What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Views of the Cross: Orthodoxy and the West
For Protestants or Catholics seeking to understand Eastern Orthodoxy, the Cross is a good place to start. In the
West a multitude of different views sprang up over the last millennium, but Orthodox Christian beliefs have remained unchanged. The contrast between those views is suggested by the two images on the book's cover, showing how differently the meaning of the Cross was understood, East and West.
Two Views of the Cross is a short, focused book, ideal for readers looking to grasp the overall picture (with some passages from Mathewes-Green's more-comprehensive classic, Welcome to the Orthodox Church). This volume adds a new title to Mathewes-Green's long list of helpful books about Eastern Orthodoxy. Looking at the Cross from Western and Eastern perspectives provides a concise introduction to the beautiful, mystical, and sometimes-surprising Orthodox faith.
Praise for Welcome to the Orthodox Church:
“Lucid writing marked by a strong sense of humor, but never escaping from the deepest spiritual realities.”
--Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Prof. of History, Baylor University
“Completely accessible, but utterly honest...This is a wonderful book.”
--Fr Andrew Louth, Prof. of Byzantine Studies, Durham University
“Few authors can take the mystery, beauty, and often-daunting complexities of Orthodoxy and transform them in such an inviting path of spiritual journey.”
--The Very Rev. Dr Chad Hatfield, Chancellor, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary
“No one alive today has done more to introduce ordinary Americans to the wonders of the ancient faith than Frederica Mathewes-Green. If not for her, I doubt I would be Orthodox.”
--Rod Dreher, Author, Senior Editor & blogger at The American Conservative
West a multitude of different views sprang up over the last millennium, but Orthodox Christian beliefs have remained unchanged. The contrast between those views is suggested by the two images on the book's cover, showing how differently the meaning of the Cross was understood, East and West.
Two Views of the Cross is a short, focused book, ideal for readers looking to grasp the overall picture (with some passages from Mathewes-Green's more-comprehensive classic, Welcome to the Orthodox Church). This volume adds a new title to Mathewes-Green's long list of helpful books about Eastern Orthodoxy. Looking at the Cross from Western and Eastern perspectives provides a concise introduction to the beautiful, mystical, and sometimes-surprising Orthodox faith.
Praise for Welcome to the Orthodox Church:
“Lucid writing marked by a strong sense of humor, but never escaping from the deepest spiritual realities.”
--Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Prof. of History, Baylor University
“Completely accessible, but utterly honest...This is a wonderful book.”
--Fr Andrew Louth, Prof. of Byzantine Studies, Durham University
“Few authors can take the mystery, beauty, and often-daunting complexities of Orthodoxy and transform them in such an inviting path of spiritual journey.”
--The Very Rev. Dr Chad Hatfield, Chancellor, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary
“No one alive today has done more to introduce ordinary Americans to the wonders of the ancient faith than Frederica Mathewes-Green. If not for her, I doubt I would be Orthodox.”
--Rod Dreher, Author, Senior Editor & blogger at The American Conservative
154 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 9, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
February 16, 2023
The book's greatest failure is that it is littered with false dichotomies of positions which the west holds in tension, but which she insists on taking as either/or. For example, in the book, the cross is either an offering for sin or a victory over death. Or, Christ’s death is either a sacrifice offered to God or a means of ransoming people from the evil one. Or death is either a consequence of sin or the punishment for sin. A more thorough engagement with the Western tradition should have revealed that these positions are not seen as opposites.
She begins with Anselm's view of atonement and proceeds as if that is the only way the western tradition views the cross. From there, Anselm becomes totalizing as an explanatory factor. Even up to the point of explaining the differences in the depiction of the passion between the east and the west. She never mentions for example that although Anselm’s views are considered important, they are in no denomination held to be dogmatic.
Overall, this book is good ONLY if you view it as a brief guide into the orthodox views of Christian fundamentals. I say that with a caveat, however. Given how much she misrepresents and/or truncates the western branch of Christianity I cannot be sure she represents eastern orthodoxy well. But as a way of comparing the west with Orthodoxy, the book is abysmal.
April 19, 2026
4.5 stars
Occasionally was a bit rah rah orthodox at times, so docked half a star. Really enjoyed. Great Lenten read.
Ch 5
- [ ] “God is watching us from a distance”. I wonder if that song was so popular b/c people would actually prefer a God who kept his distance and didn’t take too an active interest in their daily lives
- [ ] In the west, theology comes from theologians like milk comes from cows. A theologian’s job is to keep coming up with new ideas… but orthodox theology is grounded in community memory.
- [ ] Keeping our eyes on the cross… Sometimes we vanquish sin, rising above it in triumph, and sometimes it knocks us down… when that happens, God picks us up, dusts us off, and sets us on our feet again. The Orthodox life is a daily struggle against sin. A struggle for the freedom that is the birthright of a son.
- [ ] One reason for the great success of the satisfaction theory in Europe. It’s easier to grasp the idea of a straight forward transaction than to comprehend God’s vast and unreasonable love. It relieves the stress we feel over being forgiven for free and eternally put in God’s debt. It relieves the stress of being loved and forgiven for reasons we can’t control, reasons wholly within God Himself.
Ch 6
- [ ] Forgiveness addresses something in the past, something completed. The present and the future are a matter of trust. Forgiveness means that you set aside those past deeds, deciding not to brew over them or to nurture fantasies of revenge, but you can continue to reserve trust until you see sufficient evidence that you will be safe
- [ ] If we had to receive payment for every injury, we could hardly get through a day for all the confusion and aggravation it would cause. We know it is right to let some things pass without demanding that everything be paid in full. Forgiveness does not count the cost. Forgiveness is free.
- [ ] He forgives us the way we’re supposed to forgive each other. For free. St Isaac of Syria… points out that we can’t call God “just” in human terms since he pays the laborers who worked only one hour as much as those who worked all day. And the father of the prodigal embraces his son without any restitution.
- [ ] Jesus says… when we forgive we are behaving like our Father. (Matthew 5:44-48)
- [ ] On Ephesians 2:4-9… God, the all powerful, forgives us because of a motivation inside Himself. It is the great love with which He loved us.
- [ ] Then the [prodigal] son turned on his heel and left, and he didn’t go off a few blocks to pout. He immediately set out for a far country, putting as much space as possible between himself and his father. His father no doubt knew his son well. It was probably not the first angry outburst. As the son packed his goods and headed off, the father watched him go. In that desert, treeless land, he could follow this angry son with his eyes, watching as the figure got smaller and smaller in the distance until it finally disappeared. The father watched for a long time. The next day he brought out a chair and he watched some more. He kept watching. Day after day went by. One day, he saw a tiny figure far away on the horizon. It was his son coming home. Jesus said “while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion and ran and embraced him and kissed him (Luke 15:20). This father wasn’t concerned for his honor or even his dignity. Though his son handed had him a deadly insult, he ran up to him and caught him up in an embrace.
- [ ] In another version of the [Prodigal Son] story, the father might have said “I’d love to take you home, son, but who’s gonna pay this Visa bill. Someone’s gotta pay the debt first.” Or he might have said, “I’d love to take you home but I can’t have people thinking I would oveoook an insult. I’m gonn have to punish you for the sake of my honor.” Or he might have said, “I’m so full of wrath, I can’t see straight. Even if I killed you, it wouldn’t be enough. You’re not worth killing, you’re garbage. But your older brother who has never offended me, he is innocent. I’ll kill him and the sight of his blood will soothe my wrath.”
- [ ] The older brother doesn’t always get a fair shake… he has a legitimate complaint. The younger son has squandered his half of the inheritance and from now on they’ll all be living on the elder brother’s share. It isn’t fair, to tell the truth. When the father welcomes back the prodigal without requiring repayment, it is unjust in earthly terms. But the father invites the older son to sacrifice his legitimate claim and join him in a love that doesn’t count the cost.
- [ ] The fatted calf is the costly sacrifice that is the center of the feast, which sets a seal on their reunion. It is the father who provides the calf.
