The past few weeks have been heavy with atonement thinking. Specifically, wrestling with the debate of which atonement expression should be expressed and which should be discarded – if any at all! Admittedly, Christus Victor resonates with me, perhaps more than all others. I tend to read the Bible with a strong understanding of the cataclysmic battle between God’s good and the Devil’s evil existing at the forefront of my hermeneutic. My consequent interpretations and expressions are therefore laden with tangible ramifications of this cataclysmic battle so expressed in the 1st Century. I think that’s good, because this was undoubtedly an important aspect of the hermeneutic engaged by the characters and authors of scripture themselves. And, granted, a fresh exit from the safe bubble that is seminary helped stunt my expression of a holistic atonement theology. But real-time ministry, and real spiritual problems expressed by real people living in real-time, has challenged me with the possibility that my expression of atonement may have in fact been lacking, or less than holistic. Real-time ministry has challenged me with the realization that while Christus Victor is an important aspect of Biblical atonement, it is but one aspect of atonement. A holistic theology of atonement, grounded in Scripture, includes Christus Victor as an aspect of its expression, but it is not limited to that expression. It (Atonement) is expressed in a variety of different but equally important ways in Scripture.
Mark Driscoll summarizes all of the Biblical expressions, in 11 points: 1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement. 2. Jesus is Our Victor. 3. Jesus is Our Redemption. 4. Jesus is the New Covenant Sacrifice. 5. Jesus is Our Justification. 6. Jesus is Our Propitiation. 7. Jesus is Our Expiation. 8. Jesus is Our Ransom. 9. Jesus is Our Example. 10. Jesus is Our Reconciliation. 11. Jesus is Our Revelation. (HT/Warnock)
I think a holistic reading of the Scriptures reveal all of the above; celebrating one aspect of the expression over the other is to miss the incredible diversity and poetry attributed to atonement in Scripture. Atonement is a central doctrine to the Christian faith. We all would do well to celebrate all aspects of this thoroughly expressed doctrine. God chose to express it to us in as many ways as are listed above. It must be important. No, it – all of it – is important! Atonement is a crucial aspect of the faith. I’ll work hard to put my personal preference of atonement as expressed in Christus Victor (God’s good triumphing over Satan’s evil) in proper theological balance with all of the other expressed aspects of the doctrine, rather than continue to proudly celebrate my favorite expression as the only Biblical option. Because clearly, it is not.
Update: Forget the the statement that received a strike-through. After much thought, I have reached the conclusion that Cristus Victor is the only theological expression of atonement I can personally express due to a lengthy list of very good/positive reasons and an equally long list of negatives that can be attributed – or maybe perpetuated – by the detrimental and violent view of Trinity that is Substitutionary Atonement.
Related posts:
This is some deep stuff. I tend to lean on the side of faith and understanding that I can’t fathom the ways of God (Isaiah 40).
You are talking about ransom theory aren’t you or am I way off? Sorry, I’m a theological novice.
Isaiah 40 is so beautifully written, and so true. Ultimately, Justin, a hard lean towards faith is what following Jesus is all about. A good word, bro.
Re: ransom theory. I really resonate with the way ransom is articulated by Driscoll/Warnock. Their expression of ransom places the concept of “debt” on us; we were in debt and Jesus Christ forgave our debt. In fact, Jesus Christ is the only one who could forgive such debt. This is a slight departure from the classic expression of ransom theory, which paints God as one who actually pretended to pay a ransom to the devil to free us from debt. The ransom payment – Jesus Christ – could not be held by the devil and the devil was consequently defeated. There is some issues with this theory: 1. It paints god as one who had to pay the devil a ransom. I don’t believe God was ever at the whim of the devil, for anything. It also makes God sound like a trickster who hands the devil a check with a string attached to it. With the ransom check in hand, the devil strolls away, but God yanks on the string and retrieves the ransom check and puts it back into his proverbial pocket. 3. It gives the devil too much authority. It makes it sound like the devil owned humanity. Humanity is broken, and in need of redemption, but I do not believe it was ever the sole property of the devil. I think ransom as articulated by Warnock/Driscoll is a much better expression of ransom/debt and Jesus Christ’s forgiveness of our debt.
