Angles of the Cross: Part Two

In part one of this article, I tried to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of three of the major atonement models: the Christus Victor approach, Anselm’s satisfaction model, and moral exemplarism. What follows is my attempt to synthesize all three by discussing them in the context of several important theological ideas: sin, the Incarnation, and the Cross.

Topic One: Sin

Without sin, there would be no need to discuss atonement in a Christian context. However, there are two extremes it is often relegated to: the idea that sin is “simply a legal claim,”¹Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapics: Baker Academic, 2004), 184. which is often espoused (both consciously and subconsciously) by those who hold to a more objective view, or the belief that when one is saved from sin, these sins have more to do with sinning against others and sins “committed through social institutions.”²Miguel De la Torre, Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (2^nd ed.; Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2014), 35. The problem here is both approaches have merit: sin is so much more than simply “offending” God, yet the effect of sin on humanity’s standing before God required something to happen as a result. Not recognizing the truth in both extremes leaves one with an imbalanced view of sin.

Thankfully, the three views have much to say on the topic. First, the crux of the Christus Victor approach is the defeat of sin and death at the hands of Jesus Christ. This has been interpreted differently throughout the ages; some, like Gregory of Nyssa, believed humanity was freed from the devil’s grasp by way of trickery, which led to the infamous fish and hook metaphor. Others, like Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, who is known for his narrative Christus Victor approach, argue salvation and the defeat of sin occurs not by the death of God, but through his reign.³Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 226. In both approaches, however, God enters into a cosmic battle against the forces of evil and, through varying means, frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death.

However, for God to take action against sin, this would imply its seriousness and gravity; something that, although present within the Christus Victor approach, is oftentimes only discussed in the context of sin affecting humanity. Instead, by discussing Anselm’s approach to the atonement, one will find sin goes further than the pain and suffering humanity goes through. According to Anselm, “[e]very wish of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God.”⁴Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I.9. However, because of sin’s influence on humanity, humanity is unable to honor God by following his will, and thereby “dishonors [God]; and this is sin.”⁵Ibid. As a result, “[e]veryone who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God.”⁶Ibid.

While many might find this language jarring, it is not far from the biblical text, where multiple writers discuss humanity’s tendency to forgo the will of God and serve themselves instead.⁷For example, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 17:9, and Romans 7:15-20. It is also necessary to understand that while feudal language may be foreign to us now, every prominent theologian, from Polycarp to Karl Barth, has written from their particular societal contexts, and Anselm is no different. What is important, however, is understanding the gravity of sin: it is not simply the sin against others that Jesus died for, but humanity’s inability to worship the living and loving God deserving of praise and devotion; the creator God who, in his lovingkindness, created man and woman for glory and honor, yet the introduction of sin disrupted these plans. By understanding this, the idea of Christus Victor finds a new clarity: despite humanity’s inability to follow and worship God by their own accord, thereby not giving him the glory he is due, God loves his creation enough to go to any and every length possible to enact redemption and reconciliation between the estranged parties.

Furthermore, the moral exemplarist approach, although not providing a detailed description of how sin is defeated, shows the world that cruciform love is the most powerful force in creation. By witnessing the sacrifice of the Godman and by experiencing this overwhelming love, humans find themselves compelled to turn away from sin. This is not merely in an objective, legal sense where men and women stop sinning against God (although this is part of it); they are also compelled to end the cycle of death and oppression by joining alongside Jesus in his nonviolent war against sin, leading to the healing of the entirety of creation.

Topic Two: The Incarnation

The Incarnation is a topic that, regrettably, is often overlooked in conversations about the atonement. This is largely in part due to the mistaken belief the atonement solely deals with the death of Jesus. One recent case of this is the debate between pastor Brian Zahnd and author Michael Brown in 2014, where the topic of penal substitutionary atonement was discussed. The majority of the conversation was centered around the cross with Brown later commenting on his blog about the debate, his remarks focusing largely on ideas such as the atonement satisfying God’s wrath and the cleansing of sin.⁸Michael Brown, “Did Jesus Really Die as the Substitute for Our Sins?”, Charisma News, September 17, 2014, http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/45425-did-jesus-really-die-as-the-substitute-for-our-sins (accessed August 17, 2016). While these ideas are important, there is nary a mention of the Incarnation and the ministry of Jesus; something that all three models of the atonement mentioned above tackle.

Weaver’s narrative Christus Victor effectively incorporates the idea of Incarnation into the act of divine reconciliation. Jesus’ mission was to destroy the works of the devil,⁹1 John 3:8. but this is not only demonstrated on the cross. Whether Jesus is healing, exorcising, or multiplying, his ministry was a full out war against oppression and suffering, albeit a war not fought with swords and guns but with restoration and love. Even the act of Jesus resisting the devil’s temptation in the wilderness is an act of atonement: Jesus’ refusal to serve such a lowly and corrupt power was a demonstration of God’s reign, a sign not only of what was to come, but also what was already occurring.¹⁰Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 34. For God so loved the world he took upon the flesh of humanity in order to restore creation to its rightful purpose, even to the extent of winning the war by giving up his own life.