Ch 7
- [ ] The Hebrew people continued to make many kinds of sacrifices. Free will offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and gifts in fulfillment of vows, in addition to offerings for sin. Every offering was a reaffirmation of the original covenant between God and His people. And then at the turning point of time, the Old Covenant was concluded and a new one began. Jesus said, “this cup is the New Covenant in My blood” (1 Cor 11:25)
- [ ] Christ’s death on the cross was an offering to the Father, but it wasn’t a payment. This is a distinction we don’t readily catch because the making of sacrifices is no longer a feature of daily life. But it was never the case that the Father needed animal blood before He could forgive His people. It was rather that His people needed to offer it. Sinners needed to make a costly gift as evidence to themselves and others that they were sincere. They needed to show that they were really sorry for their sin and really intended to renounce it. The gifts have no power of coercion. An offering can’t compel a penitent sinner to live righteously, but a gift sets a seal on his intention. The temple sacrifices and offerings demonstrated a commitment to God and an intention to live righteously. They were never were payments for sin.
- [ ] Here’s another indication that sin offerings were not payments. If they were then every sin would have its own objective cost, no matter who the sinner was. The price tag on sin X would always be the same for everybody, rich and poor. The scripture provides instead that the amount of payment could vary according to what the person could afford… If the same sins have different price tags, the sacrifice is not a payment or a transaction, instead it’s a gift. The giver needs to feel it to be a sacrifice. It needs to feel like a stretch… It’s giving that heals a relationship and the face value of the gift is beside the point. When you come to a new depth of relationship and want to mark it with a gift, that gift should really cost you something. On the founding of His New Covenant, Christ offered Himself to the Father as the representative of the whole human race. He was the offering of immeasurable cost that we gave to the Father. God gave is a costly gift as well - the blood of His beloved Son, and with it, the forgiveness of our sins. On both sides, human and divine, the exchange was a gift. An extraordinary and ultimate gift, not a transaction.
- [ ] God gave us His Son in the first place. He didn’t require that we give an adequate sacrifice before He accepted reconciliation. He Himself provided the sacrifice - one that we didn’t even know that we should offer. God Himself completed the terms of this New Covenant.
- [ ] Ever since the time of Moses, lambs have been offered in acknowledgement of sin in a ritual marked with fitting solemnity. But when the Lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of the whole world, those who took His life didn’t do so with reverence. They did it with raucous levity, insults, and blows. They didn’t handle Him with the respect they would have given a sacrificial sheep. Our sacrifice comes so completely from God that it wasn’t even necessary for the humans involved to behave with humility, penitence, or dignity. It all comes a free gift from God.
- [ ] People can interpret any verse of scripture in a number of ways. And then each new interpretation can eventually become a venerable tradition. But it’s worth asking… How closely does it resemble the understanding of the New Testament’s original audience? If nobody thought of this interpretation for 1000 years, doesn’t that make it seem kind of iffy? We can ask further, does this interpretation lead to spiritual health? Does it create in us a lively mix of repentance and gratitude? Does it lead us into a more sure and accurate awareness of God’s presence? Or does it lead us to think of God as the corresponding party in a formal transaction? All we have to do is slap His Son on the cross and we’re in the clear?
Ch 8
- [ ] In the Christian west, the word “ransom” is often confused with the concept of sacrifices and offerings. Ransom is understood to mean Christ paying our sin debt to God. But when there is a kidnapping, the ransom doesn’t go to the chief of police. We don’t need to be redeemed or ransomed from God. The Father was not holding us captive… St. Gregory of Nazianzus… wrote, “to whom was that blood offered that was shed for us? Since a random belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered? Well, to the devil perhaps - but it would be outrageous for the evil one to receive ransom not only from God, but ransom which consists of God Himself. The devil was a murdered and a liar from the beginning (John 8:44) and he had no right to any payment… but if the payment is to the Father, first I ask how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed? And second, why should the blood of the Only Begotten delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father as a sacrifice?… the Son offers Himself as a sacrifice to honor the Father. The Father accepts this sacrifice without having demanded it, and the final result is the defeat of the evil one… this is as much as we shall say of Christ. The greater portion shall be reverenced with silence.”
Ch 9
- [ ] How did the gospel writers describe Christ’s suffering? Even though these four authors write in different styles and emphasize different aspects of Christ’s life, they all made the same decision - when it came to the crucifixion, they described it as briefly as possible.
- [ ] We need to see victorious images of the crucifixion. In fact, we need to see Christ’s victory in every icon, precisely because our grasp of reality is so fragmented and weak.
Ch 10
- [ ] St. Augustine… taught that every human being is born, not just disposed to sin, but already guilty of sin. We all share in Adam’s guilt, simply because we share in human life… the hard case that challenged St. Augustine had to do with babies that died before they were baptized. If they’re guilty of Adam’s sin even before birth, do they go to hell? St. Augustine had the courage of his convictions and said, “yes, such children were condemned and excluded from heaven, though… they would experience the mildest condemnation of all.” Eastern Christians have never believed that we are born already guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve.
- [ ] We suffer from [sin] as we do from breathing polluted air… one act of betrayal can unbalance an entire community… “I saw that we all depend on each other. I saw that, although, I thought my sins could be secret, that they would be no more secret than an earthquake. All these houses and all these families, my infidelity will somehow shake them…”
Ch 11
- [ ] And let’s not get started on the times that, in some sneaky corner of our hearts, malice was mixed up in what we “unintentionally” did or didn’t do. The Lord knows all about it when I flounder in such sins. Even when I manage to keep my own awareness vague. He knows me well and the evil one does too. And my closest friends and family have a front row seat. The only one left out of this information loop, the only one with a sunny impression of my all around niceness, is me. All that jumble of pain is sin. Whenever we contribute to this deadly smog, we participate in sin, even if we didn’t intend to or didn’t know it was a sin.
- [ ] It sounds strange to ask forgiveness for sins that were involuntary or even unknown. By the definition in the [Roman] Catholic catechism… we would not be culpable for unintentional sins. But if you caused a friend some hurt or pain without meaning to, of course you would be sorry. Of course you would ask him to forgive you once you realized that you’d hurt him. You’d also be sorry that you added any more pain to the burden of this weary world. So culpability is not the point. You wouldn’t say of a friend you unintentionally wounded, “he might be hurt but that doesn’t concern me. I didn’t do it on purpose. With a friend, it’s all about keeping a relationship in good repair.” It’s the same in our relationship with God.
- [ ] Christ takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), not just the penalty for sin, but the sins themselves. He gives us the great gift of forgiveness and then gives us even more, teaching us how to resist temptation, delivering us from the slavery of our chaotic and conflicting desires.
- [ ] In an orthodox anecdote, the devil disputes with the Lord over the soul of a fallen, but Christ-loving sinner. The Lord settles the argument by saying, “this is my property and I am taking the condition in which I find it.”
- [ ] Penitent sinners find that our struggle against sin changes and strengthens us no matter how often we lose. It is the struggle itself that is transformative. It was what we really are, and not a legal fiction, that will encounter the light of Christ when this life ends.
Ch 13
- [ ] Think… when we see suffering, “I did this, because all human life is one, because we all swim in a common sea. I helped cause this with my heedless, selfish sins. I helped pollute the world and make it the kind of place where things like this can happen.” Like air pollution, the fog of sin hurts everyone who breathes.
- [ ] But to the devil, human suffering is only a delightful bonus. His real goal is to alienate us from the Lord. His strategy in this is temptation. That doesn’t mean only things that give us pleasure. He is just as likely to tempt us toward fear, self-hatred, or despair. Anything that turns us away from the Lord will serve his purpose.
Ch 14
- [ ] God’s love seems theoretical until we grasp personally how much He has forgiven us. Jesus said, “her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:47)
Ch 15
- [ ] Christ came to rescue us because the human race is uniquely His creation. He permeates it and His own life is the beating heart of all its life. Christ saves us because we are His, we belong to Him. He stands on His rights as our creator.
Ch 16
- [ ] C. S. Lewis wrote that we think at first God is going to turn us into a decent little cottage, but as deep, wrenching changes continue to be made, we realize that He’s building a palace. Lewis says, “He intends to come and live in it Himself.”
- [ ] He created us in His image and surrounded us with bountiful creation, and then lets us choose how we will live. The end of our life’s journey will reveal what kinds of choices we made. Making regular trips back to Egypt is a dangerous game. Step by unseen step, we could be conditioning ourselves to find God boring and turning habits of self indulgence into chains of addiction.
Occasionally was a bit rah rah orthodox at times, so docked half a star. Really enjoyed. Great Lenten read.