All that said, Christus Victor is a different expression of atonement in that it is specifically focused upon the battle between God’s good and the Devil’s evil. Jesus Christ’s work on the cross freed us from the chains that are sin, death, and devil. Substitutionary theory puts a focus on Jesus’ willingness to take our place on the cross. He died in our place. Christus Victor plaes the focus on Christ’s desire to free of from a life imprisoned (sin, death, devil). The cross, in the Victor motif, the culmination of Jesus’ cataclysmic battle with evil. Evil thought it won, but it over-extended itself in its effort to destroy the Christ. It could not hold Jesus, and the chains of sin, death, and devil were broken, for everyone.
Like I said in the post, all of these symbols of atonement are well represented in the Scripture. We would do well to express them all equally. I love the symbol/imagery of Christus Victor, but the other expressions are Biblical and absolutely necessary for a holistic expression of atonement.
Hope that helps, bro! Looking forward to Sunday afternoon!
PS: We are all theological novices. So, you are in good company. :)
Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing concerning the problems you have with the ransom theory (making God sound like a trickster). I find that it simply contradicts the God of the Bible.
I understand Christus Victor better now too.
When I first gave my life to God I was confused by this contradiction:
In the old testament God required payment for atonement, usually a blood offering. Since God loves us he presents us with a choice to choose atonement or not (old and new testament). But in the beginning God gave Eve no choice of atonement once she had sinned.
But now that I have grown a bit spiritually I see it like this:
God created us sinless as evidence that we were in fact created in the image of himself. And he allows Eve to break that sinlessness in order to express how much he loves us because it created choice for mankind. God is essentially saying I created you pure but I give you choice because I love you unconditionally.
The Bible tells us that the serpent was the most crafty of God’s creations. So we know that God created the Devil. I believe this is evidence that God is all knowing – he had this planned from the beginning. So, unbeknown to the devil, God uses the devil for his will.
Does that make sense overall or do you see this a bit differently?
Right, Justin. God’s pure creation of humanity included the ability to freely choose, or it would not have been “perfect.” Because perfect love is not mechanical. God’s invitation to authentic relationship requires agency on our part, and his. This touches on aspects of Law too. The Law served it’s purpose, according to Paul, but was limited in that it was not a conduit leading to real relationship. Jesus preached – he screamed – about having a real relationship with Abba God. It’s actually more difficult to have a relationship than live by a list of mechanical rules. Our God-given ability to freely choose gets that relational ball rolling, and with the help and encouragement of the Holy Spirit we all grow day by day – or we should be – into a deeper, richer relationship with our Father. Jesus work on the cross opened the door that Eden’s fall closed. Christianity is so unique in this very aspect. Our God gives us the freedom to choose to accept his invite and to grow day by day into him. It’s beautiful, bro.
So, I do see it much like you describe above.
I would just say, re: God’s creation of the “serpent,” or “devil” this: Yes, God created Lucifer, but as an arch angel, and as perfect as we were created (i.e., with free will to choose). Lucifer, however, was taken with his own purpose and power and beauty and pride, all of which were given him by God. It thought itself as equal – if not more powerful – than God. Basically, I think Lucifer became something like a humanist or something. LOL! At any rate, Lucifer’s pride and beauty got the best of him and he rebelled. God then threw Satan and all of his rebellious followers to the earth. So, here, this rebellion against God and God’s plan works tirelessly to kill and destroy all that is God’s. Now, does God use this evil for his purposes? I’d say no. Because God has nothing to do with evil. This is where Christus Victor is important. Evil is an autonomous force that does what it wants to do. It is rebellion against God. God has nothing to do with the evil things it accomplishes. But God can bring much good out of the things the devil meant for evil. God can repaint the evil effects of this defiance. But God is not the source of the defiance or its evil consequences. But God can bring beauty out of Satan’s evil. Make sense?
Too many people attribute evil to God. For example, they ask questions like, “If God is so good, then why is there so much suffering in this world?” I say, “God and God’s good has nothing to do with evil! That’s the Christus Victor in me talking! Evil is from this rebellious devil and his gang of fallen angels. God can bring much good from what the devil meant for evil, and God does! But God is not the author or creator of that evil.
