The Theology of the Passion of Christ in the Orthodox East and in the Heretical West

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | April 4, 2026

 

1. Orthodox Theology: The Passion as Victory

In Orthodox theology, the passions of Christ are interpreted primarily as victory over death and the devil, and not as punishment or expiation. As is noted in a Greek Orthodox source, “Christ willingly accepted death on the cross, because, as God who desires to save man, He had to confront also man’s greatest enemy, death.”

The Orthodox Church follows the patristic tradition that sees the Cross as a trophy of victory. John of Damascus (8th c.) proclaimed: “We venerate the Cross of Christ, by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the devil were destroyed.” Saint Athanasius of Alexandria emphasizes that “Christ’s trophy over death was the Cross,” while Maximus the Confessor notes that “by voluntarily being conquered, He conquered the one who hoped to conquer, and snatched the world from his authority.”

A central element of Orthodox theology is that Christ conquered death by death itself: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death” (Paschal Troparion). The Resurrection is not merely the continuation of the Passion, but its fulfillment. As is explained in the Triodion, “the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the Lord constitute one single, indivisible act.”

Orthodox Iconography

Orthodox iconography reflects this theology: Christ on the cross is depicted as the King of Glory, not as a victim of torture. The Orthodox icon “does not present Him on the cross in a wretched bodily condition—as Western depiction does—but presents Him as the King of Glory, the One who conquers corruption and death.” Orthodox priests often point out that the Western fixation on bloody martyrdom creates “feelings of shame and guilt,” whereas the Orthodox approach focuses on freedom and redemption.

2. Western Theology: The Passion as Satisfaction of Justice

In Western theology, and especially after Saint Anselm (11th c.), the judicial/legal understanding of the cross became dominant. According to this view, Christ underwent the punishment fitting for humanity in order for divine justice to be satisfied. As is noted in a comparative study, “Western Christians see the crucified Christ as a victim undergoing divine judgment and paying the legal price for our sins.”

This theology, known as the satisfaction theory, holds that humanity had accumulated a debt toward God because of sin, and Christ repaid it with His own blood. Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) and scholastic theology reinforced this direction, seeing the Passion as a sacrifice directed chiefly toward God the Father for the propitiation of divine wrath.

Western Iconography

Western Christian art reflects this focus on martyrdom. Works such as those of Peter Paul Rubens and Matthias Grünewald present Christ in a wretched physical condition, bloodied and tortured. The film The Passion of the Christ (2004) by Mel Gibson is a characteristic example of this Western approach, which “seems to revel in the violence and blood of Christ’s punishment.”

3. Fundamental Differences

1. In Orthodox theology, the Passion is interpreted primarily as a military victory and the overthrow of tyranny. John of Damascus proclaims that “Christ’s trophy over death was the Cross,” while Maximus the Confessor notes that Christ, “by voluntarily being conquered, conquered the one who hoped to conquer, and snatched the world from his authority.” The Orthodox Church chants, “trampling down death by death,” declaring that Christ used death itself as a weapon against death.

By contrast, in Western theology, and especially after Saint Anselm (11th c.), the legal understanding of the cross became dominant. Christ is regarded as having undergone the punishment fitting for humanity in order for divine justice to be satisfied. Thomas Aquinas further developed this theory of “satisfaction,” seeing the Passion as a substitutionary sacrifice directed toward God the Father for the propitiation of divine wrath.

2. Orthodox theology adopts a medical model of salvation. Man, by subjecting himself to the evil one, “came to corruption and death,” as John of Damascus explains. Salvation consists in liberation from this bondage and in the deification of human nature. The cross is the “medicine” that heals the “wound” of sin.

In the West, the dominant model is judicial. Man is considered guilty on account of original sin and condemned to eternal punishment. The cross functions as the “payment” of the debt to divine justice, permitting the remission of the penalty. As Seraphim Rose points out, this approach risks presenting a God who is a “punisher and judge” who “sadistically demands satisfaction” through the martyrdom of His Son.

3. In the Orthodox tradition, the Passion is directed against death and the devil, as an act of liberating humanity from their tyranny. Christ, according to the Apostle Paul, “became a curse for our sake” (Gal. 3:13), that is, He confronted the curse of death that weighed upon humanity, not in order to satisfy the Father, but to abolish the power of death.