Ch 5
- [ ] “God is watching us from a distance”. I wonder if that song was so popular b/c people would actually prefer a God who kept his distance and didn’t take too an active interest in their daily lives
- [ ] In the west, theology comes from theologians like milk comes from cows. A theologian’s job is to keep coming up with new ideas… but orthodox theology is grounded in community memory.
- [ ] Keeping our eyes on the cross… Sometimes we vanquish sin, rising above it in triumph, and sometimes it knocks us down… when that happens, God picks us up, dusts us off, and sets us on our feet again. The Orthodox life is a daily struggle against sin. A struggle for the freedom that is the birthright of a son.
- [ ] One reason for the great success of the satisfaction theory in Europe. It’s easier to grasp the idea of a straight forward transaction than to comprehend God’s vast and unreasonable love. It relieves the stress we feel over being forgiven for free and eternally put in God’s debt. It relieves the stress of being loved and forgiven for reasons we can’t control, reasons wholly within God Himself.
Ch 6
- [ ] Forgiveness addresses something in the past, something completed. The present and the future are a matter of trust. Forgiveness means that you set aside those past deeds, deciding not to brew over them or to nurture fantasies of revenge, but you can continue to reserve trust until you see sufficient evidence that you will be safe
- [ ] If we had to receive payment for every injury, we could hardly get through a day for all the confusion and aggravation it would cause. We know it is right to let some things pass without demanding that everything be paid in full. Forgiveness does not count the cost. Forgiveness is free.
- [ ] He forgives us the way we’re supposed to forgive each other. For free. St Isaac of Syria… points out that we can’t call God “just” in human terms since he pays the laborers who worked only one hour as much as those who worked all day. And the father of the prodigal embraces his son without any restitution.
- [ ] Jesus says… when we forgive we are behaving like our Father. (Matthew 5:44-48)
- [ ] On Ephesians 2:4-9… God, the all powerful, forgives us because of a motivation inside Himself. It is the great love with which He loved us.
- [ ] Then the [prodigal] son turned on his heel and left, and he didn’t go off a few blocks to pout. He immediately set out for a far country, putting as much space as possible between himself and his father. His father no doubt knew his son well. It was probably not the first angry outburst. As the son packed his goods and headed off, the father watched him go. In that desert, treeless land, he could follow this angry son with his eyes, watching as the figure got smaller and smaller in the distance until it finally disappeared. The father watched for a long time. The next day he brought out a chair and he watched some more. He kept watching. Day after day went by. One day, he saw a tiny figure far away on the horizon. It was his son coming home. Jesus said “while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion and ran and embraced him and kissed him (Luke 15:20). This father wasn’t concerned for his honor or even his dignity. Though his son handed had him a deadly insult, he ran up to him and caught him up in an embrace.
- [ ] In another version of the [Prodigal Son] story, the father might have said “I’d love to take you home, son, but who’s gonna pay this Visa bill. Someone’s gotta pay the debt first.” Or he might have said, “I’d love to take you home but I can’t have people thinking I would oveoook an insult. I’m gonn have to punish you for the sake of my honor.” Or he might have said, “I’m so full of wrath, I can’t see straight. Even if I killed you, it wouldn’t be enough. You’re not worth killing, you’re garbage. But your older brother who has never offended me, he is innocent. I’ll kill him and the sight of his blood will soothe my wrath.”
- [ ] The older brother doesn’t always get a fair shake… he has a legitimate complaint. The younger son has squandered his half of the inheritance and from now on they’ll all be living on the elder brother’s share. It isn’t fair, to tell the truth. When the father welcomes back the prodigal without requiring repayment, it is unjust in earthly terms. But the father invites the older son to sacrifice his legitimate claim and join him in a love that doesn’t count the cost.
- [ ] The fatted calf is the costly sacrifice that is the center of the feast, which sets a seal on their reunion. It is the father who provides the calf.
Ch 7
- [ ] The Hebrew people continued to make many kinds of sacrifices. Free will offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and gifts in fulfillment of vows, in addition to offerings for sin. Every offering was a reaffirmation of the original covenant between God and His people. And then at the turning point of time, the Old Covenant was concluded and a new one began. Jesus said, “this cup is the New Covenant in My blood” (1 Cor 11:25)
- [ ] Christ’s death on the cross was an offering to the Father, but it wasn’t a payment. This is a distinction we don’t readily catch because the making of sacrifices is no longer a feature of daily life. But it was never the case that the Father needed animal blood before He could forgive His people. It was rather that His people needed to offer it. Sinners needed to make a costly gift as evidence to themselves and others that they were sincere. They needed to show that they were really sorry for their sin and really intended to renounce it. The gifts have no power of coercion. An offering can’t compel a penitent sinner to live righteously, but a gift sets a seal on his intention. The temple sacrifices and offerings demonstrated a commitment to God and an intention to live righteously. They were never were payments for sin.
- [ ] Here’s another indication that sin offerings were not payments. If they were then every sin would have its own objective cost, no matter who the sinner was. The price tag on sin X would always be the same for everybody, rich and poor. The scripture provides instead that the amount of payment could vary according to what the person could afford… If the same sins have different price tags, the sacrifice is not a payment or a transaction, instead it’s a gift. The giver needs to feel it to be a sacrifice. It needs to feel like a stretch… It’s giving that heals a relationship and the face value of the gift is beside the point. When you come to a new depth of relationship and want to mark it with a gift, that gift should really cost you something. On the founding of His New Covenant, Christ offered Himself to the Father as the representative of the whole human race. He was the offering of immeasurable cost that we gave to the Father. God gave is a costly gift as well - the blood of His beloved Son, and with it, the forgiveness of our sins. On both sides, human and divine, the exchange was a gift. An extraordinary and ultimate gift, not a transaction.
- [ ] God gave us His Son in the first place. He didn’t require that we give an adequate sacrifice before He accepted reconciliation. He Himself provided the sacrifice - one that we didn’t even know that we should offer. God Himself completed the terms of this New Covenant.
- [ ] Ever since the time of Moses, lambs have been offered in acknowledgement of sin in a ritual marked with fitting solemnity. But when the Lamb of God was sacrificed for the sins of the whole world, those who took His life didn’t do so with reverence. They did it with raucous levity, insults, and blows. They didn’t handle Him with the respect they would have given a sacrificial sheep. Our sacrifice comes so completely from God that it wasn’t even necessary for the humans involved to behave with humility, penitence, or dignity. It all comes a free gift from God.
- [ ] People can interpret any verse of scripture in a number of ways. And then each new interpretation can eventually become a venerable tradition. But it’s worth asking… How closely does it resemble the understanding of the New Testament’s original audience? If nobody thought of this interpretation for 1000 years, doesn’t that make it seem kind of iffy? We can ask further, does this interpretation lead to spiritual health? Does it create in us a lively mix of repentance and gratitude? Does it lead us into a more sure and accurate awareness of God’s presence? Or does it lead us to think of God as the corresponding party in a formal transaction? All we have to do is slap His Son on the cross and we’re in the clear?
Ch 8
- [ ] In the Christian west, the word “ransom” is often confused with the concept of sacrifices and offerings. Ransom is understood to mean Christ paying our sin debt to God. But when there is a kidnapping, the ransom doesn’t go to the chief of police. We don’t need to be redeemed or ransomed from God. The Father was not holding us captive… St. Gregory of Nazianzus… wrote, “to whom was that blood offered that was shed for us? Since a random belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered? Well, to the devil perhaps - but it would be outrageous for the evil one to receive ransom not only from God, but ransom which consists of God Himself. The devil was a murdered and a liar from the beginning (John 8:44) and he had no right to any payment… but if the payment is to the Father, first I ask how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed? And second, why should the blood of the Only Begotten delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac when he was being offered by his father as a sacrifice?… the Son offers Himself as a sacrifice to honor the Father. The Father accepts this sacrifice without having demanded it, and the final result is the defeat of the evil one… this is as much as we shall say of Christ. The greater portion shall be reverenced with silence.”
Ch 9
- [ ] How did the gospel writers describe Christ’s suffering? Even though these four authors write in different styles and emphasize different aspects of Christ’s life, they all made the same decision - when it came to the crucifixion, they described it as briefly as possible.