Awesome thoughts, bro! This is rich and deep stuff. Thank you for bringing it all out.
I forgot: Here’s a few scripture refs. that speak of the origins of Lucifer: Isaiah 14:13; Ezekiel 28:11 ff; Revelation 12:9. There are more, I’m sure, but those are what came to mind quickly. And I have to get back to getting ready for the morning! :)
Thanks for all of this. Agreed, completely. Yes, God makes good what the Devil destroys.
As far as the Bible saying that God created the serpent (Genesis 3) I wonder if there’s anything interesting to be found by breaking down the Hebrew there.
There’s an interesting piece here that is very tough for even most mature Christians to grab hold of and that is the fact that even though God is all-knowing he allows evil to take place. It can be quite a mind-bender especially when our emotions are tied into a single incident (i.e. a loved one’s accidental death).
My conclusion is that it’s his unconditional love that holds him back from interfering sometimes. And I say “sometimes” because I do believe that God does stop certain things from happening and that’s where grace enters the picture. There’s a balance there that only he can fathom and we believe it by faith alone. Is there a word for that balance?
Haha, sorry to take you away from your studies. This stuff gets interesting! See you in the morning.
Hi Shawn,
For the mainline view of different atonement thought, see Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church by former LTS prez Peter Schmiechen. The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver is good for shaking up some preconceptions and riffs on the Christus Victor theme. You’re probably aware of all those anyway. The Mennonite theologians have an interesting point of view, so much so that I’m reading John Howard Yoder’s 1972 book The Politics of Jesus, which resonates perfectly today.
I’m looking forward to your official church launch!
Stay cool!
Bill
Bill! Hey, brother! It’s been awhile! it’s great to hear from you! I hope all is well. The heat is brutal, right? I hope you are staying cool. :)
Yep. I’m aware of those things you cite. In fact, I love Yoder. He’s one of the main reasons I lean so heavily towards Christus Victor. That said, I have to be aware of that preference, and be sure that I don’t celebrate it over the other expressions in Scripture. I tend to do that …
Again, it’s great to hear from you!
I think you’re right that no single theory of atonement holds up well enough- that’s why there are a dozen or so. Unless, one believes the incarnation IS the atonement….:)
And the plot thickens … LOL! Bill, you are good for thickening the plot. :)
But I’d personally separate the two as distinct – but equally important – acts of our benevolent God. Plus, I think – I’m not totally sure – that making the Incarnation the Atonement would lead to some sort of expressed Universalism … which is somewhere I won’t go, personally or theologically!
I miss chatting with you, bro. Ring me up, and we’ll grab an iced-coffee or a beer sometime. It’s been awhile and we need to catch up. I do hope all is well!
Universalism – no,no, no.
But anyway, yes we definitely want to be there for your official church launch. We’d even like to make one of your house church meetings to see how they go. I’ve been a bit on the busy side, though, teaching freshman comp two nights a week at RACC, so that’s put a damper on a bunch of stuff.
Yes! If you could make it Thursday that would be tops! You are welcome to anything at anytime. I hope the teaching is going well.
Hold on there bub. You’ve treaded far afield. “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13. What have you done? For isn’t it a violation of law to make a direct quote of God mean less than what he meant by what he has said? You are right by jove. This Christus Victor theory of salvation you love leads you into disobedience and you don’t even know it! For those who are by being in the new covenant are related to God for he has put his law in their minds and written them on their hearts. For there has been a change made to the law of God and it is only by hearing and learning the way this law must be obeyed that any person is related to God. “A change has been made to the law of God!”? you ask. Yeah. See Heb. 7:12, and its that change you have no choice not to obey.
THE WAY
God’s plan for man
Case point 1.
Gen. 9:5 NIV. This statement is in two parts in this translation and is clearer than most others. In the first part God says that in any case whenever any man’s life is taken by bloodshed a factor of recrimination happens. The only result of taking a man’s life by bloodshed always recriminates into a responsibility to the constant never changing fact of having to account to God for the former action of taking the life of a human male by bloodshed.
Case point 2.
In the second part of this statement God clarifies that it his set purpose for “each man too”(His plan for each individual) as a future event to “demand an accounting” relative to the fact of one man’s life having been taken by bloodshed a constant fact of intent relative to a recrimination.
