is false. 


-The Reformed Ninja

Popular posts from this blog

Anathema: Eastern Orthodoxy and The Ritual Cursing of All Other Christians

Image
  Many have been told that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a welcoming, mystical version of Christianity, one that is not “hung up” on legalism or on excessive dogmatism. It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that Eastern Orthodox Christians not only formally believe that they are the only Christians on planet earth (Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, Decree 10), but that Eastern Orthodox Christians are called to ritually and formally curse, every year, all who disagree with them. The canonical document that they use to curse all non-Orthodox is called the Synodikon of Orthodoxy , and technically is supposed to be read yearly on the Feast of Orthodoxy, also called the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and the Triumph of Orthodoxy. From the titles of the Feast Day on which it is read, it is clearly being associated with the very identity of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and of what it means to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent in the Eastern Orthodox
Read more

Of Rock and Sand: A Critique of Josiah Trenham’s Appraisal of Protestantism

Image
Introduction In his attempt at growing the Orthodox Church, Archpriest Josiah Trenham has made a name for himself as a relatively erenic interlocutor with Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical Christians of multiple stripes. In claiming common ground with them, he makes mention in an interview of his time as a student at Westminster Seminary under RC Sproul, where he became attracted to ( here ), if not convicted of ( here ), what he saw as the truth of Eastern Orthodoxy. According to his testimony, he even began his earnest search into Orthodoxy prior to going to seminary, planning his seminary studies ahead of time to coordinate with this specific search ( here ). He was even known at seminary for not likely continuing in the faith of his seminary ( here ). The significance of this background seems to be that, although Trenham states to have come from a Reformed background, it is clear from his testimony that he had notably departed in spirit from Reformed Christianity already durin
Read more

What is the Gospel According to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Image
What is the Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox Church? What is the Good News? What is it that the Eastern Orthodox Church proclaims to people struggling under the burden of sin and the reign of death? In order to answer this question, we will look at what their factual canonical position is. This will move the discussion past the mystical, impressionistic musings of the modern Eastern Orthodox reconstructions. The contemporary, quasi-conservative reimaginations of Orthodoxy, whether as the Neo-Patristic synthesis, or as a kind of theological-liturgical aesthetics, or as an Orthobro manosphere, or as Christian-flavored universalism and Perenialism, or as hesychastic pietism (the Philokalia was first published in 1782), are really just subtle, imitative departures from Biblical Christianity that are particularly pernicious, because they play to the prejudices of the sophisticated religionist, erecting castles in the sky that each would-be theologian climbs ropes of sand up to. It b
Read more