My Novus Christus Victor View of the Atonement of Christ

(Picture from crosswalk.com)

Introduction

            You are about to embark on a theological journey with me. Let me first explain my general purpose for writing a theological treatise, as opposed to, my normal kind of writing. As of late, I have been studying the Atonement of Christ, which falls under Christology (the study of Christ). What I have found is that the views that have been held throughout time, some more recently, seem to be missing something or do not give a fully developed rendition of the Atonement. It should be stated I do not believe that I can develop a fully adequate idea of what the Atonement was or is or should be. Rather, my goal is to give a view that I believe does more justice to Christology than its predecessors. The general movement throughout this discourse will be to first, lay out a couple of the views that have been or are currently held. Secondly, to present the weakness (not all) of these views. Lastly, lead into my view. Also, I should state that this is not something that I have fully developed yet but rather wanted to submit my idea and get a general reaction from the community of believers. So, with all of this out of the way, please follow me through a brief study in Christology, the Atonement.

Typical Views of the Atonement

            To begin, the view (which mine is based on) that was really the first view in history and typically held by many of the church fathers (Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, etc). The Christus Victor view of the Atonement was held by most until the time of Anselm of Canterbury. Briefly, this view espouses the idea that man is in bondage or “enslaved” to Satan because he has authority (temporarily) on Earth (Gen 3:1-6; Luke 4:5-8; 1 John 8:34).[1] Since mankind has been enslaved to Satan there needed to be a ransom paid (Origen, for instance, believed this was paid to Satan himself) to set man free. So, Christ enters the scene and pays the price that man could not and takes victory over hell, evil, sin, and Satan. Some church fathers believed that Jesus tricked Satan into thinking that he could keep him when in fact Jesus knew that he would be resurrected and reunited with God the Father after the ransom was paid.

            Generally speaking, this view has a very positive connotation, in that Jesus Christ came and took victory over these things. With that, this view enjoys some positives outside of this as well, for instance, being part of church tradition, provides a unifying theme of Jesus’ ministry, the unity of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the cosmic dimension of evil.[2] This view (like many views) is not without its criticisms but I will save that for a little later.

            Next, this is the predominant view among protestant believers, the Penal Substitutionary view. This has enjoyed great support throughout time and was held by protestant reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther. This view suggests that we are all, “individually and corporately at war with God.”[3] Essentially, God is wrathful towards the sin in the world. Now, I should stop here briefly to say that wrath is not a bad thing. God’s wrath is a byproduct of his justice and it is perfectly within the bounds of this justice that this wrath is wrought. The short form of this view is that since man is willfully against God and separated the only way in which man could be brought back to God was providing an infinite or boundless sacrifice to appease God’s wrath. Jesus came and lived the perfect life and gave it up for the whole world that it might be brought back into the original communion with God the Father. So, Jesus took our place or was our substitute for the punishment that we rightfully deserved for our unrighteous indignation.

            Of course, this view has the benefit of being right in line with what we know from the scriptures and it focuses on God’s justice. This view also enjoys some other supporting ideas, for instance, how sinners are reconciled to God and Jesus’ life and death (the meaning and purpose).[4] Also, it places a great deal of emphasis on Jesus Christ and the work that he accomplished through the Atonement. But again, this view is not without its critics.

Criticisms of these Views

            Briefly, this will not consist of a long composition of the criticisms that are levied against each view. Rather I want to present some issues I have with these views as they stand now. Nor, do I want to convey an attitude that anyone who holds to either of these views is wrong and against Scripture. To the contrary, each of these views is in line with Scripture but I think each of these views misses some point.

            The Christus Victor view seems to not place enough emphasis on the fact that we are against God and are in need of some kind of restitution towards him. There also seems to be a slight problem when this ransom is being paid to Satan, essentially elevating him to deity status. To take this point a little bit further, it is almost dualistic in flavor, by this I mean that it is as if it puts forward that there is a good force (God) and an evil force (Satan) and each of these forces is equal in nature and fighting to win some war. This is troublesome indeed. However, based on Scripture, it seems perfectly reasonable as to why a ransom would be paid to Satan because he is the ruler of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) and he is the prince (archon) of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).[5]

            Now, the other side, the Penal view seems to place far too much emphasis on God’s wrath. Not that this is not an important and functional part of it all, but it seems as it is the only focus of this view (I am being slightly hyperbolic here). A prime reason why I think this is the case is that the Atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all peoples everywhere, it was universal in its scope, and this shows the absolute love of God for his created people. Also, this view seems to take away from the very fact that Christ did, in fact, take victory over sin, death, evil, Satan, hell, and these sorts of things that wreak havoc in the world and are contra God’s nature. Some other criticisms of this view include, it limits God, it condones the continuation of sinning (not my view), guilt cannot be transferred, and this view sets the Father against the Son.[6]

            Now, not all of the criticisms listed above are my own, but I can see why each view would take that position against the other. This is not a full rendition of each view and I think I am presupposing that most people that do actually read this will have some kind of working knowledge on the topic. If this is not the case I truly and deeply apologize. Now, since the trenches have been ever so briefly navigated, I think it is time to move on to my revitalization of the Christus Victor view.

