Chapter 10: ‘Heal My soul’? Eusebius of Caesarea – A Commentary on the Atonement
‘Demonstration of the Gospel’; Psalm 41
Eusebius (c.260-339), Bishop of Caesarea from 313, is most remembered for his invaluable ‘Ecclesiastical History’, completed and revised from 303-324. However, Eusebius was a prolific author and penned many other works, including commentaries, orations, apologies and dogmatic writings. At Caesarea, he also built up an extensive library of Christian manuscripts, including those of Origen, whose writings he admired, and many works of philosophy. Regarding his theology, although he is known to have given support to Arianism, this may have been due to a misconception on his part regarding certain expressions Arians used – especially terms describing the nature of the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. They held that Jesus was a created being, that He was not true God, and that there was a time when He did not exist. At the Council of Nicaea (325), Eusebius sought to clarify his position and gave his signature to the orthodox views of the Nicene Creed: that Jesus is indeed : ‘true God from true God …eternally begotten of the Father …begotten, not made, of one being with the Father .’
Only the first ten books of his apologetic work: ‘The Demonstration of the Gospel’ have come down to us; the final ten books are missing. Nevertheless, views he expressed in the books remaining are worthy of careful consideration, especially those that relate to his explanation of our Lord’s atonement. For drawing attention to this work, I am grateful to the authors of the book: ‘Pierced for our Transgressions‘. A passage from ‘The Demonstration’ (otherwise known as ‘The Proof of the Gospel‘) is presented in their book to suggest historical evidence for the doctrine of penal substitution. For this reason also, it is quoted in the work: ‘The Doctrine of Justification by Faith’, by the British theologian of the 17th century, John Owen.
Here is the quotation:
‘And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,” so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the law of love. And the Lamb of God … was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us.’ (The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1 (467); ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
Clear from the context is the idea that Jesus empathizes with the sufferings of the members of His body as a result of their sins. Nevertheless, Eusebius, went further, making reference to Psalm 41 to suggest that the Lord, by ‘uniting Himself to us‘, could say of Himself that He had ‘sinned’:
‘With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the person of our Saviour: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,” …And He speaks thus because He shares our sins.’ (466)
‘…uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, “I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,”…’ (467/8)
(The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1; ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
Let us be clear, Eusebius held the belief that Jesus sinned (though not personally), by reason of His union with the members of His body, the Church; and that, as such, He ‘suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins’. He received punishment and death that were owing to us (‘due to us’). This was his understanding. But, he added:
‘…the words, ‘I have sinned against thee,’ are not to be taken literally, …’ (ibid, 470)
These were ‘our sins’, Eusebius remarked. In Himself, Jesus was innocent and of ‘absolute integrity‘:
‘…the words, “Thou hast protected me for my innocence,” exhibit the absolute integrity of His nature …’ (ibid, 470, cf. Psalm 41)
In the theology of Eusebius, the reason for the atonement expressed above was but one of several, which he listed in Book 4:
‘…firstly, the Word teaches by His death that He is Lord both of the dead and of the living; secondly, that He will wash away our sins, being slain, and becoming a curse for us; thirdly that a victim of God and a great sacrifice for the whole world might be offered to Almighty God; fourthly, that thus He might work out the destruction of the evil powers of the demons by unspeakable words; and fifthly also, that shewing the hope of life with God after death to His friends and disciples not by words only but by deeds as well …He might make them of good courage and more eager to preach both to Greeks and Barbarians …’ (167)
(The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 4, Ch. 12; ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
So, what are we to make of his view?
Ferrar accomplished his excellent work of translating based upon the Greek compilation of Gifford. In the above quotation, however, readers may wonder as to the exact meaning of the phrase ‘due to us’ ; does this mean, ‘because of us’? In short, no, it does not. The expression derives its meaning from the Greek ‘opheilo’ and refers to the state of ‘owing’ – of being ‘in debt’. Our sins have caused us to be in debt both to man and God, according to the moral and just Law of God. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, ‘And forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors‘ (Mat.6v12, KJV), the same root is found in the text: for debts is written ‘opheilema’ and for debtors, ‘opheiletes’. In the forms of opheilo and opheile the word also appears twice in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mat.18), translated ‘debt’. Sins, therefore, cause one to be in debt to both man and God. Where there is no forgiveness, the penalty remains, according to the Law.
In the Bible, true justice is explained according to the simple principle of equivalence: ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth …’ (Lev.24:17-20). Jesus experienced the mental and physical suffering of man’s sins, for which mankind is in debt. According to this rule of justice, as we do to others, so we are due to have done to us – to an equal degree. In the view of Eusebius, therefore, what Jesus endured was truly representative of suffering caused by and owing to be suffered by mankind, as a result of sin. The question is, was this the punishment of God?
