In my last post I noted that Christus Victor was the way the first Christians understood the gospel story. Based upon my readings of both the bible and the early Church Fathers the following is my reconstruction of how many, if not most, of the first Christians told the gospel story. I thought, given that the gospel is a narrative, that it would be helpful in this post to convey Christus Victor theology as it was conveyed by the early Christians: as a story.
So here it is, as best as I can tell and reconstruct it, the gospel story as the earliest Christians shared it with each other:
Prompted by his envy, Satan is successful in bringing death into the world (Wisdom 2.24) by deceiving humanity in the Garden (Gen. 3; John 8.44; 2 Cor. 11.3). Now wielding death Satan holds humanity in bondage due to our fear of death (Heb. 2.14-15). Under this bondage Satan continues to deceive (2 Cor. 4.4), tempt us into immorality (2 Cor. 11.3), cause spiritual and physical afflictions (Luke 13.15-17; Matt. 9.32-37; Mark 5.1-20), thwart the gospel (Matt. 13.19), and cause violence (John 8.44). All told, humans are vulnerable to Satan and in need of protection (Matt. 6.13) as our “enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (I Peter 5.8).
To set humanity free from this bondage with its moral, social, ecological, psychological, spiritual and physical afflictions, Christ came to “share in [our] humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Heb. 2.14-15). “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (I John 3.8).
Suspecting something about the child of Mary and Joseph, Satan tries to kill Jesus as an infant (Matt. 2.13-18; Rev. 12.4) but, due to Divine intervention, the child escapes. Later, after God publicly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 3.13-17), Satan immediately moves to defeat Jesus in a direct confrontation (Matt. 4.1-11). Failing in this attempt Satan leaves Jesus to “wait for an opportune time” (Luke 4.13) to attack again.
For the next three years, Satan and Jesus confront each other in the lives of suffering people as "Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil" (Acts 10.38). By binding Satan on earth Jesus shows that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated (Matt. 12.22-28). Jesus “drives out the prince of this world” (John 12.28-32), setting free those who were held in bondage to Satan (Luke 13:15-17). As the Kingdom expands and Jesus’ followers report their own power over Satan, the victory seems to be in hand as Jesus sees Satan “falling like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10.17-18).
On the edge of defeat Satan plays a final move, at an opportune time entering the heart of Judas to betray Jesus (Luke 22.2-4; John 13.2, 27; 14.30). Fully aware that this is happening, Jesus goes to Gethsemane to pray and wait for Judas. According to God's plan, there Jesus is handed over and eventually crucified (Acts 2.23-24). “But God raised this Jesus from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (Acts 2.25). Being raised from the dead, Jesus “disarmed the powers and authorities and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col. 2.15). Now ascended into heaven, Jesus reigns and will eventually “hand over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15.24-25). When Satan and death are finally defeated and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20.10,14) the deathless New Heaven and New Earth will be fully come and Paradise, finally, restored (Rev. 21-22):
“Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
It baffles me why some choose to cling so tightly to substitutionary atonement when this beautiful alternative is also available within the realm of historical orthodoxy.
Or perhaps I have simply grown weary of the ferocity with which S.A. defenders do battle with those who lean into a different view of what occurred on that hill far away.
"And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge." — J.R.R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings)
This feels really important, Richard. Maybe it's just my lack of research skills, but when I first opened the door to the universalist world, I searched long and in vain for such a narrative as this. When I tried to tell my church that the cross wasn't about forgiveness, I had no (simple) alternative story to tell. As a result, I was met with a mixture of interested incomprehension and angry incredulity.
Also, as you may guess from my previous posts, I love the fact that you start with God's PURPOSE in sending Christ. We live in a theological world that has confused outcome (salvation) for purpose and strategy.
Perhaps the story was always there, but I hadn't found it. Thank-you for telling it once more.
I think one reason that some hang on to S.A. is the double coin of fear and control. If you're raised from childhood in that thinking, you can face a social and psychological hell, ostracized from your kin and church for daring to think outside that box, as Andrew notes above. Also fear of hell itself keeps people from daring to explore the possibility of another explanation, because if you "get it wrong" you're gonna burn as their version of grace turns to wrath, so better safe than sorry. You're absolutely right about the ferocity factor, too.