- [ ] We need to see victorious images of the crucifixion. In fact, we need to see Christ’s victory in every icon, precisely because our grasp of reality is so fragmented and weak.
Ch 10
- [ ] St. Augustine… taught that every human being is born, not just disposed to sin, but already guilty of sin. We all share in Adam’s guilt, simply because we share in human life… the hard case that challenged St. Augustine had to do with babies that died before they were baptized. If they’re guilty of Adam’s sin even before birth, do they go to hell? St. Augustine had the courage of his convictions and said, “yes, such children were condemned and excluded from heaven, though… they would experience the mildest condemnation of all.” Eastern Christians have never believed that we are born already guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve.
- [ ] We suffer from [sin] as we do from breathing polluted air… one act of betrayal can unbalance an entire community… “I saw that we all depend on each other. I saw that, although, I thought my sins could be secret, that they would be no more secret than an earthquake. All these houses and all these families, my infidelity will somehow shake them…”
Ch 11
- [ ] And let’s not get started on the times that, in some sneaky corner of our hearts, malice was mixed up in what we “unintentionally” did or didn’t do. The Lord knows all about it when I flounder in such sins. Even when I manage to keep my own awareness vague. He knows me well and the evil one does too. And my closest friends and family have a front row seat. The only one left out of this information loop, the only one with a sunny impression of my all around niceness, is me. All that jumble of pain is sin. Whenever we contribute to this deadly smog, we participate in sin, even if we didn’t intend to or didn’t know it was a sin.
- [ ] It sounds strange to ask forgiveness for sins that were involuntary or even unknown. By the definition in the [Roman] Catholic catechism… we would not be culpable for unintentional sins. But if you caused a friend some hurt or pain without meaning to, of course you would be sorry. Of course you would ask him to forgive you once you realized that you’d hurt him. You’d also be sorry that you added any more pain to the burden of this weary world. So culpability is not the point. You wouldn’t say of a friend you unintentionally wounded, “he might be hurt but that doesn’t concern me. I didn’t do it on purpose. With a friend, it’s all about keeping a relationship in good repair.” It’s the same in our relationship with God.
- [ ] Christ takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), not just the penalty for sin, but the sins themselves. He gives us the great gift of forgiveness and then gives us even more, teaching us how to resist temptation, delivering us from the slavery of our chaotic and conflicting desires.
- [ ] In an orthodox anecdote, the devil disputes with the Lord over the soul of a fallen, but Christ-loving sinner. The Lord settles the argument by saying, “this is my property and I am taking the condition in which I find it.”
- [ ] Penitent sinners find that our struggle against sin changes and strengthens us no matter how often we lose. It is the struggle itself that is transformative. It was what we really are, and not a legal fiction, that will encounter the light of Christ when this life ends.
Ch 13
- [ ] Think… when we see suffering, “I did this, because all human life is one, because we all swim in a common sea. I helped cause this with my heedless, selfish sins. I helped pollute the world and make it the kind of place where things like this can happen.” Like air pollution, the fog of sin hurts everyone who breathes.
- [ ] But to the devil, human suffering is only a delightful bonus. His real goal is to alienate us from the Lord. His strategy in this is temptation. That doesn’t mean only things that give us pleasure. He is just as likely to tempt us toward fear, self-hatred, or despair. Anything that turns us away from the Lord will serve his purpose.
Ch 14
- [ ] God’s love seems theoretical until we grasp personally how much He has forgiven us. Jesus said, “her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:47)
Ch 15
- [ ] Christ came to rescue us because the human race is uniquely His creation. He permeates it and His own life is the beating heart of all its life. Christ saves us because we are His, we belong to Him. He stands on His rights as our creator.
Ch 16
- [ ] C. S. Lewis wrote that we think at first God is going to turn us into a decent little cottage, but as deep, wrenching changes continue to be made, we realize that He’s building a palace. Lewis says, “He intends to come and live in it Himself.”
- [ ] He created us in His image and surrounded us with bountiful creation, and then lets us choose how we will live. The end of our life’s journey will reveal what kinds of choices we made. Making regular trips back to Egypt is a dangerous game. Step by unseen step, we could be conditioning ourselves to find God boring and turning habits of self indulgence into chains of addiction.
January 26, 2024
I read this book as requested by a friend who wanted me to give her a review. I went to amazon to order it and was a little taken aback at the price considering the length of the book. But I could read it for free using Kindle Unlimited, so I chose that option.
This book explained, in true layman's terms, almost exactly what was being taught in a class at my church based on the book "The Religion of the Apostles" I was glued to each page and even made high lights and book marks in my kindle. I will transfer all these to the copy that I ordered when I finished the e-book. I found it so helpful that I also ordered two more to give to people!
The author carefully begins by talking about what words mean. This is so important because if you and I both use the same word, but have a different idea of what it means, we cannot effectively communicate what we are thinking or believe. Step by careful step she talks about the views of ransomed, redeemed, delivered, and saved. She goes into forgiveness and mercy, sacrifices and offerings. Halfway through the book she begins to talk about the crucifixion - something one would think she'd start with given the title. But she needed to lay a foundation so the reader could properly understand the Orthodox view of the crucifixion and what it did for us. She goes into sin and righteousness, the problem of evil mercy and repentance, free will, the assurance of salvation, the incarnation (so important to understanding). She ends with theosis and how theology should be a part of our everyday lives.
This book is well worth the cost of the paperback. I'd advise getting the physical book over kindle because it is hard to properly use the footnotes which are at the end of the book. It's just too hard to scroll back and forth, much easier to flip pages. Also the physical book make it easy to highlight and take notes in the margins.
This book explained, in true layman's terms, almost exactly what was being taught in a class at my church based on the book "The Religion of the Apostles" I was glued to each page and even made high lights and book marks in my kindle. I will transfer all these to the copy that I ordered when I finished the e-book. I found it so helpful that I also ordered two more to give to people!
The author carefully begins by talking about what words mean. This is so important because if you and I both use the same word, but have a different idea of what it means, we cannot effectively communicate what we are thinking or believe. Step by careful step she talks about the views of ransomed, redeemed, delivered, and saved. She goes into forgiveness and mercy, sacrifices and offerings. Halfway through the book she begins to talk about the crucifixion - something one would think she'd start with given the title. But she needed to lay a foundation so the reader could properly understand the Orthodox view of the crucifixion and what it did for us. She goes into sin and righteousness, the problem of evil mercy and repentance, free will, the assurance of salvation, the incarnation (so important to understanding). She ends with theosis and how theology should be a part of our everyday lives.
This book is well worth the cost of the paperback. I'd advise getting the physical book over kindle because it is hard to properly use the footnotes which are at the end of the book. It's just too hard to scroll back and forth, much easier to flip pages. Also the physical book make it easy to highlight and take notes in the margins.
December 19, 2023
Her argument is too hung up on Anselm of Canterbury and the debt repayment metaphor, though it IS a biblical concept. It seemed like in trying to argue against Jesus sacrificing himself to pay for sin she would always accidentally argue for it indirectly, which was frustrating. But it's difficult not to do that when you quote Scripture that talks about being offered for sin, even if you're trying to say that isn't what it says.
Also, I understand the value of koine Greek, but the Hebrew Old Testament trumps the Septuagint.
The last few chapters were more useful in understanding some Orthodox thought. And I am thoroughly Western in how I think, so the more Eastern way of thinking is definitely not for me. The concepts I agree with, but I would use a different vocabulary.
Also, I understand the value of koine Greek, but the Hebrew Old Testament trumps the Septuagint.
The last few chapters were more useful in understanding some Orthodox thought. And I am thoroughly Western in how I think, so the more Eastern way of thinking is definitely not for me. The concepts I agree with, but I would use a different vocabulary.
December 26, 2025
Thrilling introduction to Orthodox thought.
December 27, 2024
This is a critical read for those who have an interest in Christianity, philosophy, and history.
The book aims to analyze the beliefs of Christianity across time, therefore leaving one with a much deeper understanding of the beliefs and motivations that built the East and West.
Frederica takes the reader on an easy-to-digest and profound journey through the evolution of Christian ideas and how these beliefs have affected culture and religion, causing confusion, hundreds of denominations, wars, and spiritual anguish.
She makes an excellent comparison between modern, more philosophized Christianity and its more Orthodox, original beliefs and traditions.
