Edgework

Pressing back toward the early Christian era, we encounter in the second century the formation of a perspective on the saving work of Christ which later came to be known as the Christus victor atonement theory.

This theory also had its own unique context which helped to shape its distinctive characteristics. The church of the time lived in tension with the dominant social structure of the day because it claimed Jesus, not Caesar, to be Lord. This resulted in major tensions between the church and contemporary power structures. And, furthermore, Christians viewed this conflict through the prism of the prevailing cosmology which understood conflicts on earth to be related to and intertwined with cosmic battles between celestial powers. Thus Christ became the “knight in shining armor” who defeated the enemy on behalf of hapless humans. This theory also appears to have drawn on platonic dualism which tended to see human reality as a constant battle between good and evil forces.

It would be misleading to suggest that there was a uniform atonement theory in the vein of Christus victor. Various writers of the time held to different manifestations of this theory. We will highlight two of the most dominant ones here.

The “classic version” of the Christus victor theory, sometimes referred to as the re-capitulation theory, is attributed to Irenaeus (130-202). He held that while naturally mortal, humans had been granted immortality by God as a special favor. However, because of making sinful choices in Adam, humans had reverted back to being mortals and in the process the devil had claimed them as his possession. Jesus’ mission was to reclaim humanity; to undo the effects of the sin of Adam. To accomplish this he needed to become one of us in the incarnation and so begin the process of systematically reclaiming or “re-capitulating” humanity. Of course the devil resisted this process and in the ensuing “cosmic” battle Jesus becomes a casualty in the violence instigated by the devil but not sanctioned by God. But in the resurrection Christ becomes the “victor” in his campaign of liberating humanity which he had started with his incarnation.

Another version of the Christus victor theory is known as the “ransom” theory. This theory too is rooted in the context of the times; roaming bands often captured travelers and held them for ransom, slaves could sometimes be released by paying a ransom, and prisoners of war were often freed after a ransom was paid. The big question, of course, was to whom the ransom was paid. Origen (185-254) claimed that Jesus was a ransom payment to the devil. God makes a deal with the devil, sanctioning the violent death of Jesus as the payment for humanity’s liberation. Once Jesus, the ransom, was in the presence of the devil, his goodness was too torturous to endure so the devil released him, resulting in Christ’s resurrection. But in the meantime the devil had already given up his human prisoners. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395) held that the devil was tricked because Jesus’ divinity was hidden behind his humanity. In any event, the ransom scheme, whichever version you choose, worked; the devil was defeated and humanity was
liberated from the power of sin and Satan.

Most early Christian writers who held to some form of the Christus victor atonement theory did not consider this the only way to speak about the saving work of Christ but used other images and metaphors as well.

The Christus victor theory has some significant strengths, especially compared to theories that emerged in the second millennium:

1. It deals with sin objectively on a personal and corporate level. Because of the work of Christ humanity moved from a position of captivity to sin to liberation from sin.
2. It takes the presence of evil seriously and suggests that it is not always our fault.
3. While making use of prevailing platonic thought, it challenges Gnosticism by insisting on the scandalous notion of God becoming flesh.
4. It emphasizes the resurrection which some later theories failed to do.
5. The life, teachings and events of the passion-week are all significant components of Christ’s battle against the devil, thus providing ethical ramifications for Christ’s followers.
6. There is no hint of the necessity of Christ appeasing God the Father by suffering on behalf of sinful humanity.
7. It doesn’t claim to have the final word on atonement; it was always cited in conjunction with other images, metaphors and theories.

However, significant weaknesses of this theory have also been noted:

1. Some suggest that perhaps the devil plays too significant a role in the human drama, placing him on a more-or-less equal footing with God.
2. Some forms of the theory make God complicit in deception which some claim to be beneath God’s dignity.
3. While the classic view doesn’t require the death of Christ, the ransom view still needs the violent death of Jesus to accomplish liberation for humanity.
4. The concept of forgiveness is overshadowed by the story of the cosmic battle between God and the devil.
5. When taken too literally, this theory raises the thorny question of who paid what to whom. It seems this view helped to develop a satanology that does not find support in the New Testament.

By the sixth century A.D. Christus victor rhetoric began to wane. Perhaps the main reason for its demise was the fact that by that time the church was no longer in conflict with society at large and so images of cosmic battles involving good and evil did not resonate as clearly as they once had.

We have now completed our survey of the main atonement theories that have dominated the theological landscape of the church for nearly 2000 years. If I were forced to choose one over the others I would likely choose the classic view of the Christus victor theory. But do we have to choose? We will consider that question in essays to come.