It occurs to me that perhaps a fundamental difference in our approach to theology is the tradition aspect. The idea of Restoration is not fundamentally a part of my belief system.
I hear the concerns about overemphasizing "spiritual warfare." Two observations about that. First, the victory here is about the defeat of death and its influence in our lives. It's not about combating disembodied spiritual forces floating around us. Second, on a related note, the "demonic" in the biblical imagination is much more associated with the Powers, the social, economic, and political power structures that surround us (see my series about the demonic on the sidebar). The 1 Cor. passage cited above speak to this point: "He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be
destroyed is death."
That is the spiritual warfare.
As my own investigations have gone on I've also found Christus Victor be a hospitable location for universalist reflection. Given that my universalism is focused upon the defeat of death, moving from a death-centered to a resurrection-centered Christianity, the Christus Victor formulation fits very well.
Yes, your study on the earliest church sermons - the focus on the resurrection and the surprising lack of emphasis on the cross - has always stayed with me. Looking forward to the rest of your series.
Blessings
Add this data to the equation. A couple of years ago I went to an exhibit at the Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth about the earliest Christian art. Take away: Christians didn't depict the cross in their earliest art (first two centuries). This might have been due to the stigma attached to the cross, but there may have a theological impulse at work as well.
I suspect that it would be akin to wearing a little charm of the electric chair around our necks or posting one above the altar. Or perhaps a syringe full of poison? I can see how it is only after the cross ceased to be a part of anyone's experience that it was able to morph into an icon of Christ's sacrifice.
Interesting. I didn't feel this to be Universalistic. I am not a Universalist, and I come fully equipped with a Universalism alarm that sounds when it comes near.
I think this story is a great Gospel summary, but like all summaries it is incomplete. The New Testament talks about other enemies than Satan and death/fear. Namely, "the flesh" and "the world". I don't think early Christians would have left out the part that says, "while we were still God's enemies, Christ died for us."
From that perspective the good news is that though we were enemies Jesus chose, instead of defeating all enemies, to redeem some of them. And I'm not making a statement about election, other than the obvious that Jesus elected not to redeem Satan and death.
Christus Victor is definitely a valid and beautiful aspect of salvation, but I see Substitutionary Atonement as equally valid and beautiful. Not only does Jesus overpower our (and his) enemies Satan and Death, but He also takes the pain and animosity that is due to those who have been his betrayers so that our relationship can be restored. I don't really see how universalism enters into the discussion one way or the other. Even if one is a universalist, SA seems like a congruous and important aspect of the Gospel. In the same way a Reformed theologian must also see that Christ came to destroy the work of Satan and Death.
I would point you to an older post Dr. Beck made in regards to the various atonement theories.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2008/03/atonement-primer.html
I have two comments/questions.
First, when making appeals to the early Church to argue your point here, does that not make it necessary to appeal to them for all theological questions? Put another way, if you appeal to their authority on a topic such as atonement should you not recognize their authority on all topics and thus become a part of the Eastern Orthodox church? How does one draw the line between "I like your argument here and you are an Ancient Church which is going to give you leverage, but I disagree with you on these other topics so I wont go all the way in endorsing your viewpoint..."
Second, you have previously stated that you are "selling Christus Victor hard in this post to accomplish what you are suggesting: Open up alternative views to get people out of the "neat box" of substitutionary atonement". And I have heard this same argument from others. The idea that the atonement can't be summed up with just one general theory, but is more like a combination of all of the various theories/analogies put together. However, I have yet to see anyone express what it would look like, with the different theories/analogies together instead of placed against each other. Do you have any ideas about what this sort of idea of atonement would look like?
(I want to clarify, that I am someone who is interested in the various theories of atonement and don't have a very thought out opinion about it yet. my questions are only coming from someone who is thinking through this topic and finds myself frequently a little confused and overwhelmed by it all.)
Hm. I like the flow of it from a "religious" perspective, and I think it's an improvement on several of the other gospel narratives out there.
That said, while I think it's probable that you've articulated a story that was earlier than Augustinian and Anselmian views (to say nothing of the modern formulation of PSA), to call it the earliest seems like a stretch to me.
