Folia Theologica 11. (2000)
László Vanyó: The Patristic Interpretation of 'Redemptio'
38 L. VANYÓ God had had to consider only the sin, then He could have sanctioned alone repentence and satisfaction and God could have realize he redemption in another way, not necessarily by the incarnation and crucifixion. However Athanasios cannot assert that Christ did not get in immediate touch with sin, he even maintains it, because, although sin did not concern His divine nature, in his human nature He experienced the conse7tepi rou 0avaxou vopo0Eata: oaortov yap r|v ôta rpv pptuv ajprXetav icat ôtapovpv yEucrxpv <(>avpvai xov xpç a3.p9etaç naxEpa Qecüv. xi ouv eSei Kat népi xouxou yeveoBat p notpaai xov Geov; pExavotav era xp TtapaßaaEt xouç av0p(O7touç artaiôpoai; xouxo yap av xtç aiçtov ppasie 0eou, Xeycov oxt raajtep ex xpç Ttapaßaacnq eiç <|>0opav yeyovaatv, ouxoïç ek xpç pExavotaç yEvotvxo 7ta3.iv av eiç a<|)9apaiav. a 3.3. p pexavota odxe xo EuAoyou xo 7tpoç xov 0EOV EpuÀaxxEv: epeve yap 7ta3.iv ouk aÂpôpç, pp KpaxoupEvcov £v xcû Gavaxco xcov av0pcû7tcov: ouxe 8e p pexavota arto xcov Kaxa <j>uatv avaxa^Eixat, aXXa povov TtauEt xcov apapxppaxcov. Et pEV ouv povovpv 7t3.pppEA.ppa Kai pp <|)9opaç ETtaKoXouGpatç, KaXœç av pv p pExavota. Et 8e arcaç 7tpoXaßouapq xpç TiapaßaaEtoq eiç xpv Kaxa puaiv <|)0opav EKpaxouxo ot av0pa)7toi, Kat xpv xou Kax EtKova yapiv a<()aipE0EV- xeç paav, xi aXXo eôei yEVEoOai; p xivoç pv ypEia 7tpoç xpv xoiauxpv yapiv Kat ava.K>.paiv, p xou Kat Kaxa xpv apxpv ek xou pp ovxoç 7t£7iorpKoxoç xa oÀa xou Qeou Aoyou; auxou yap pv 7ia3.iv Kat xo (fiëapxov eiç aôGapatav EVEyKEtv, Kai xo U7t£p 7tavxcûv Eu3.oyov aTtoacoaat 7tpoç xov flaxEpa. Aoyoç yap cov xou naxpoç Kat utiep 7tavxaç cov, aKo3.ou0coç Kat avaKxtaat xa o3.a povoç pv Suvaxoç Kat utiep Ttavxcov 7ta0Etv Kat TtpEoßEuaat 7tEpt 7tavxcov tKavoç 7tpoç xov naxEpa. 7. But as this had to be, so again on the other hand lies opposed to it what was reasonable for God, that he should appear truthful in passing the law about death. For it would have been absurd that for our benefit and permanence God, the Father of truth, should appear aliar. What therefore in this matter had to occur, or what should God have done? Demand repentance from men for the transgression? For one might say that this was fitting for God, that as they had become subject to corruption by the transgression, so by repentance they might return to incorruption. But repentance would no have saved God’s honour, for he would still have remained untruthful unless men were in the power of death. Repentance gives no exemption from the consequences of nature, but merely looses sins, If therefore, there had been only sin and not its consequence of corruption, repentance would have been very well. But if, since transgression had overtaken them, men were now prisoners to natural corruption, and they had been deprived of the grace of being in the image, what else should have happened? Or who was needed for such grace and recalling except the Word of God, who also in the beginning had created the universe from nothing? For it was his task both to bring what was corruptible back again to incorruption, and to save what was above all fitting for the Father. For since he is the Word of the Father and above everyone, cnosequently he alone was both able to recreate the universe and be worthy to suffer for all and to be an advocate on behalf of all before the Father.