Western theology reverses this direction. The Passion is directed toward God the Father as an act of satisfying His justice. Saint Anselm held that humanity had offended the honor of God and that only the sacrifice of the God-man could restore that honor. Thomas Aquinas added the concept of “substitutionary sacrifice,” in which Christ undergoes the punishment fitting for sinners.

4. Orthodox anthropology, based on the patristic tradition, sees man after the fall as a slave of death and corruption, not as one who is guilty and owes a penalty. Death is “the last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26) that holds humanity hostage. Salvation consists in liberation from this bondage and the restoration of nature to immortality.

In the West, especially after Saint Augustine of Hippo, the idea of ancestral guilt prevailed. Man inherits not only the consequences of Adam’s sin (mortality), but also guilt itself, thus becoming “sinful by nature.” Salvation requires primarily the remission of this guilt, which is achieved through the judicial redemption of the cross. By contrast, the East preserved the understanding of “ancestral sin” as the death and corruption that we inherit, not as legal guilt.

As Fr. Thomas Hopko explains, in Orthodox theology “the language of ‘price’ and ‘ransom’ is understood metaphorically and symbolically,” not as a legal transaction. Christ “paid the price” neither to the devil (who had acquired rights by deceit) nor to God the Father (who could not demand the punishment of His Son), but “to Reality itself,” creating the conditions for forgiveness and eternal life.

Saint Gregory the Theologian (4th c.) strongly rejects the idea that Christ’s blood was a “payment” to God the Father: “If to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not He who was oppressing us. And secondly, on what principle did the blood of His Only-Begotten Son delight the Father, who did not even accept Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim?”

The difference between Orthodox and Western theology concerning the passions of Christ reflects two different soteriological perspectives: Orthodox theology sees the Passion as healing (the medical model) and victory (the military model), whereas the West sees it chiefly as judicial expiation (the legal model). Both traditions accept that Christ died for the salvation of the world, but they disagree on how this death operates soteriologically. As Seraphim Rose points out, Orthodox theology does not deny the existence of pain in the Passion, but it refuses to idealize it, seeing above it the victory of love and the abolition of death.

 

A. Primary Sources – Patristic Literature

Western Tradition

Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (translated into Greek as Why God Became Man) – The foundational text of the theory of satisfaction.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Greek translations) – The scholastic theology of salvation as a judicial exchange.

B. Modern Greek Studies – Orthodox Theology

Archimandrite Damianos Zafeiris, The Passion and the Resurrection of Christ (Zafeiris Publications, 2008) – A contemporary theological approach to the Passion with emphasis on the liturgical experience.

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou, Patristic Theology and Orthodox Theology: The Church of the Holy Fathers – An analysis of the difference between Orthodox and Western soteriology.

Panagiotis Nellas, Person and Freedom – The ontological approach to the cross as the healing of human nature.

Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West in Modern Greece (Domos Publications, 1992) – A historical and theological analysis of the differences.

Fr. John S. Romanides, Original Sin (2nd ed. 1989) – A critique of Western anthropology and theology of the cross.

Georges Florovsky, Anatomy of Problems of Faith (trans. Archim. Meletios Kalamaras, Thessaloniki, 1977) – A neo-patristic synthesis and critique of Western influence.

Petros Vassiliadis, Cross and Salvation: The Soteriological Background of the Pauline Teaching on the Cross – A comparative study of the biblical and patristic tradition.

Myrtali Potamianou-Acheimastou, Visual Expressions of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ – A comparison of the Orthodox and Western iconographic tradition.

Andreas Drosos, The Passion of Christ in Folk Poetry – A folkloristic approach.

Andreas Theodorou, From the Hymnography of Holy Week – The liturgical theology of the Passion in the Orthodox Church.

Ioannis Karavidopoulos, Problems in the Synoptic Evangelists’ Narratives Concerning the Passion of Christ (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1974) – A critical interpretation of the Gospel narratives.

Ioannis Karavidopoulos, The Gospel according to Mark (Interpretation of the New Testament series, Pournaras, 1988) – Theology of the Passion in Mark.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_4.html