Your narrative holds on to a high Christology, but seemingly at the expense of the historical situatedness of C1 Israel—that is to say, any attempt to tell the story of Jesus that omits the covenant with Abraham, the motif of the Exodus, the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, the impending destruction of the temple and beginning of the Diaspora, the persecution under the Roman empire, ... seems in my opinion to fall far short of understanding the narrative under which C1 believers—both Jewish and "grafted in" Gentiles—saw their lives.
You're right. The title of the post isn't very good from a scholarly angle. I picked it as a provocative blog title.
Hehe, I have a lot of respect for that.
Are you familiar with the theologian Andrew Perriman? His writing (blog and books) attempts to articulate a "narrative-historical" view. Here's a recent post in which he attempts a reconstruction of "the narrative-historical shape of New Testament theology".
On the first point, I don't want to be read as saying oldest = right. But I am keen to undermine the widely held view that penal substitutionary atonement is the only "biblical view." Such a claim just can't be maintained in light of the historical evidence. Thus, any appeal to history is less about saying the older view is "true" than it is about nudging penal substitutionary atonement to the side to make room for other views.
One the second point, I'd suggest luxuriating in the messy diversity of views. That's what I do.
But a more practical stance is simply to see each view as addressing a different aspect of a large, sprawling, world-altering event. Christus Victor is good for dealing with salvation from evil, death, and the Powers. But it's less good at dealing with human guilt. Penal substitutionary atonement is good for that. And moral influence theories are good for spiritual formation and discipleship.
The point being, each view is addressing a specific context, issue, or problem. So the main mistake is to reduce the complexity to one view. To stuff it all into one box. For my purposes here my main focus is on the slavery to death so I'm going to be working with Christus Victor. But if I do that I'll have to bring along those who have never even considered it as an alternative view.
In short, you reach for the tool you need. But if all you have is a hammer, theologically speaking, everything starts looking like a nail.
I'd not heard of Perriman. I'll be checking him out. Thanks!
C S Lewis drew heavily on the Christus Victor model of the atonement when he wrote "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". Perhaps that's why he's viewed with suspicion by some evangelicals.
I think you're on to something here; I've always tended to go for Christus Victor over the other ideas. I wouldn't be so promiscuous about taking a bit from one author and a bit from another; what I need to do is look at their Christologies separately and see what I come up with.
Not knowing what you've read, I don't know if you've encountered one of the widely used analogies in the ancient world for Christus Victor. Basically it compares the Jesus on the Cross to the bait on a fishing line. Death swallows the bait thinking it has consumed just another man, only to discover that it has swallowed God and is burst asunder and destroyed from the inside.
That imagery sticks in my mind.
Thank you for the clarification! I'm sorry for misreading you on the first point.
One thing that had always bothered me about the idea of Penal Substitution alone was that Jesus goes around raising the dead and forgiving sins long before his own death and resurrection. For me, if our forgiveness depended just on Jesus' being a replacement for ourselves then how could he justify handing out all this forgiveness before he even died, just willy-nilly like that. So I do want to thank you for providing a forum for other interpretations to be looked at and considered.
I don't know if you already have something like this up (forgive me, I haven't exactly made it through reading all of your various series' here) but did you happen to have any book recommendations for this topic?
I'm no theologian, Tim, but Girard seems to me to make a pretty good job of reconstructing the spiritual/socio-cultural context of the OT. I first engaged with him through Mark Heim's book "Saved from sacrifice". As a regular reader, you may well be familiar with this book - one of Richard's favourites, I believe - already? I think this view of the OT would be consistent with and pertinent to Richard's gospel narrative. @Richard?
Perhaps start with Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement.
http://www.amazon.com/Community-Called-Atonement-Living-Theology/dp/0687645549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312551220&sr=8-1
Actually, I had been thinking that Lewis' model in Narnia was substitutionary atonement. He took the punishment that the traitor was supposed to take. But now that you point it out, both ideas co-exist side-by-side. Not only did he take the punishment for the traitor, but the back of winter was broken.
Oops, I meant to also comment that another reason why Lewis is held with some suspicion in some quarters is because of part of "The Last Battle" when the young soldier who had given his faith to a false god was included in redemption.
The events at the Stone Table are Christus Victor.