If only for the fact that it is inconceivable that God should punish either with a Roman scourging or with ‘insults’, the answer surely is, ‘No.’ The sufferings of Jesus spoke of the sin of humanity for which cause He came and from the consequences of which He came to save. At the cross, Jesus bore upon Himself ‘the sin of the world’ – in His human body and against His divine person. Those who killed Jesus, in the words of Stephen, were murderers (Acts 7: 52). He was taken unlawfully and punished without true justice (Acts 2:23; 8:33). Jesus suffered this for us – but why?
In what way did Eusebius understand the penalty that Jesus suffered, but ‘did not owe‘? We can infer from the context that this penalty was perceived as our debt, because of sin. From the principle of equivalence under the Law, the penalty can be viewed as the retribution demanded by the Law to counterbalance the offence and so satisfy justice. Therefore, by the Law, the suffering caused by our sins should equal, in degree, the suffering owing to us as a penal debt. So, all the suffering that Jesus bore as a result of man’s sins can be seen as the degree of suffering that mankind is indebted to pay as a penalty because of those sins. However, we need to ask, by suffering the equivalence of ‘the penalty’ as understood by this reasoning, did Jesus also pay the penalty? By suffering the same degree of suffering due to us as a debt because of sins, must we assume that Jesus also paid the debt?
Firstly, let us distinguish between sin and the suffering caused by sin. The suffering is not the sin. The suffering is the consequence of the sin. Punishment is suffering caused to an offender by an act deemed to either satisfy justice or be corrective, or both. So punishment brought to bear upon an offender as a penalty can be equal to and of the same kind as the suffering caused by the offence. However, although this may be true, how can the suffering caused by our sin against Christ also be our penalty? How can the suffering caused by the unlawful taking of another’s life be also the punishment for the crime? The suffering caused by sin can equal the suffering of the penalty, but can never be the penalty. One does not pay for one’s crimes with the suffering caused by those crimes. Man’s act of sin against God’s Son cannot also be our punishment.
Can the suffering caused to a victim of crime ever be the offender’s penalty? One loses an eye as a victim of crime, can that loss ever be the offender’s punishment? – Can that loss ever pay the penalty for the crime? – No! Neither can the affliction and death caused to God’s Son by the sins of man ever pay the penalty for that sin.
Clear is the fact that Eusebius viewed the suffering of Jesus as the means to our forgiveness. He wrote: ‘…and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins,‘ (see the passage above). The Greek word translated ‘the cause’ is ‘aitios’. We find this substantive word in the New Testament, rendered ‘the author’:
‘He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,’ (Heb.5:9, NKJ).
By the cross, Jesus became the cause and author of the forgiveness of our sins. Mankind is accounted to have sinned against Him and it is through Him that our sins as members of His body are now forgiven. The suffering of the cross unto death enabled God’s Son as both Man and God to cancel the debts of all who truly repent. Through faith in the Son of God, there is no sin so great that cannot be forgiven. He has earned the right to cancel the debt of all who come to Him with a repentant heart, for it is against Him, who is both Man and God, that all have sinned. (See also: Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!)
Eusebius did not say that Jesus transferred to Himself our debt to pay the penalty in our place, although this may be thought to be implied. The transferring of one’s debt from one bank to another does not free one of debt. It merely transfers the debt from one creditor to another. Although, the new bank may offer conditions for cancellation. – Remember, this is about forgiveness. If one pays the debt for someone else, the debt has not been forgiven. It has been paid. If the demand for payment is met by someone else, there is no cancellation. But through the cross of Christ, all the debt owing for all the sins of man became incorporated into the debt owing to the Head of man, Jesus Christ. It is to Jesus that we are now beholden for want of forgiveness for our sins. Without His complete forgiveness and cleansing from sin, we will die. We owe Him our repentance, we owe Him our souls. Eusebius said that Jesus, through the cross, became the author of our forgiveness - and in this he was right.
Penal substitution is not about forgiveness, it is about paying what is due. At the cross, Jesus – as it were – bought up all our debt with His life. This, as Eusebius remarked, was ‘the price of our souls’ (ibid, Book 10, Ch.1, 467). Now, through the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son, all man’s debts for sin against man and owing by man, are channelled together as debts owed to Him through whose saving grace our forgiveness is made possible. Man is in debt to the risen Lord and Head of all humanity, either to give our lives to Him in repentance or to suffer the ultimate consequences for our sins. If we can seek the forgiveness of those we have wronged – all well and good, though this is often not possible; but the one to whom we owe heartfelt repentance and from whom we can receive complete forgiveness for our sins is Christ. He is both God and Man, and it is through Him that we can now be forgiven all debts. Eusebius wrote: ‘…and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins.‘
All that Jesus endured was for the sake of all who turn to God. Without the forgiveness of God through Jesus, condemnation for sin remains. Without the incarnation of the divine Word of God, there would have been no Man to forgive man’s debt.
