The Christus Victor View of Atonement

[Yoder777]

The Christus Victor View of Atonement

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:45)

It will surprise many readers to discover that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is a more recent development in the history of the Church and her doctrine. The theory that lays claim to being the standard view for many centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation was the Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) theory in which the atonement was seen as victory over Satan and the forces of evil. The central theme of this classic view is that Christ—Christus Victor—fought against and triumphed over the evil powers of the world to which humankind was in bondage. His demise overcame the hostile spiritual powers and, as a result of His sacrifice and victory, captive sinners were freed and given eternal life. This interpretation (known variously as the Classic, dramatic, or ransom theory) was the dominant church view for 1,000 years and remains the view of some contemporary theologians.

Christus Victor is a complex theory as viewed through the Scriptures. The reader must first see the motif of spiritual warfare that winds its way throughout the Bible. If this motif is placed in a primary position, the entire narrative of the Bible is viewed as the story of God’s ongoing battle with spiritual and human agents who oppose Him and threaten harm to His creation and His ultimate victory. The OT view that what occurred in the spiritual realm affected human history is encapsulated in Job 1-2 (Ps 82; Daniel 10). Yahweh is portrayed as continually at war with these forces and it is through his strength alone that chaos is held at bay. There is an acute awareness that the earth is held hostage to these evil forces such that only a radical move by God would be able to overcome them. Jesus spoke to the belief that Satan was the ruler of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). [This should not be understood as Satan higher in order than Jesus. Instead, he is to be viewed as the functional lord of this world.] Satan is portrayed as possessing ‘the kingdoms of the world’ (Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19) and as having authority over them. Paul attributed the fundamental evil of the world’s systems (Gal 1:4) to this rule. Viewing the atonement through this prism logically sees Jesus as overcoming this rule and restoring control to the Trinity.

Ireaneus interpreted this motif by seeing Adam’s disobedience as placing humanity under the dominion of Satan. Rising from the dead, Christ conquered Satan releasing sinners from his control. This victory was foreseen in the great proto-evangelism of Genesis 3:15: …he will crush your head. Ireaneus wrote “Redeeming us with his blood, Christ gave himself as a ransom for those who had been led into captivity.” (Ireaneus, Against Heresies) Origen followed suit in this belief maintaining that because of sin, human beings were bound by Satan. He said that as a ransom payment for these souls, Satan demanded the blood of Christ. As God handed over Christ, Satan released his hostages. Later patristic writers such as John of Damascus took umbrage with the trade of the precious blood of Christ to Satan suggesting that what the devil received was an empty shell of Christ, tricking him.

The Theological Advantage of the Christus Victor View

Proponents of this view of atonement suggest that it is the superior theory because all of the other views are encompassed within its framework. It further offers that there is no temptation for people to suppose that they are participating in the kingdom when there is no evidence of the kingdom in their lives in contrast to the individual outlook of the western Church. Its focus is on the demonic dimension of fallen social structures. Theologically, the advantage proposed of the Christus Victor view is that it solves multiple problems simultaneously. Through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the All-Wise God was able to:

Defeat Satan and his cohort (Heb 2:14; 1 Jn 3:8)
Reconcile all things to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-19; Col 1:20-22)
Forgive our sins (Acts 13:38; Eph 1:7)
Healed our sin-corrupted nature (1 Pet 2:24)
Poured His Spirit on us and empowered us to live in relation to Himself (Rom 8:2-16)
Gave us an example to follow (Eph 5:1-2; 1 Pet 2:21)
Those who apply this theory of atonement see that it encompasses the variety of atonement views under a single theory where the others tend to emphasize one or two of the above points but not all of them.

Conclusion

Christ releasing humanity from the bondage of sin and Satan lies through His sacrifice is core of the Christus Victor view of atonement. It is a theory that spans the whole of the Bible from Genesis 3 to Revelation 20 and it was the dominant view of the early church. This theory is most often proposed as the framework into which the other narrower views can be organized because it covers such a wide range of theological issues. It also encourages the Christian to take seriously the devil, an idea which has fallen from favor in the modern Church.
The Christus Victor View of Atonement « LOVE ACCEPT FORGIVE

The early church believed that Jesus died not just to save us from the punishment for sin but from sin itself. As Protestants, we claim to read the Bible literally yet we ignore any passage of Scripture which links our judgment before God with our deeds in this life. Through faith, God's grace is supposed to change you from the heart. We need God's discipline so that we may be changed.


We need to fear being judged before God. He is our Creator and Redeemer and deserves our love and service in return. If a man gave you a million dollars, would you spit in his face? Why do we spit in the face of God who gives us treasure in heaven? This is not an invitation to despair because God's grace, if we only cooperate with it, will help us persevere to the end.