Edmund's life/blood is rightfully forfeit to the White Witch (Satan). Aslan takes Edmund's place (a "substitution" that is like a hostage trade, a ransom per Mark 10.45, to secure the release of a captive) but defeats Death (the Stone Table cracks) and the Witch because of the Deeper Magic (resurrection).
The key that marks the atonement theology of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as Christus Victor is the Witch's rightful claim on Edmund. There is no wrathful god being appeased at the Stone Table as in penal substitutionary atonement. The Witch wants blood, not God.
That's the critical difference/issue: Who wants the blood?
In paganism it's God. In Christianity it's humanity and the forces of evil--the Witch.
"In paganism it's God. In Christianity it's humanity and the forces of evil--the Witch."
The ones around the cross (by the way, very definitely not 'us') wanted this trouble maker out of their lives. They didn't want his 'blood;' they wanted him dead. Jesus could ask on the cross that they be forgiven because 'they did not know what they were doing.' God did. Jesus took this blood into the real tabernacle (in heaven), once and for all. He paid the price of sin and in so doing was victorious over death/satan. They are both inextricably co-mingled.
"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an
uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the
crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your
responsibility!' All the people answered, 'His blood is on us and on our children!'”
...
"When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he
was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.'
'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That’s your responsibility.'
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law
to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
...
The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet
you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make
us guilty of this man’s blood.”
Now I am really confused! Are you saying that these passages are anything more than simply figurative uses of 'blood' to refer to 'a man's life/death?' Where does Scripture ever indicate that people had a use or interest in blood (other than sacrifices, of course).
I trying to point out two things. First, your distinction that they didn't want his blood but his life (or, conversely, his death) isn't a distinction recognized in the biblical imagination. Wanting Jesus' death was wanting his blood.
Second, I'm also trying to show that the only people who wanted Jesus' blood in the gospels are humans, not God.
OK, people are sovereign; God isn't.
So, God's plan was to hand Him over and then . . . Please fill in this blank space . . . ? I know that whatever you use to fill in the blank won't have the word blood or death in it, right?
"Wanting Jesus' death was wanting his blood"
If you mean they are synonyms, that is what I have been failing to say in a coherent manner; if you mean something else, then . . .
Now you've got me confused. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
All I was saying in my response above is that humans are explicitly depicted in the gospels as wanting/guilty of Jesus' blood. And God isn't mentioned. That's all I'm pointing out. A biblical data point.
Now what all that means, theologically speaking, is up for debate and discussion. And you and I both know that we disagree, in pretty profound ways, about all that predestination stuff.
I am sorry for introducing any confusion; that was not my intent. But, why our agreement or disagreement of 'predestination stuff' crept in here mystifies me.
And God being mentioned or not in the gospels with regard to blood has what import? I'll grant it is a data point. But, the number of times the word 'the' shows up in the gospels is also a data point. I could be wrong; but, I assume when you mention a data point, it is with a purpose?
I know this will blow your mind; but, the gospel writers did not understand his death because God had not yet revealed it's meaning to them. Take a look at Luke 18:31-34. When blood is mentioned in the gospels it usually means the obvious, non-theological red stuff; lose enough of it and your dead.
I'm no theologian either. I like Girard from what I've seen (haven't read him yet, but have read Richard's posts and watched a bit of a video of one of his lectures). I shall have to read him—or at least Heim's book.
Still, what I've seen seems a bit more "universalizing" of the gospel than Jesus' first followers would have seen it. (And that's not a unique criticism of Girardian theology, it's my biggest problem with modern theologies of all stripes.)
It seems to me (and this is mostly from Perriman, with a dash of NT Wright) that the fundamental event on the horizon of Jesus' life and teachings was the destruction of the Temple and the dissolution of national Israel, and any attempt to reconstruct the narrative world in which the earliest Christians lived needs to grapple with that.
Also, Mark 12, Jesus tells the story of the wicked farmers entrusted with the owner's vineyard: "Surely they will respect my son."