It is such a relief how digestible this book is. Many of these topics discussed, particularly the idea of salvation and the cross, are complex and challenging concepts to grasp and understand, especially for those new to Christianity and its original Orthodox roots. However, Frederica provides very deep but simple explanations on common topics believers or theologians/philosophers wrestle with.
For instance, much of this book is a process of unlearning rather than learning. The author walks the reader through a variety of beliefs and modern ideas regarding Christianity and demonstrates how these new ideas are now flawed and undermine Christianity. I was shocked to learn that nearly all my beliefs and conceptions of Christianity were deeply Western and extremely new. Resulting in deep confusion and misconception of God.
One of the most profound insights I left with that every Christian should investigate is the idea of the cross and atonement. Modern Christianity has conditioned believers into thinking we are in debt to God with sin and that the only way we could "repay" this debt was through Christ. This is a surprisingly new belief. Originally Christ's work was aimed at death, but now it is thought to be aimed at being forgiven for sins. Originally salvation was a victory, not where we repay the Father with Christ's blood. Orthodoxy (the original Christian belief) believes that NOTHING we do can pay the debt for our sins; instead, God simply forgives them.
This was my favorite section of the book, where the author highlights the original view of forgiveness, mercy, and salvation. Frederica provides an excellent example and description of what forgiveness is. When you forgive someone, you don't EXPECT or DEMAND something in return; that isn't forgiveness; that's transactional. Frederica here provides the truly profound and original idea of God being forgiving simply out of love. Everyone should read this section; it forever changed the way I view sin and the idea of having to "persuade God" or "win God's forgiveness" through good works, etc.
In summary, I left this book with a much deeper appreciation for Christianity and its original message and beliefs. They make far more sense and feel much less transactional. They fully display the idea of God in a manner that doesn't seem far-fetched or where you leave feeling like a flawed creature having to "win God over.". It does an excellent job discussing the Western influence on Christianity and comparing these beliefs to the original ones. My entire view of Christianity has shifted with this amazing introductory book on Christian Orthodoxy.
The book aims to analyze the beliefs of Christianity across time, therefore leaving one with a much deeper understanding of the beliefs and motivations that built the East and West.
Frederica takes the reader on an easy-to-digest and profound journey through the evolution of Christian ideas and how these beliefs have affected culture and religion, causing confusion, hundreds of denominations, wars, and spiritual anguish.
She makes an excellent comparison between modern, more philosophized Christianity and its more Orthodox, original beliefs and traditions.
It is such a relief how digestible this book is. Many of these topics discussed, particularly the idea of salvation and the cross, are complex and challenging concepts to grasp and understand, especially for those new to Christianity and its original Orthodox roots. However, Frederica provides very deep but simple explanations on common topics believers or theologians/philosophers wrestle with.
For instance, much of this book is a process of unlearning rather than learning. The author walks the reader through a variety of beliefs and modern ideas regarding Christianity and demonstrates how these new ideas are now flawed and undermine Christianity. I was shocked to learn that nearly all my beliefs and conceptions of Christianity were deeply Western and extremely new. Resulting in deep confusion and misconception of God.
One of the most profound insights I left with that every Christian should investigate is the idea of the cross and atonement. Modern Christianity has conditioned believers into thinking we are in debt to God with sin and that the only way we could "repay" this debt was through Christ. This is a surprisingly new belief. Originally Christ's work was aimed at death, but now it is thought to be aimed at being forgiven for sins. Originally salvation was a victory, not where we repay the Father with Christ's blood. Orthodoxy (the original Christian belief) believes that NOTHING we do can pay the debt for our sins; instead, God simply forgives them.
This was my favorite section of the book, where the author highlights the original view of forgiveness, mercy, and salvation. Frederica provides an excellent example and description of what forgiveness is. When you forgive someone, you don't EXPECT or DEMAND something in return; that isn't forgiveness; that's transactional. Frederica here provides the truly profound and original idea of God being forgiving simply out of love. Everyone should read this section; it forever changed the way I view sin and the idea of having to "persuade God" or "win God's forgiveness" through good works, etc.
In summary, I left this book with a much deeper appreciation for Christianity and its original message and beliefs. They make far more sense and feel much less transactional. They fully display the idea of God in a manner that doesn't seem far-fetched or where you leave feeling like a flawed creature having to "win God over.". It does an excellent job discussing the Western influence on Christianity and comparing these beliefs to the original ones. My entire view of Christianity has shifted with this amazing introductory book on Christian Orthodoxy.
January 14, 2025
This book was a very thought provoking read. It brought ideas to the table that I had never even considered, but after considering them found much validity in. It can be a bit hard to follow at times and is a very theologically dense book. Would recommend to anyone of all denominations.
May 8, 2023
Potent Quotables:
The idea that God’s honor had to be restored before he could forgive us doesn’t appear until a thousand years into the Christian story. Such theories arose in a different era, culture, and language, and on a whole different continent, than the one the New Testament writers knew. I have seen Eastern Christians astonished and appalled when they learn that any Christian believes Christ died to pay our sin-debt to the Father.
If you and I forgive each other without demanding repayment, we do the very thing that troubled St. Anselm: we treat sinner and sinless alike, we leave sin uncorrected, and we knock the scales of justice awry. To look at it from the other direction: if God had to receive satisfaction before granting forgiveness, then “as we forgive” would mean we had to do the same. We couldn’t forgive a serious injury, not until there was restitution or punishment. To graciously waive repayment would wreck eternal justice. And how would we know where to stop? If serious injuries must be redressed, wouldn’t non-serious ones need to be, as well?
St. Isaac of Syria, a seventh-century bishop of Nineveh, points out that we can’t call God just, in human terms, since he pays the laborers who worked only one hour as much as those who worked all day, and the father of the prodigal embraces his son without any restitution. “Do not call God just,” St. Isaac says, “for his justice is not manifest in the things regarding you.”
In another version of the [prodigal son parable], the father might have said, “I’d love to take you home, son, but who’s going to pay this Visa bill? Somebody’s got to pay the debt first.” Or he might have said, “I’d love to take you home, but I can’t have people thinking I would overlook an insult. I’m going to have to punish you, for the sake of my honor.” Or he might have said, “I’m so full of wrath I can’t see straight. Even if I killed you, it wouldn’t be enough. You’re not worth killing. You’re garbage. But your older brother, who has never offended me—he is innocent. I’ll kill him, and the sight of his blood will soothe my wrath”... The older brother doesn’t always get a fair shake, when people talk about this parable. He has a legitimate complaint: the younger son has squandered his half of the inheritance, and from now on they’ll all be living on the elder brother’s share. It isn’t fair, to tell the truth. When the father welcomes back the prodigal without requiring repayment, it is unjust, in earthly terms. But the father invites the older son to sacrifice his legitimate claim, and join him in a love that doesn’t count the cost.
Christ’s death on the Cross was an offering to the Father—but it wasn’t a payment. This is a distinction we don’t readily catch, because the making of sacrifices is no longer a feature of daily life. But it was never the case that the Father needed animal blood before he could forgive his people. It was rather that his people needed to offer it. Sinners needed to make a costly gift as evidence to themselves and others that they were sincere; they needed to show that they really were sorry for their sin, and really intended to renounce it. Gifts have no power of coercion; an offering can’t compel a penitent sinner to live righteously. But a gift sets a seal on his intention. The Temple sacrifices and offerings demonstrated a commitment to God and an intention to live righteously. They never were payments for sin. This can be rather a new thought, if we are used to thinking of salvation as a transaction: a big pile of debt on this side, and a big pile of payment over there, and now we’re in the clear. I think what leads us astray is that we think the Old Testament sacrifices were like the offerings made in the old Greco-Roman religion, which went to pay off debts or win divine favors. That’s rather a crass idea, and unworthy of attribution to the God-guided Hebrew people.
“In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Corinthians 5:19). Notice that St. Paul says “not counting their trespasses;” he does not say God counted the trespasses, weighed the Cross, and considered the debt well paid. The purpose of the sacrifice is reconciliation, not repayment.
