Christus Victor Hoopla

Over at CT Mark Galli has an article on The Problem with Christus Victor where he notes the increasing popularity of the Christus Victor (CV) model for the atonement, but thinks it can down play notions of personal sin and guilt if not cojoined to the theory of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). He concludes: "Here, I'm simply suggesting that Christus Victor may not be a theory that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, should tie their wagons to. While it brings to the fore some crucial and forgotten biblical truths, it's clearly a secondary atonement theme in the New Testament. And at least for today's Protestants, it has an uncanny tendency to downplay a sense of personal responsibility, which in the end, sabotages grace. In my view, more than ever in our day, we need Christus Vicarious."

Tom Schreiner argues similarly in his response to Greg Boyd in The Nature of the Atonement. Several posts have appeared around the biblioblogosphere about Galli's article including the Anglican Priest, Through a Glass Darkly, Brambonius, and Already Not Yet to name a few.

I agree that CV and PSA go together because Jesus is only Christus Victor because he is also Agnus Dei. PSA deprives the Satan of his key weapon: accusation against the saints! However, I think CV is the the most comprehensive model of the atonement for several reasons:

1. Canonical: The first and last intimations of the atonement in Scripture are about the victory of Jesus' death (Gen 3:15; Rev 12:11).

2. Historical: CV appears to have been more popular in Church History as a model for the atonement than any other. Though PSA can be found in the fathers as a minor key, CV can be found among the Reformers as a minor key too.

3. Biblical Theological: CV links together a lot more themes than PSA does. CV brings together kingdom, atonement, resurrection, and new creation.

4. Pauline: Note how Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 both start off with the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death, but then climax in affirmations of divine victory! PSA is the basis for CV, but CV is then the goal of PSA.

I like the words of John Calvin on the subject: “Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory … But special attention must be paid to what I lately explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror.”[1]

---

[1] Institutes II.12.2-3. Calvin also wrote: “And so, by fighting hand to hand with the power of the Devil, with the horror of death, he won the victory over them and triumphed, so that now in our death we should not fear those things which our Prince has swallowed up” (Institutes II.16.11).

Graham Cole on the Atonement

Graham Cole (Systematics Lecturer at TEDS and an Australian, ergo, everything he says is true and simultaneously brilliant) has new book on the atonement entitled, God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom. I've wrestled with the issue of the place of penal substitution (PS) in biblical theology. In my mind, PS is clearly taught in Scripture (e.g. Mark 10:45; Gal 3:13; Rom 8:3), but is it THE central atonement motif or is it derivative from another. I. Howard Marshall and Thomas Schreiner present a good case that PS is the predominant atonement motif in the NT undergirding all the others, although I do find the Christus Victor theme attractive as a possible controlling premise as well. Any how, in an interview with Andy Naselli, Graham Cole says:

"Penal substitution provides a good example. It seems to me that following the biblical plotline, the first note struck is the Christus Victor one (i.e., the defeat of evil) in the protevangelium (first gospel) set out in Genesis 3:15. But how is the evil one defeated? The grounds of accusation need to be removed that stand against us, and the fear of death that is the devil’s tool needs to be addressed as well. The cross of Christ disarms the evil one by removing the grounds of accusation against us (Col 2). Christ died in our place (1 Peter 2)), experienced the righteous divine wrath that we deserve (Rom 5) and so, if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation (Rom 8). Because we stand clothed in Christ’s righteousness we will not face the divine judgment of the great white throne for our sins (Rev 20). Our names are in the Lamb’s book of life. The fear of death, which lies in judgment, is thereby addressed (Heb 2). Evangelicals in my view need to do more justice to the Christus Victor theme and in so doing find that penal substitution is integral or central to it."

HT: Andy Naselli.

Dan Reid on the Pauline Strip

Dan Reid and I are both memorising Colossians (mind you I'm only memorising 1.15-20). In the course of the way, Dan posts on Col. 2.15 in talking about the Pauline strip. It comes down to whether you take the participle apekdusamenos as middle 'Christ stripped himself' or as deponent 'Christ stripped the powers'. Dan takes the former (as per most patristic authors) and I take the latter (with most modern commentators). Or we could put it this way with by noting J.B. Lightfoot: 'The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about his humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In his cross we too are divested of the poisonous and clinging garments of temptation and sin and death' (Colossians, 190). Or go with Stanley E. Porter: ‘Jesus Christ’s beneficial or participatory stripping of the defeated demonic enemies of their power makes better sense of the imagery’ (Stan Porter, Idioms, 69).

Note also how the Gospel of Truth echoes Col. 2.15 in this regard: ‘Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability ... he passed through those who were stripped naked by oblivion’ A gnostic appropriation is of course no argument against the middle force of the participle. But I tend to think that the link of 2.15 with 1.12-14 and the military imagery of defeated hostile forces makes disarming or stripping the powers the most likely image to readers.