(vs 5-8) "Others he sent were either beaten or killed, until there was only one left - his son whom he loved dearly. The owner finally sent him, thinking, 'Surely they will respect my son.' But the tenant farmers said to one another, 'Here comes the heir to this estate. Let's kill him and get the estate for ourselves!' So they grabbed him and murdered him and threw his body out of the vineyard ...(vs 12) The religious leaders wanted to arrest Jesus because they realized he was telling the story against them - they were the wicked farmers. But they were afraid of the crowd so they left him and went away." NLT
Yes! Totally forgot about this parable. But it shows exactly where the violence is.
the gospel writers did not understand his death
Wow. If I'm reading this correctly, it's one of the most explicit apologias for Paulianity I've seen.
How do you make sense of the fact that the gospels were composed after the epistles?
Hi there
Just finished a lengthy comparative analysis of Perriman vs. Girard when the computer froze! Suffice it to say that I'd recommend Heim's book and don't think it has to be an either/or situation. Different levels of meta-narrative (meta-meta-narrative?) can be mutually informative, I think.
Yeah, Matthew and John spent 3 years rubbing elbows with Jesus in the flesh, having conversations and eating breakfast together, but Paul, in a flashpoint conversion, gets superior decoder glasses ...
Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) needs an apologist?
The Gospels are historical narratives, no? Does the truth of history change over time?
Find me one indication of the Gospel in the Gospels and you win the prize. 'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' is about Israel not the Jewish/Gentile church of Christ.
I think, David, we've just butted up again against your dispensationalist theology. It's just a unique view which keeps surprising people.
Perhaps, then, it's a good opportunity for people unfamiliar with your views to Google dispensationalism and learn a bit about how dispensationalist think. That might help people understand you better, even if we ultimately disagree.
Yes; but whether I hold a 'unique dispensationalist view' or not has nothing to do with avoiding the question about the 'Gospel in the Gospels.' Seriously, how do you explain Luke 18:31-34 after those three years of 'rubbing elbows?' Surely we don't need to remove those verses too?
David,
This is a side question, about your dispensationalism.
Have you read the Scofield Bible? If so, what are your impressions of it?
I guess I'll have to use small words in this response. :). 'Your dispensationalism' is rather question begging, no? Anyway, I do not have a Scofield Bible.
Sorry you lost the comment. I hate it when that happens. Thanks for the recommendation—I agree that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game between the different levels of narrative.
Cheers!
Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) needs an apologist?
The Gospels are historical narratives, no?
No. They are gospels. The gospel writers
Find me one indication of the Gospel in the Gospels and you win the prize.
It's right there in your own sentence. Try Mark 1.1.
'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' is about Israel not the Jewish/Gentile church of Christ.
And that's the dispensationalism that Richard rightly identified.
Seriously, how do you explain Luke 18:31-34 after those three years of 'rubbing elbows?'
For the writer of the gospel to say that "the disciples did not understand any of this" seems to indicate that he, the author, did understand, no?
No room here! I posted a response on your blog.
Also, Luke 24:44-48. "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." vs 45. If Jesus Himself "opened their minds," I don't think they had inferior grasp of all the things they'd witnessed.
I like how you phrased "a hospitable location for universalist reflection." That helps me understand your approach to the topic. Rather than a proof or evidence for Universalism (a particular form of it) it seems your goal in many of these posts is simply to "make room" for a universalistic theological framework, and show logical, biblical, and traditional consistency.
Also, thanks John for the link to the Atonement Primer. It is useful and succinct. And I had never heard the fact about Tyndale coining the English term. I also have some thinking and research to do about the governmental substitutionary atonement. This might be a good description of where I've been in my mind for a while, though I didn't know there was a label for it.
I'm all about making room for new ideas. It's experimental theology.
As a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism (actually church of Christ), I've followed your blog and these posts with a great deal of interest. Pen-sub always seemed to make God our enemy from whom we needed to be saved by His Son. The problem ultimately ended up in double jeapordy: If God punished all sin in His Son then why does He hold sinners guilty? Not even human justice does that. Anyway, I ended up studying myself out of Protestantism and when I found the Orthodox Church it affirmed so much of what I intuitively found true in Scripture. At the risk of shameless self-promotion I did a short video that juxtaposes the pen-sub and Orthodox views of salvation (admittedly with LOTS of "shorthand") but the overcoming of death is, as you have eloquently summarized, the central message of the Gospel and gives us a much "nicer" view of God and His mercy on the fallen human race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8&feature=player_embedded