The Sacrifices and Offerings aspect of salvation is simple and direct: it is the restoring of a relationship of love. It’s not necessary to add an extra layer of offending abstract justice, and God being unable to forgive us until that’s repaid. But if you’ve always arranged your mental furniture around that extra bit, it’s hard to get it out again. It’s fairly easy to expand, elaborate, and proliferate, when busy with intellectual matters, but it’s not so easy to recover an earlier simplicity. That’s one reason it takes converts a few years to get the hang of Orthodoxy. Certainly, it’s possible to interpret these Scriptures differently, and claim that they prove objective justice has to be satisfied, or a penalty paid, before God can forgive us. People can interpret any verse of Scripture in a number of ways, and each new interpretation can eventually become a venerable tradition. But it’s worth asking: When did that tradition begin? How recently did it appear, in Christian history? How closely does it resemble the understanding of the New Testament’s original audience? If nobody thought of this interpretation for a thousand years, doesn’t that make it kind of iffy? We can ask further: does this interpretation lead to spiritual health? Does it create in us a lively mix of repentance and gratitude? Does it lead us into a more sure and accurate awareness of God’s presence? Or does it lead us to think of God as the corresponding party in a formal transaction—all we have to do is slap his Son on a Cross, and we’re in the clear?
I sometimes hear people say that we should use all of the theories of the atonement, because each one supplies something essential to our understanding. I can’t agree completely, because the early-church belief that God forgives freely isn’t compatible with the later theory that he had to be paid. Yet there is much beauty to explore in the scriptural language of Sacrifice and Offering, once it’s liberated from the overtones of a one-for-one transaction.
This is one of the most significant differences between Western and Eastern Christian theology: In Euro-American Christianity, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) means that the punishment for sin is death. It’s like saying that the punishment for speeding is a fine. But in Orthodoxy, “the wages of sin is death” means that sin is death. The two are inextricably enmeshed: sin causes death, and fear of death causes sin… Because sin separates us from God, it separates us from life, light, love, and every good thing. To sin is to absorb death within your mind, within your feeble body. Death is the result of sin, not a punishment. It is a consequence. A mother who tells her son, “If you keep climbing up there, you’ll fall and break your leg,” and is proved right, didn’t inflict the broken leg as a punishment.
Tempting thoughts, no matter how loathsome, should not distress us; they may not even be our own thoughts, but just missiles flung at us by the evil one in his attempts to drag us away. So just let them pass. There’s a saying, “The birds fly overhead, but you don’t have to let them nest in your hair.” And don’t get pulled into trying to debate or refute them. Any kind of engagement with a thought can pull you into a downward slide. Just recognize them when you see them, and turn back to your constant inner prayer. “Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). Over the centuries, the psychology of temptation has been thoroughly mapped by Orthodox athletes of prayer, and the tactic of simply dismissing those thoughts and turning prayerfully toward Jesus has proved to be the best strategy.
St. Augustine [said] that we are born with a corrupted nature, inclined to sin (Orthodox would agree), and also born guilty of Adam’s sin (Orthodox would not agree). But Augustine also taught that our nature is entirely corrupted, and contains no health at all. Since we are corrupted in every respect, St. Augustine said, we are not able to choose not to sin. We will sin every time, unless God intervenes. (In the Protestant Reformation, this doctrine acquired the name Total Depravity.) The Church regards Augustine as a saint (though no saint is perfect), but Orthodox don’t agree with St. Augustine’s stand against free will. As before, your view of salvation makes a difference here. If salvation means paying the Father the debt we owe for our sins, then that payment would have to be entirely Christ’s doing. If the Cross wasn’t payment enough, we’re all in trouble. But if you look at salvation instead as a rescue action, free will has different implications. You can choose whether or not to accept a rescue. In that regard, you have free will. That’s true, even though you don’t have to do anything to deserve a rescue.
June 26, 2024
I liked: her emphasis of Union with God as opposed to transactional salvation, argument that “forgiveness must be free if it is forgiveness at all”, explanation of sin as poison, her reliance on early church fathers.
She switched from Protestant to E Orthodox decades ago. There were a few times when she said, “When I was a Protestant, I thought…” as if the problem was with protestant theology. However, many times it was just bad theology (not Protestant specifically). I appreciated how she is able to write specifically for Protestants because of her background.
I was also not a big fan of her explanation of God’s preserving work in the believer (it was too weak).
With these two critiques, it was tottering between 4 and 5 ⭐️s, but leaned just a bit more toward 5. This was a helpful summary of Orthodox Soteriology. I’m thankful for how the Western church has benefitted from Eastern church thought recently. The East has a lot to offer.
We’ll written and great content.
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
She switched from Protestant to E Orthodox decades ago. There were a few times when she said, “When I was a Protestant, I thought…” as if the problem was with protestant theology. However, many times it was just bad theology (not Protestant specifically). I appreciated how she is able to write specifically for Protestants because of her background.
I was also not a big fan of her explanation of God’s preserving work in the believer (it was too weak).
With these two critiques, it was tottering between 4 and 5 ⭐️s, but leaned just a bit more toward 5. This was a helpful summary of Orthodox Soteriology. I’m thankful for how the Western church has benefitted from Eastern church thought recently. The East has a lot to offer.
We’ll written and great content.
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
February 20, 2025
An interesting comparison of the views of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western churches (RC and Protestant) on views of atonement and the cross. This is a good introduction to these thoughts. My only knock is that she tends to be overly simplistic in her descriptions of western positions. However, I understand that the goal of the book was not to get deep into the weeds. But I did not feel as though she dug in at all in places where it would have been helpful.
July 1, 2023
Potent Quotables:
+ Christian leaders of the first and second century declared Christ’s victory over Hades, and his deliverance of the righteous departed:
- “Even the prophets, being his disciples, were expecting him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause, he whom they rightly awaited, when he came, raised them from the dead… He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but he arose accompanied by a multitude; and rent asunder that means of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition-wall.” Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-108)
- “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the pangs of Hades.” Polycarp (AD 69-155)
- “The Lord God remembered the people of Israel who lay in the graves, and he descended to preach to them his own salvation.” Justin the Martyr (AD 100-165)
- “For three days he dwelt in the place where the dead were… The Lord remembered his dead saints who slept formerly in the land of burial, and he descended to them, to rescue and save them.” Irenaeus (AD 130-202)
+ As a Protestant I sometimes wondered: How had the early Christians known that Christ’s Resurrection meant that we would be resurrected too? Why wouldn’t they think of it as something that happened to Jesus alone, like the Ascension or the Virgin Birth? (I didn’t doubt that we would be resurrected; I just wondered how the early Christians arrived at that conclusion.) They found it in the Scriptures, of course:
- “Lord, you have brought up my soul from Sheol [Hades], restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit” (Psalm 29/30:3)
- “From the depths of the earth you will bring me up again” (Psalm 70/71:20)
- “God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol” (Psalm 48/49:15)
- “He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:8)
- “Because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit” (Zechariah 9:11)
- “I will deliver them from the hand of Hades, and I will redeem them from death. O Death, where is your penalty? O Hades, where is your sting?” (Hosea 13:14, 1 Corinthians 15:55)
The early Christians saw Christ’s victory in Hades as the center-point of the Gospel story; it is the moment when we are ransomed, redeemed, delivered, and saved. But in the West, the events of Holy Saturday faded in importance, and this dynamic moment-of-rescue was largely forgotten.
People can interpret any verse of Scripture in a number of ways, and each new interpretation can eventually become a venerable tradition. But it’s worth asking: When did that tradition begin? How recently did it appear in Christian history? How closely does it resemble the understanding of the New Testament’s original audience? If nobody thought of this interpretation for a thousand years, doesn’t that make it kind of iffy? We can ask further: does this interpretation lead to spiritual health? Does it create in us a lively mix of repentance and gratitude? Does it lead us into a more sure and accurate awareness of God’s presence? Or does it lead us to think of God as the corresponding party in a formal transaction—all we have to do is slap his Son on a Cross, and we’re in the clear? I sometimes hear people say that we should use all of the theories of the atonement, because each one supplies something essential to our understanding. I can’t agree completely, because the early-church belief that God forgives freely isn’t compatible with the later theory that he had to be paid. Yet there is much beauty to explore in the scriptural language of Sacrifice and Offering, once it’s liberated from the overtones of a one-for-one transaction.
St. Isaac of Syria (d. AD 700) thought that the pain of Hell would be caused by realizing, at last, how much God loved us, and that we have rejected his love: “Those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love… I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be… This is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the children of Heaven by its delectability.”