Case point 3.
In the parable of the Tenants the constant of recrimination is noted by Jesus and related to his death before his death. The son’s death does not result in the landlord’s lessening his demand for payment instead a formally unknown objective of the landlord is revealed. The intent to take the lives of all individuals involved in taking landlord’s son’s life lost by bloodshed is the basis for sending his son into the world. Therefore it is not a correct statement to say that Jesus’ death was in place of all people at anytime before he was crucified nor after.
The truth by fact is that the crucifixion of Jesus has reconciled to world to God’s intent for putting an end to all people.
Case point 4.
The statement by Jesus before he was crucified “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin” states that the world’s population remains in the same condition after he was crucified. There is no evidence from him that his death was or has been since in place of any other individuals’ death. The truth relative to Jesus’ crucifixion is that by his death having been caused by bloodshed is the fact that that anyone is alive at this time. For if his life had not been taken by bloodshed, which was the greater possibility, considering that the other two did not have their lives taken by bloodshed. God’s purpose for each man to account directly to him related to a man’s bloodshed would have been impossible to put into effect.
Case point five is a statement that is not taught by any theologian, theology department nor any Bible teacher in any Bible school, Bible college, or seminary for religious education on the face of this earth. For that reason neither does any preacher in any pulpit ever on any Sunday or any other days, for that matter, teach what the true reason for Jesus’ crucifixion actually is. I know what I am saying to you is the fact. If the four previous points have been things you object to, even though I know you do. If you object to this one any possibility for you to escape from the penalty of eternal death is impossible. I know this is the fact. I also know that you are going to resort to researching every commentary, lecture, and everything else but, the Bible, to substantiate that since no church, Bible school, Bible college, or seminary on the face of the earth teaches this teaching from me it cannot be correct. However you will only substantiate that they don’t teach this point, which is the true reason for any for any of these things to exist. They exist for one purpose and that purpose is to protect the interest of the archenemy of God.
“Thou hast prepared a table before ME in the presence of mine ENEMIES.”
“For their table is a snare and a trap for them.”
And this table sits inside, right down front, in every Christian church in existence. This table serves two purposes for establishing one thing to your mind. First is the fact that Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, his life was taken by bloodshed by the hand of man. No one can deny this fact. Second this table serves for the incrimination of each individual Gentile man through an act of unacceptable worship motivated by the same false belief the Jews were taught to justify Jesus’ crucifixion.
“It is a good idea for one man to die to save the nation”.
Case point 6.
Therefore the Gentile population along with the Jews by accepting the same false doctrine for truth, Jesus died in your place, both classes of men, the Jews by recrimination to the offense of his crucifixion and the Gentiles by incrimination to that same offense both are unilaterally held to account directly to God by one law. This law carries the penalty of eternal death. It is in plain sight in Heb. 7:12 that relative to a change of the priesthood to make it permanent there has also been a change made to the law of God that is permanent. Since there is no more sacrifice for sin there is also no possibility for an atonement of the law. For Christ has died once. Giving his life for us as the sufficient guilt offering to God. So that it would be reasonable to God to fulfill the law by the addition of one word preventing neither Jew nor Gentile of having any possibility of escaping eternal death by not obeying God’s son.
“For it is not those who hear the law, Repent, who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law, Repent, who will be declared righteous”
Therefore it is only by the faith of accounting directly to God in regard to the sin of Jesus’ crucifixion that is acceptable worship by God. For it is the faith to account directly to God that you are sorry Jesus was crucified this is the only Way God can be worshiped in spirit and truth. No man has nor will be declared righteous by God unless he has the faith to confess with his mouth to God that he is sorry Jesus was crucified and be baptized in water as the sign he has accepted this Way or he perishes forever. There is no other way for any man to escape from eternal death.
“For God is not slack concerning his
promise: The guilty shall not go
Unpunished.
but he has been patient and long
suffering toward us not willing
that anyone should perish but
that all should come to repentance
regarding that his only begotten
son’s life was lost by bloodshed
by the hand of man.”
Theodore A. Jones
Member
Sand Hill Heights Baptist Church
Elgin, SC