We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.
Atonement: What is the Christus Victor View?
Most western Christians today understand the atonement as a sort of legal-transaction that took place between the Father and the Son that got humanity “off the hook.” The legal-transaction scenario goes something like this:
God’s holiness demands that all sin be punished, which in turn requires that sinners go to eternal hell. The trouble is, God also loves sinners and doesn’t want them to go to hell. So, to resolve this dilemma, the Father sent the Son to suffer the penalty for our sin. On the cross God’s wrath against sin was vented on Jesus. So now when people believe in Jesus, their sin is forgiven and God declares them righteous. Now they can go to heaven instead of hell. This view is usually referred to as the “Penal Substitutionary” view of the atonement.
Now, I know there are some verses that can be appealed to in support of this view (e.g. Isa 53; Rom. 3:25), though these passages can also be interpreted in other ways. But this aside, over the years I’ve become increasingly puzzled by this view. I don’t doubt for a second that Jesus died in our place and suffered the full consequences of our sin. I’m just unclear how we can say that God was venting his wrath on Jesus or how this would get us “off the hook.” It raises a lot of questions.
For example, if God demands that someone“pay the price” for sin before he forgives sinners, does God ever really forgive people their sins? If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone or other pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? Yes, you got off the hook. But forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.
What really concerns me about this legal-transaction view, however, is that it seems to make the atonement something that changes God, not us. God allegedly vents his holy wrath against sin by punishing Jesus on the cross. And this somehow (I’ve honestly never understood this “somehow”) enables God to accept us. But this transaction between the Father and the Son leaves us just as we are. I find this troubling.
Most contemporary Christians don’t know it, but the legal-transaction view of the atonement didn’t become widespread until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The dominant view of the earliest Christian was very different from this. They of course believed Jesus died in our place and reconciled us to God. But they understood this not as a legal transaction but as part of God’s warfare against the devil. In their view, the main thing Jesus came to do was destroy the devil and liberate humans from his oppression. This view has been labeled the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement.
I for one think this older view is more biblical and less problematic than the Penal Substitution view. And I am convinced it can make a profoundly positive impact in how Kingdom revolutionaries understand their calling and live out their lives. So I want to flesh it out a bit.
Here’s a summary of the biblical teaching behind the Christus Victor view of the atonement:
The Bible teaches that Jesus came into this world to “drive out the prince of this world” (Jn 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (I Jn 3:8), to “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14-15) and to ultimately “put all his enemies under his feet” (I Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who holds the world in bondage and to work with God’s newly liberated children to “plunder his house” (Lk 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic thief who seized the world to “steal and kill and destroy” the life God intended for humans (Jn 10:10). Jesus came to earth and died on the cross to disarm “the rulers and authorities” and make a “public spectacle of them” by “triumphing over them on the cross” (Col 2:15).
In short, Jesus’ main mission was to bring an end to the cosmic war that had been raging from time immemorial and to thus set Satan’s captives free ( Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8). This is the Christus Victor view of the atonement.
The point is that the incarnation of the Son of God was first and foremost a military maneuver. Jesus came to bring an end to Satan’s regime and reclaim the earth, humans and the entire creation as the domain in which God is King. He came to establish the Kingdom of God by vanquishing the kingdom of darkness.
Everything Jesus accomplished – including revealing God’s character, dying in our place and giving us an example to follow — can be understood as aspects of his military campaign to vanquish the powers of evil.
For good overviews on various views of the atonement, including the Christus Victor view I shall defend in a moment, see P. Eddy and J. Bielby, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006).
art: “Get away from me, Satan”
by: Ilya Repin
Tags: Atonement, Christus Victor, Cruciform Theology, God's Wrath, Jesus, Penal Substitution View of Atonement, Satan
Topics: Christus Victor view of Atonement
When Jesus Questioned the Father
Though the sinless Son of God had perfect faith, we find him asking God the Father to alter the plan to redeem the world through his sacrifice—if it is “possible” (Matt. 26:42). As the nightmare of experiencing the sin and God-forsakenness of the world was encroaching upon him, Jesus was obviously, and understandably struggling. So,…
In the Words of Satan
It’s kind of like if Uncle Screwtape wrote a song…
How The Imperfections of Scripture Reveal God Perfectly
In my previous blog I discussed one important implication of a cruciform (“cross-centered”) approach to biblical inspiration. On the cross, I noted, God revealed his perfection by identifying with human imperfection. Jesus in some sense became our sin and our curse. In this light, I argued, why should anyone find it surprising, let alone disturbing,…
Podcast: Would a Loving Messiah Call a Woman a DOG?!?
Greg talks about why Jesus would say such apparently cruel things to some poor Canaanite woman. Oh, he also tells a joke about hamsters. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0202.mp3
Reviewing the Reviews: Tom Belt (Part 2)
In my previous post I reviewed Tom’s critical review of volume 1 of CWG, and in this post I’d like to do the same for his critical review of volume 2. As he did in his review of volume I, Tom begins with some praises and points of agreement. He thinks my quest to discern “what…
Loving a Twilight Zone God?
David D. Flowers posted this insightful reflection over on his blog about an episode of The Twilight Zone and what it says about some pop views of God. Can we really love a God that exercises this kind of random control just because he can? We can certainly fear a God like this, but can…