Saint Theophylact of Ochrid (+1108): Penal Substitution Ensures We've Been Justified by Faith and Freed from the Curse of Death
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Galatians 3:13)
Theophylact, often referred to as “Blessed”, is considered a canonized saint by many Orthodox Churches, especially the Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox, and is commemorated on December 31st. I’ve not found a calendar that omits his name from the feast of that date. Here below he gives a pretty standard interpretation of Christ’s atonement. However, in recent years, the Orthodox have had no desire to echo the same message.
Theophylact commenting on Galatians 3:13 states: “One might argue: ‘It is true that he who does not fulfill the law is accursed, and that faith justifies. But how do we know that the curse has been lifted? We hear that having once been under the yoke of the law, we still remain under that curse.’ Anticipating such an objection, Paul demonstrates that the curse has been removed through Christ. He paid the price by Himself becoming the curse and thereby redeeming us from the condemnation of the Law. Christ (in His human nature) escape that curse by fulfilling the Law, but we, unable to fulfill it, were guilty under the law. This is like an innocent man who chooses to die in place of a guilty man condemned to death. Therefore, Christ accepted the curse to which we are liable for not fulfilling the Law. This was a curse that lay upon us, but not upon Him, because He fulfilled the Law perfectly, committing no sin.”
The Explanation of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid and Bulgaria, trans. from Greek by Fr. Christopher Stade (House Springs, Missouri: Chrysostom Press, 2011), 51
So what is the point of forgiveness if the debt has been paid? If a Judge orders me to pay a fine and my friend pays the fine for me, the judge doesn't have to forgive anything.
I think this would be consistent with PSA, but whether it would show if Theophylact believed in Penal Substitutionary Atonement depends on how PSA is defined and understood. In Protestant theology it’s frequently taught that the righteousness of Christ is forensically imputed to us while our sin is forensically applied to Christ when the wrath of God is poured out on Jesus. That’s not entirely entailed by Jesus redeeming us by paying the price. And if someone uses an analogy (“This is like an innocent …) of a man dying in another’s place it doesn’t have the same metaphysical claims as the aforesaid view. The New Testament and Fathers speak frequently of Christ paying the price as a ransom, but that in nowise entails penal substitutionary atonement.