‘…the words which are apparently said in the person of our Saviour: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned …“‘
(Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1, (466); ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
We need to recognize that much of what Eusebius wrote was according to his own speculative theology and not according to Church tradition. In the above quotation, the words ‘apparently said‘ are indicative of the author’s own admission to a degree of uncertainty about the interpretation that he was placing upon the verse in question, from Psalm 41. This was his own view, not Church doctrine. Nevertheless, was Eusebius right to suggest that Jesus, as head of His body – the Church, could say, as in the Psalm, ‘Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee’ ?
There is an analogy expressed in the New Testament that uses the human body as an example to illustrate the relationship of Christians as Church members to Christ, as Head of the Church: ‘And He is the head of the body, the church …’ (Col.1:18, NKJ); ‘Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually …’ (1 Cor.12:27, NKJ); ‘…there are many members, yet one body’ (1 Cor.12:20, NKJ); ‘…if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it’ (1 Cor.12:26, NKJ); ‘… no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body …’ (Eph.5:29-30, NKJ).
No analogy works in all respects. There are similarities, but also incongruities. We can sympathize with a brother or sister going through a trial, for example – as one member suffers, we can suffer also. However, we do not experience the full suffering of the other member. There is a degree to which we can empathize with all that others endure. Likewise, we can bear the burden of sin that other members are suffering, even as the apostle said we should do (‘Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,’ Gal.6:2, NKJ). But, when one member falls into sin, that does not mean that we do also. We are not made sinners by the sins of others, nor are we responsible (unless we have colluded in some way, of course). We are responsible for our own sins. We are not made guilty by association – simply because others with whom we are related choose to sin. So it is with Christ: ‘He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin‘ (John 3:5, NKJ).
As a person enters into a relationship with Jesus as personal Saviour and Lord, all sins are forgiven and the robe of Christ’s righteousness becomes one’s ‘garment of salvation’ (Isa.61:10). As Christians, we are covered by His life and imbued with the Holy Spirit, as children of God. Jesus does not ask the Father to forgive Him for our sins. As God Himself, how can He? As the One who takes away our sins, how can He? As THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, how can He? The Father has nothing to forgive His Son. The Son is not implicated in any sin or wrongdoing. Always He does that which is pleasing to the Father – and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. In this matter, Eusebius overstretched the analogy and was wrong.
Jesus was indeed made a sin-offering, and was made to be sin in the judgment of those who crucified Him – but this was not the righteous judgment of God. The Lord’s sacrifice was accepted as a ‘sweetsmelling aroma‘ (Eph.5:2, NKJ), without corruption. He bore our sins as the One against whom all have sinned. He also bore our sins in His heart; but as Saviour, takes them away through the forgiveness He now offers to all who truly repent.
It is perhaps easy to see why Eusebius of Caesarea – expressing such views as that Jesus could regard Himself to have sinned, as Head of the body - was suspected by some of his contemporaries of holding to an Arian opinion of Christ. At the Council of Antioch, held early in 325 AD and presided over by Bishop Ossius, Eusebius was one of only three out of fifty-nine bishops who refused to sign the distinctly anti-Arian ‘Statement of Faith‘ (ref. ‘The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318-381‘, pp.146-151: Hanson, R.P.C; Baker Academic, 1988; T&T Clark, London & N.Y., 2005). The three bishops were given a suspended excommunication to allow them time to reconsider their positions. This explains why Eusebius was at pains to confirm his orthodoxy of belief at the general ecumenical council that convened at Nicaea later that year – and his efforts resulted in his condemnation being cancelled. Perhaps Eusebius felt compelled to revise his position on the nature of Christ and his view of the atonement as a result. After all, as observed above, it is certain that his expressed views of the atonement included his own mere speculations and were not presented to suggest widely held Christian beliefs, received by apostolic tradition.
Unfortunately, antiquity of belief in a doctrinal position is often considered reason of itself for acceptance – when really one should seek to discover if a teaching is in agreement with the Scriptures, and especially those of the New Testament. Nevertheless, although historicity is important, it is apparent that nothing like ‘penal substitution‘ is known to have been taught earlier than that supposed in Eusebius* – and this from a work written at a time when he was known to have supported the Arianist faction of the Church. (*See: Reflections from writings of early Church fathers – the views of Justin Martyr)