Anselm’s account of satisfaction atonement deals with the Incarnation more explicitly, in regards to the purpose and reasoning behind the Christ event. As discussed above, since humanity is unable to satisfy the debt against God and if God is the only one who can satisfy this debt as a result, the Incarnation, according to Anselm, is a logical conclusion. Furthermore, if God simply created another “perfect” to deliver us, this would put humanity in someone else’s debt and servitude rather than God’s.¹¹Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I.5. Anselm even goes a step further to argue that the Incarnation is not an act of God lowering himself to humanity’s level but instead is an act of theosis: “the nature of man we believe to be exalted.”¹²Ibid., I.7. The act of the Incarnation is more than simply entering into the world; it is the way God redeems humanity in its fallen state.

Despite the importance of the objective elements of the Incarnation, there is a subjective perspective to be found, as well, and moral exemplarism has much to offer in this regard. The act of Incarnation itself is selfless and moving, and it provides a template for Christians to act similarly. In fact, taking upon another person’s debt is visible in several places in the New Testament. “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ,” Paul writes to the Galatian church.¹³6:8, NRSV. Jesus also has strong words against those who would freely accept forgiveness for their own debts yet cannot forgive, or take upon, the debts of others.¹⁴Matthew 18:21-35. With this in mind, the unity of these models demonstrate that the act of the Incarnation should inspire us to enact the cosmic reign of God by following his lead and example, thereby helping raise others to a place of freedom and exaltation through satisfying one another’s debts, just like Jesus himself.

Third Topic: The Cross

At this point, it might seem unnecessary to discuss the crucifixion, since this is largely the most commonly tread topic of the three, and this is where the mutual exclusivity of atonement models is generally argued. However, as it has already been demonstrated, this is not the case, and the voices of each model brought together in unity help bring out the beauty of the cross in a way they could not on their own.

The cross for Christus Victor proponents is seen as the ultimate victory over sin, death, and the devil.¹⁵Aulén, Christus Victor, 147. While this triumph is not fully visible until the resurrection, the cross is where the battle is most visibly waged: the principalities and powers of the world seemingly defeating God-in-flesh through the Roman Empire’s infamous tool of torture. Instead of subscribing to the practice of lex talionis, Jesus won the war by trusting God’s judgment rather than returning the abuse and scorn he experienced as he hung for humanity’s behalf.¹⁶1 Peter 2:23. The resurrection was God’s decisive blow against the powers of sin and death: no longer would they have power, let alone the final say, over his beloved creation.

Anselm and the satisfaction model have much to say in this regard, as well. The motif of Jesus’ death is present throughout the entirety of Cur Deus Homo, and it is not because God needed an innocent party to punish. Instead,  it is of “[Jesus’] own accord he endured death for the salvation of men.”¹⁷Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I.8. Furthermore, the suffering of Jesus was not pleasing to the Father; however, “it was his fixed choice to suffer death rather than that the world should not be saved.”¹⁸Ibid., I.10. God was so moved by the suffering and weight of sin laid upon humanity he was moved to take the necessary steps to enact the necessary freedom, even if it meant his own death. This view of satisfaction is not incompatible with Christus Victor, as is commonly argued, as both approaches discuss the gravity of sin and humanity’s freedom from its grasp. Instead of seeing them as contradictory, it is more than reasonable, as discussed above, to see the cross as an act of God waging war against the sinful powers in the world who have steered humanity to the position of being unable to give God his due worship. This is not the act of an angry or vengeful God, but the result of the fierce passion the Creator has for his creation who, in this act of self-sacrifice and compassion, utters, “Take my only begotten Son and make him an offering for himself;” the Son who cries out, “Take me, and ransom your souls.”¹⁹Ibid., II.20.

More than simply the remission for humanity’s sins against God, the cross is the demonstration of how humanity should forgive the sins of others. The idea behind moral exemplarism is that what Christ chose and endured is the most definitive act of love in creation,²⁰1 John 3:16. and through this act of cruciform love, humanity is transformed as a result; men and women finding themselves compelled by the love of God to turn away from sin. However, moral exemplarism deserves to be pushed further than this, especially in light of the Christus Victor and satisfaction models. First, this act of cruciformity is meant to be demonstrated in the life of a Christian, not only as an act of love but an act of peaceful, yet powerful, warfare against sin. When Jesus commands his disciples to turn the other cheek and bless those who persecute them, he is foreshadowing his own crucifixion by inviting anyone willing to listen to join alongside him in the transformation of creation through acts of love.

Paul picks up this theme in Romans when he says not to return evil for evil, but to overcome evil with love; exactly what we see on the cross. This is how victory is accomplished. In the same way, as discussed above with the Incarnation, the act of debt forgiveness is vital to Christian discipleship. By following Jesus’ lead in forgiveness of debts and sins, disciples are going further than simply allowing themselves to be transformed: they are inspiring others to join in the transformation process, as well.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article, as communicated in part one, was not to create a complete and concise model of the atonement. Rather, by looking at the strengths of the Christus Victor, satisfaction, and moral exemplarist models, an enriched and robust narrative emerges. This is because models of the atonement are simply that: models. By refusing to view them as helpful tools and letting them communicate and find some form of harmony, the church misses out on the message begging to be heard and, more importantly, lived out.