February 4, 2025
This is one of those books that you could read multiple times and still glean new information from. I highly recommend it for anyone coming out of Protestant traditions into the Orthodox faith. It will blow your mind and help readers understand how the theology that resulted from the reformation got so off track.
December 21, 2023
This is a refreshing and empowering book
While none of this was actually “new“ to me, after following Jesus and studying the Bible, for 52 years, I love how she put it together logically, building from one point to another. Over recent years I have been struggling with what I was taught about the Cross. I think I have traveled through most of the different theological positions she described, and have landed fairly close to Orthodoxy as she describes it. (I didn’t know that it was Orthodoxy, but I’m fine with that!)
I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to grow in their understanding of God, and the work done through Jesus.
While none of this was actually “new“ to me, after following Jesus and studying the Bible, for 52 years, I love how she put it together logically, building from one point to another. Over recent years I have been struggling with what I was taught about the Cross. I think I have traveled through most of the different theological positions she described, and have landed fairly close to Orthodoxy as she describes it. (I didn’t know that it was Orthodoxy, but I’m fine with that!)
I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to grow in their understanding of God, and the work done through Jesus.
July 30, 2024
Intellectual Graciousness, Clear, Simple and with…
… wonderful humor included. What a treasure we have in Frederica Matthews’s-Green. I want to read or listen to (my 82 y/o macular degenerating eyes are going …) everything she has written. I feel loved with the love of Christ our God and copied and pasted almost half (a lot, but not that much) of the book into my notes. Waiting now for August 10 when I am eligible for my next free book on Audible. Looking forward to hearing her read her own book on the Jesus Prayer which is transforming this newly Orthodox old lady’s life. If you haven’t already come to an Orthodox Church.
… wonderful humor included. What a treasure we have in Frederica Matthews’s-Green. I want to read or listen to (my 82 y/o macular degenerating eyes are going …) everything she has written. I feel loved with the love of Christ our God and copied and pasted almost half (a lot, but not that much) of the book into my notes. Waiting now for August 10 when I am eligible for my next free book on Audible. Looking forward to hearing her read her own book on the Jesus Prayer which is transforming this newly Orthodox old lady’s life. If you haven’t already come to an Orthodox Church.
July 4, 2023
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
A famous quotation. Although the term “enemy” is far to extreme in this case. It makes the point.
As an evangelical reformed baptist Pastor I push against the theology of Roman Catholicism (praying for the people). Eastern Orthodoxy has done this for over one thousand years more than us.
We are ignorant to assume theological parallels between them. In fact the church in the East see us as a mere branch of the RC!
This book gives a great introduction to all three views of the cross in a respectful and challenging way.
A famous quotation. Although the term “enemy” is far to extreme in this case. It makes the point.
As an evangelical reformed baptist Pastor I push against the theology of Roman Catholicism (praying for the people). Eastern Orthodoxy has done this for over one thousand years more than us.
We are ignorant to assume theological parallels between them. In fact the church in the East see us as a mere branch of the RC!
This book gives a great introduction to all three views of the cross in a respectful and challenging way.
December 5, 2023
I thought this was a really great read. The author used to be Protestant (Episcopalian) and converted to Orthodoxy. The biggest frustration for me was the massively broad brush in which she painted Protestantism. She's intentional about it and says as much. But otherwise, she really helps to describe the Orthodox view of the atonement. I've always been a little of Saint Anselm introducing Penal Substitutionary Atonement and she spends a lot of time outlining an argument against this view and for, what we in the west would probably call the ransom theory. Overall, I was very impressed.
August 28, 2023
Book 32 of 2023: Two Views of The Cross by: Frederica Mathewes-Green
“He paid a debt he did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay.”
“Salvation isn’t a process; salvation is a gift. But life is a process. We have to keep on making the decision to follow Christ, over and over again, day by day, and even minute by minute.”
Interesting and concise book of Orthodox Christian beliefs. Enjoyed reading and learning about it.
“He paid a debt he did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay.”
“Salvation isn’t a process; salvation is a gift. But life is a process. We have to keep on making the decision to follow Christ, over and over again, day by day, and even minute by minute.”
Interesting and concise book of Orthodox Christian beliefs. Enjoyed reading and learning about it.
February 24, 2025
Excellent. Short chapters and book but very powerful and insightful. Most likely going to re read it now just because. Did audible because it wouldn’t sync with kindle but want to go back and highlight (nearly the whole book).
A lot of thoughts and ideas I’ve been struggling with that I thought were new to me or “out there”….turns out they are ancient and orthodox - who knew?!
Recommend for anyone who thinks they’d be interested in it.
A lot of thoughts and ideas I’ve been struggling with that I thought were new to me or “out there”….turns out they are ancient and orthodox - who knew?!
Recommend for anyone who thinks they’d be interested in it.
October 20, 2022
A wonderful and helpful book.
Being young in Orthodoxy, I found this book to be invaluable in clearly showing the important theological differences between Holy Orthodoxy and the West. While Holy Orthodoxy has maintained the Faith once given , the West has sadly changed many of the fundamental tenants of the Faith. I think this book will be a great help to many people.
Being young in Orthodoxy, I found this book to be invaluable in clearly showing the important theological differences between Holy Orthodoxy and the West. While Holy Orthodoxy has maintained the Faith once given , the West has sadly changed many of the fundamental tenants of the Faith. I think this book will be a great help to many people.
April 30, 2023
Overall a good book that is well written with beautiful illustrations. However, I will say that there are false dichotomies within it. I believe there is beauty in both views of the cross. For me this book acted as more of a synthesis of the various views of soteriology and I am thankful for this author’s insight.
February 5, 2024
Thank you. This is one of those books I feel guilty listing as ‘Read’. Luke Stephen De Young’s, ‘Religion of the Apostles’. There’s so much weight and depth here that I’ll need to read it at least a dozen times before - if ever - I can say ‘I get it’
Such a blessing this author is.
Thank you for your work.
Lord, have mercy!
Such a blessing this author is.
Thank you for your work.
Lord, have mercy!
May 9, 2023
This is a must read for every Christian! Especially if you want to understand how Orthodox Christians view forgiveness & mercy, atonement, salvation sin, Hades, evil, free will, etc.
a very easy read and by no means exhaustive but very articulate and an excellent compare and contrast!
a very easy read and by no means exhaustive but very articulate and an excellent compare and contrast!
July 4, 2023
Brilliant!
Down to earth explanations of our own spirituality. Instead of looking at the original purpose of Christianity, it tells in the error of western thought of salvation as a transaction instead of pursuing a oneness with God.
Down to earth explanations of our own spirituality. Instead of looking at the original purpose of Christianity, it tells in the error of western thought of salvation as a transaction instead of pursuing a oneness with God.
May 30, 2024
Fantastic read! Simply written, profoundly communicated. Helpful resource for those curious about theories of atonement and in need of an approachable guide to understanding the difference between Western views and Orthodox views. highly recommend!
November 9, 2024
Excellent education in the Eastern Church's doctrines, well-written and understandable. This is not written at a post-doc level. The author explains some things in new ways which bring revelation and deeper understanding.
December 22, 2022
Succinct and thoroughly Orthodox
I've been looking for a ear and concise explanation of salvation according to the Orthodox understanding, and this book provides it.
I've been looking for a ear and concise explanation of salvation according to the Orthodox understanding, and this book provides it.
July 29, 2024
A good book for understanding and learning how to explain the differences between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and protestantism.
February 17, 2026
This was phenomenal. Mathewes-Green (MG) takes a roundabout trip starting and ending back at the cross, and leans on scholastics to explain exactly when and where the doctrines of the church, most specifically on the nature of the crucifixion, had subtly changed or altogether altered. MG presents a compelling narrative on the birth of different doctrines regarding The Fall, Original Sin, Atonement, the Incarnation, and compares the doctrines of Sacrifice/Ransom/Rescue using scripture, history, etymology, writings of the church fathers and a strong handle on Greek dialects, Latin and Hebrew. Even the iconography of the early church and Renaissance art of the later European church is used in a way to present a case for a change in how the church views Calvary.