 

[Hammster]

As Protestants, we claim to read the Bible literally yet we ignore any passage of Scripture which links our judgment before God with our deeds in this life.

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

 

[Yoder777]

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

A common Protestant position is that, as long as you have faith, you'll be saved regardless of your conduct in this life. This is especially true in Baptist churches.

 

[Hammster]

A common Protestant position is that, as long as you have faith, you'll be saved regardless of your conduct in this life. This is especially true in Baptist churches.

Then maybe you should have stated it that way.

 

[heymikey80]

A common Protestant position is that, as long as you have faith, you'll be saved regardless of your conduct in this life. This is especially true in Baptist churches.

It's not very common. It's very vocal, but it's not very common.

 

[heymikey80]

Christus Victor is not an all-encompassing or overarching concept. The marketplace model is entrenched in Scripture as well, but it's not encompassed by CV. The sacrifice model is entrenched in Scripture but it's not encompassed by CV. CV does use a large number of Messianic references (I mean, it really is "Messianic Victor"); but it's one model that doesn't overarch the others.

 

[Hammster]

This is especially true in Baptist churches.

Can you substantiate this claim?

 

[Yoder777]

The sacrifice model is entrenched in Scripture but it's not encompassed by CV.

How is that true?

 

[heymikey80]

Sacrifice model: what's a sacrifice to God for, in CV?

 

[Yoder777]

Can you substantiate this claim?

The most common position in Southern Baptist churches is once saved always saved.

 

[Yoder777]

Sacrifice model: what's a sacrifice to God for, in CV?

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus was sacrificed to appease God? Instead, it's God in Jesus reconciling the world to himself.

 

[Kaitlin08]

The Christus Victor View of Atonement

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:45)

I don't see how ransom theology has anything to do with Christus Victor, which is an interpretation of the resurrection, not the cross. For this reason Christus Victor is not an atonement at all.

 

[Hammster]

The most common position in Southern Baptist churches is once saved always saved.

Anecdotal at best.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I don't see how ransom theology has anything to do with Christus Victor

In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of 'payment' and 'ransom' is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He 'paid the price, not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He 'paid the price' not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received 'satisfaction' from His creatures in Him. He 'paid the price' rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He 'paid the price' to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life. (See Romans 5:8 and Galatians 2:4 By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil 'in his own territory' and on 'his own terms.' The 'wages of sin is death'.Romans 6:23 So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will—and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity—He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal."[7]

 

[Christos Anesti]

Some of the Fathers and early Christians understood the ransom to have been paid to death (St Gregory of Nyssa) or Satan (Origen) to whom we were in bondage. Others didn't really like that idea and said it was best to be understood in a more metaphorical sense and not to speculate as to an actual "person" or entity that this ransom was "paid too" (St Gregory the Theologian) . Eventually Anselm came up with the idea that it was paid to the Father though and a lot of Western Christians followed along in that teaching. It wasn't around for the first 1,000 years of the Christian faith though.

 

[Hammster]

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus was sacrificed to appease God? Instead, it's God in Jesus reconciling the world to himself.

Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Christ conquered death by his death and freed the captives!

 

[Hammster]

Christ conquered death by his death and freed the captives!

Actually, He conquered death by His resurrection.

 

[Yoder777]

Some of the Fathers and early Christians understood the ransom to have been paid to death (St Gregory of Nyssa) or Satan (Origen) to whom we were in bondage. Others didn't really like that idea and said it was best to be understood in a more metaphorical sense and not to speculate as to an actual "person" or entity that this ransom was "paid too" (St Gregory the Theologian) . Eventually Anselm came up with the idea that it was paid to the Father though and a lot of Western Christians followed along in that teaching. It wasn't around for the first 1,000 years of the Christian faith though.

How one understands the atonement is linked with how one chooses to translate the New Testament. On the other hand, how one translates the New Testament is linked with how one understands the atonement.

The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Ark. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. The English dictionary definition of "propitiation" literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (that is, sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (wins them back), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore to show us that God's love was towards us from the beginning, and He (God) set out to expiate sin (that is to destroy its hold on us) and propitiate us (that is to win our hearts) back to him.

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93).
Propitiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did Jesus die to save us from the punishment for sin (propitiation) or from sin itself (expiation)? For its first thousand years, the Christian faith believed in Christus Victor, not penal substitution.

 

[Yoder777]

Actually, He conquered death by His resurrection.

Jesus' death and resurrection should be seen as one event. Without dying, he couldn't resurrect, and without resurrecting, his death would be meaningless.