The Novus Christus Victor View of the Atonement

            First, I would like to put forward a couple of things prior to jumping into my view. My goal here is to remain faithful to the biblical text. Also, I see the positives from both views listed above and I think that the best course of action to bringing about a more solidified understanding of the Atonement is to, in a way, combine them. With that said, I am fully open to criticisms because my only goal is to shine the brightest light as possible on the grace of God the Father and the redemptive work of Christ (the Son). So, if there is something that is fundamentally flawed in what I offer please say so and correct my misstep.

            As I decided to write about this topic, I was not sure how I wanted to present it and I think the best approach will be to provide as good an illustration as I can and extrapolate the position from there. The example may not be perfect and could be better constructed and if that is the case let us do that but do not let that deter from the intention herein. Now, to have an idea of where I plan to take this imagine two kingdoms, a holy one and evil or dark one. These kingdoms are not anywhere close to equal because the holy kingdom is one that encompasses the entire universe. The kingdom of darkness is really just a rebel uprising trying to gain recruits. This is the general direction of my picturesque example.

            Now, God is the king of this holy kingdom and we could be viewed as official subjects that work for this ultimately gracious king. The kingdom of darkness (as stated above) is run by a downtrodden ruler who is seeking to overthrow this holy kingdom because he wants the limelight and he is seeking to fill his ranks. So, Satan decides to influence man to commit treason against the holy kingdom. Since mankind has committed treason against the holy kingdom he must be ejected from its citizenship. Now, this treasonous act led to mankind’s imprisonment under this dictatorial king, we live in oppression (Mark 9:25; Luke 11:14; 13:11-16). The heart of mankind cries out for the old (in reference to his stance) kingdom but cannot be reconciled back to it without someone freeing them from the inescapable bondage of this evil kingdom.

            In steps Jesus, God in the flesh, the Logos because mankind needed a warrior to defeat the kingdom of darkness and restore those traitors to full citizenship. He does this because all citizens, be it prior or current, he has a love for, but he cannot set aside his perfect justice and simply let traitors back into the kingdom (this would lessen the greatness of the kingdom).[7] In a way, mankind was fooled into giving up our citizenship in the greatest kingdom and thus we are responsible for our breaking away but Satan is also responsible for his portion. So, Jesus comes to preach this holy kingdom and to say that he is going to be the link or bridge or escape hatch that will allow us to restore our citizenship into the holy kingdom and through his efforts all of our past transgression will be forgiven. It is via this effort that, through the cross of Christ, his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, that he has taken victory over this kingdom of darkness and provided “access” back into the holy kingdom. By doing this, he has fought the war that we could not fight which was our payment for freedom.[8] God, the holy king, came to fight the war that he knew we could not win so that we could gain our citizenship back through him. Essentially, God, through his Son, knew that the only way to regain his citizens was to pay with the life of his Son through an inevitably victorious war because all citizenships come with a cost.

            With all of that said, we know that God is just and to break away from his kingdom is committing treason against the king and takes a great act to mend it. So, God is angry that we have committed treason against him, but he wants us back because he loves us. Satan on the other hand only seeks selfish gain through the accumulation of bodies to elevate himself. Even though God is just, and we have been treasonous, he decided that to win us back into this citizenship status he would have to defeat the other kingdom. Through this perfect life of Christ, we find the attributes that mankind should manifest and they all run contrary to what caused us to depart for the other kingdom.

            Of course, this is not to propagate some form of universalism. Above, I stated this victory gives “access” to regain our citizenship but does not guarantee it. There will be those who continue to dissent and that is their choice to live in a defeated kingdom and to still owe for their treasonous behavior. So, it is through Christ that we have access or the potential to regain our citizenship status and only upon taking up his cross and recognizing his status as the Logos and the aforementioned (death, burial, resurrection, and ascension) can we be reinstated.

Conclusion

            Now, what has been offered here is not fully developed (as stated before). My goal was to gain feedback about this position. To see if it brings together a more full view of the Atonement of Christ and to see if a more rounded understanding could be found. My motivation for thinking this way was the Christus Victor view was so powerful and positive but lacked in areas. Much the same as the Penal view seemed to swing the opposite direction and be based negatively on God’s wrath. It seemed as though a more mediating type of position should be stated and that was my goal. Did I reach this goal? I truthfully have no idea but we build as a community and if this position is worth further developing I would be glad to hear about it. If it is not then I will continue between the worlds of accepting Christ’s victory over all and think of his death as a substitution for my crimes. This is not a bad place to live because I view the best of both worlds but I feel divided and desire a unified front. Thank you so kindly for considering my thoughts and position.

---

[1] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 132.

[2] Ibid., 135-136.

[3] Ibid., 126.

[4] Ibid., 130.

[5] Ibid., 133.

[6] Ibid., 131-132.

[7] Now, this is part of the illustration that may be difficult to process from the human side. Since we would say it would make the kingdom great because the king lets in those who do not deserve entrance. However, without defeating the treacherous instigator, the treason could rise up again and it would nullify the greatness of the kingdom and the king’s justice.

[8] Payment here is being used in the sense that it was the cost but not a literal transaction to a person.