It was very thoughtfully composed and again, challenged my western Protestant beliefs. I’m not a theologian but I had layman’s grip on most of the doctrines touched in this text prior to reading. That being said, it is palatable for someone brand new to these concepts. Most important for my development and I think most wonderfully explained was MG’s firm stance against PSA. If God needed a payment for sin, is it still forgiveness? Forgiveness is not described as a repayment of debt, but a foregoing of payment. MG presented the best case against PSA I’ve yet to read.
Stemming from the crucifixion, MG contrasts the early translations of the Bible and later translations and highlights language changes that are cited by the fathers of these post-reformation doctrines. MG doesn’t compel you to listen to one or the other, but rather just shows you when and where this idea began, by whom, and how it’s different than the original church interpreted. Without telling you why she’s right and your wrong, and without even the slightest pretension, MG also examples how some of these theologies were first drafted in opposition to the original churches, and immediately produces more schism between those who accepted parts of the new interpretation and rejected the rest. In the interest of intellectual integrity I’d want to challenge it, but you can’t challenge what’s written down and signed by each author of their own interpretation.
There was so much more in here, but I’ll go on forever if I try to give my thoughts on all of it. Big picture: this was a masterful essay on how those in the US and Western Europe have come to have a completely different idea of what happened on the cross, why it had to happen, and how that gap has continued to be a barrier in the unification of one church.
It was very thoughtfully composed and again, challenged my western Protestant beliefs. I’m not a theologian but I had layman’s grip on most of the doctrines touched in this text prior to reading. That being said, it is palatable for someone brand new to these concepts. Most important for my development and I think most wonderfully explained was MG’s firm stance against PSA. If God needed a payment for sin, is it still forgiveness? Forgiveness is not described as a repayment of debt, but a foregoing of payment. MG presented the best case against PSA I’ve yet to read.
Stemming from the crucifixion, MG contrasts the early translations of the Bible and later translations and highlights language changes that are cited by the fathers of these post-reformation doctrines. MG doesn’t compel you to listen to one or the other, but rather just shows you when and where this idea began, by whom, and how it’s different than the original church interpreted. Without telling you why she’s right and your wrong, and without even the slightest pretension, MG also examples how some of these theologies were first drafted in opposition to the original churches, and immediately produces more schism between those who accepted parts of the new interpretation and rejected the rest. In the interest of intellectual integrity I’d want to challenge it, but you can’t challenge what’s written down and signed by each author of their own interpretation.
There was so much more in here, but I’ll go on forever if I try to give my thoughts on all of it. Big picture: this was a masterful essay on how those in the US and Western Europe have come to have a completely different idea of what happened on the cross, why it had to happen, and how that gap has continued to be a barrier in the unification of one church.
July 20, 2025
Mathewes-Green provides a popular level accounting of the Eastern Orthodox view of atonement and its critiques of western models. Her arguments are strongest when she is highlighting the ways in which cultural concerns and not biblical exegesis have redirected the western approach.
However, she leaves the eastern view open to critique at a number of points. For instance:
1. She argues that the biblical model of atonement is not transactional. It is more like a restaurant owner forgiving your bill than another patron paying it for you. She misses the fact that for the restaurant owner to pay the bill, he must eat the cost you incurred in creating it. This is the key insight of the western model of the atonement: one way or another, someone has to pay to make things right. It will not do to introduce division into the Trinity to argue that God unjustly puts it on a third party--God is the one who absorbs the just punishment for sin.
2. She glosses over the old covenant sacrifices, which provide the foundation for what Christ did, by saying that it was not God who needed the sacrifices, but the people who needed to offer them. That they had to demonstrate a sincere repentance and that animal sacrifice didn't actually pay their debt. Of course in one sense that's right. Animal sacrifices were a picture of Christ, but they didn't actually make anyone right with God on their own. But she misses that within the context of the old covenant, the sacrifices made a way for God's wrath to be abated and to cleanse the land so that God could dwell amongst His people. That was their purpose, and this points forward to Jesus' atonement in a way that the Eastern model falls short in describing.
None of this is to say that westerners have nothing to learn from the east, or that our models are "perfectly fine, thank you very much." But Mathewes-Green demonstrates the eastern counterpart to western hubris in her assertions that the east already figured this whole thing out and has never needed to learn anything else on the subject.
This book is at its best when it expands the categories of salvation beyond the little western boxes, and it's worth a read if you're a western Christian looking to broaden your theological horizons.
However, she leaves the eastern view open to critique at a number of points. For instance:
1. She argues that the biblical model of atonement is not transactional. It is more like a restaurant owner forgiving your bill than another patron paying it for you. She misses the fact that for the restaurant owner to pay the bill, he must eat the cost you incurred in creating it. This is the key insight of the western model of the atonement: one way or another, someone has to pay to make things right. It will not do to introduce division into the Trinity to argue that God unjustly puts it on a third party--God is the one who absorbs the just punishment for sin.
2. She glosses over the old covenant sacrifices, which provide the foundation for what Christ did, by saying that it was not God who needed the sacrifices, but the people who needed to offer them. That they had to demonstrate a sincere repentance and that animal sacrifice didn't actually pay their debt. Of course in one sense that's right. Animal sacrifices were a picture of Christ, but they didn't actually make anyone right with God on their own. But she misses that within the context of the old covenant, the sacrifices made a way for God's wrath to be abated and to cleanse the land so that God could dwell amongst His people. That was their purpose, and this points forward to Jesus' atonement in a way that the Eastern model falls short in describing.
None of this is to say that westerners have nothing to learn from the east, or that our models are "perfectly fine, thank you very much." But Mathewes-Green demonstrates the eastern counterpart to western hubris in her assertions that the east already figured this whole thing out and has never needed to learn anything else on the subject.
This book is at its best when it expands the categories of salvation beyond the little western boxes, and it's worth a read if you're a western Christian looking to broaden your theological horizons.
May 18, 2025
Reading Two Views of the Cross felt like stepping into a sacred conversation — one that goes back centuries. The book offers an Orthodox view of the meaning of the Cross, and even though I’m a Protestant, I found myself drawn into its beauty, even when I didn’t fully agree.
Honestly, there were moments when I felt a little uncomfortable. The emphasis on Tradition and the way the book sometimes positions Orthodoxy as the “original and only true” Christianity — that was hard for me. For example, the idea that “death is not a punishment but a consequence,” or that salvation isn’t about legal standing but about healing — these were very different from how I’ve usually understood the gospel.
But even in disagreement, I found depth and reverence. This book didn’t push me away — it made me think, and that’s something I always appreciate. I especially loved this part:
“Jesus didn’t come to save us just from the penalty of our sins; he came to save us from our sins – now, today, if we will only respond…”
As a Protestant, I might phrase it differently, but I get the heart of it — and it touched me. It reminded me of how real and present Christ’s transformation is meant to be.
Some sections felt less relevant to me, like the deep criticism of Western theology or the strong reliance on icons and mysticism. But I kept reading. And now I’m reading it a second time, because I can tell it’s the kind of book that reveals more the more you sit with it.
I’m especially thankful because my boyfriend is Orthodox, and I want to understand his faith better. This book gives me a way to compare our views not in opposition, but in conversation. We’re not trying to win debates — we’re growing together.
So thank you, Frederica. You didn’t just write a book. You opened a door. 🙏
Honestly, there were moments when I felt a little uncomfortable. The emphasis on Tradition and the way the book sometimes positions Orthodoxy as the “original and only true” Christianity — that was hard for me. For example, the idea that “death is not a punishment but a consequence,” or that salvation isn’t about legal standing but about healing — these were very different from how I’ve usually understood the gospel.
But even in disagreement, I found depth and reverence. This book didn’t push me away — it made me think, and that’s something I always appreciate. I especially loved this part:
“Jesus didn’t come to save us just from the penalty of our sins; he came to save us from our sins – now, today, if we will only respond…”
As a Protestant, I might phrase it differently, but I get the heart of it — and it touched me. It reminded me of how real and present Christ’s transformation is meant to be.
Some sections felt less relevant to me, like the deep criticism of Western theology or the strong reliance on icons and mysticism. But I kept reading. And now I’m reading it a second time, because I can tell it’s the kind of book that reveals more the more you sit with it.
I’m especially thankful because my boyfriend is Orthodox, and I want to understand his faith better. This book gives me a way to compare our views not in opposition, but in conversation. We’re not trying to win debates — we’re growing together.
So thank you, Frederica. You didn’t just write a book. You opened a door. 🙏
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews