Anabaptists on the Atonement of Christ

[Humble_Disciple]

Perhaps because of their commitment to nonviolence, the dominant theory of atonement in the Anabaptist movement has been the Christus Victor theory of atonement:

Given how persecuted the early Anabaptists were, it’s not surprising that they rarely discussed atonement theories in a formal way, let alone that they never embraced any particular theory. However, when Sattler, Hubmaier, Denck and other Anabaptist leaders did write and speak about the work of Christ on the cross, they actually reflect aspects of each of the major models of the atonement in Church history. Yet, in summing up their views, Thomas Finger observes that, “[a]mong traditional models … Christus Victor can be called historic Anabaptism’s primary expression of Jesus work.” This is true, however, only “providing we add that they experienced this as more present and participatory, and more specifically shaped by Jesus’ life than most.”[1]

In other words, the central emphasis tended to be on the manner in which Jesus’ humble, self-sacrificial life and death defeated forces of evil. Yet, this emphasis was not only regarding what Jesus did for us; it included what Jesus does in us and through us. To use Finger’s terminology, their Christus Victor model was not only “conflictive” but “transformative.”[2] Because they understood Jesus’ cruciform way of defeating the powers to be something they are called to participate in, they refused to engage in violence, even as an act of self-defense when persecuted and martyred by other Christian groups.

In this light, I would argue that, in a wholly informal way, the early Anabaptists tended to integrate Jesus’ death with every other aspect of his life, which is precisely the position I argue in Crucifixion of the Warrior God. And so, while one doesn’t typically find as strong a formal emphasis on the saving significance of the cross among them as one finds among the Reformers and Evangelicals, I would argue the cross was no less thematically central to them than it was to these others.

If anything, I would argue it is more central inasmuch as the Anabaptists understood the cross not only to be the thematic center of everything Jesus was about, but also as the thematic center of everything his followers are to be about. As is the case in the NT, the early Anabaptists generally understood that to follow the one who lived a cruciform life and died a cruciform death, one must be willing to adopt a cruciform lifestyle.
How the Anabaptists Emphasized the Cross - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

The Christus Victor theory of atonement was the dominant theory in the early church, especially as articulated by Athanasius of Alexandria, the main theologian against Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

The satisfaction theory of atonement, the main atonement theory which influenced the non-Anabaptist Reformers, wasn't developed until the 12th century.

Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

In both the Christus Victor view of atonement and the satisfaction theory of atonement, Jesus' death and resurrection served as a once and for all defeat of sin and death.

The question is whether Jesus freely gave up His own life, out of love for mankind, in obedience to His Father's will or whether Jesus gave up His life to appease His Father's anger toward sinners.

The Christus Victor view of atonement cannot be seen as heretical because it was the dominant atonement theory of the early church, especially as articulated by Athanasius of Alexandria, the main theologian against Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

Furthermore, Christus Victor was also the dominant atonement theory of the Anabaptists, the historical forerunners of the Baptist faith.

If the three Persons of the Trinity are equal to each other, as articulated in the Council of Nicaea, the Christus Victor model seems closer to this truth. Perhaps this is one reason Athanasius held to this atonement theory.

Throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh forbids worship to Moloch, the god of child sacrifice, while telling Abraham to not sacrifice his own son.

While Jesus indeed suffered in place of sinners to save them from wrath and hell, John 10:18 says this was freely done by Jesus' own authority, and John 3:16 says this was due to God's love, not God's anger.

Because in his death he also brought victory. He brought victory over Satan, victory over evil, victory over death and hell. For you theologians out there, this is called the Christus Victor view of atonement. His death on the cross brought to realization the plan of God that he had from the beginning to defeat satan and bring about deliverance for humanity from his oppression, to bring an end to the cosmic war that had been raging since the Garden of Eden and bring to fulfillment Genesis 3:15 where God said,

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
—Genesis 3:15

The cross is Jesus crushing the devil’s head and bringing victory. The cross also brought about restoration. It was in his life that he inaugurated or launched the kingdom of God, but it was on the cross that he was crowned the king of this new kingdom. And it was from this moment on, tied together with the resurrection, that the world was forever changed. The new citizens of the kingdom started living differently and were accused of turning the world upside down.

Even though Jesus started it during his life, it was his death that was the line in the sand moment. Even in their preaching, the apostles talked about Jesus, who was crucified, being both Messiah, the promised one, and Lord.

And there is one final result of Jesus’ death. In his death we see the revelation of God’s Love. I could take us to verse after verse for this one, but John said it very well when he wrote,

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. —1 John 4:10

What better thing could God have done to show us how much he loves us than looking at us and saying, “I know you can’t do it. The price is too much. The debt is too large. But don’t worry. I’ve got this. I will forgive. I will cover
the cost myself so that you can know me, so that you can have life.”
What's the Point of Jesus' Death

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Christus Victor view of atonement cannot be seen as heretical because it was the dominant atonement theory of the early church, especially as articulated by Athanasius of Alexandria, the main theologian against Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

To me the Christus Victor view of atonement doesn't argue against the others, but to point out something the others often neglect in their thinking.

In both the Christus Victor view of atonement and the satisfaction theory of atonement, Jesus' death and resurrection served as a once and for all defeat of sin and death.

This is why I'm interested in hearing more of the thinking behind Christus Victor. There is something about God restoring everything to himself, that deals with ALL the Christian -ologies, that intrigues me, and I would like to hear more. In the New Testament it seems to be well enough understood by pretty much every writer, and assumed in all their thinking, yet to modern Christendom it is nebulous, scarcely written or talked about except in terms of other things —universal atonement, universalism etc— but I've never heard it preached or written directly referencing or lending definition to such matters as what sin really is and what it has done, why Satan's temptation of Christ should be so tempting, exactly what is/was Satan's authority and why, how hard a thing Christ undertook in life and death, how close to absolute ruin the infinite power of God can go. And probably my favorite: the difference between how God sees things and how we do. This is a HUGE subject!

There is the John Owen work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, which has a lot to do with it, but even after reading that (John Owen is probably my favorite author) I was left wanting to know more.

'8 "...putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.' Hebrews 2