Ya'll know I've been thinking a lot about Christus Victor theology. As Gustaf Aulen describes it:
[Christus Victor's] central theme is the idea of the Atonement as a Divine conflict and victory; Christ--Christus Victor--fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which mankind is in bondage and suffering...The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.Because I've been thinking about this a lot--Christ's defeat of the devil--I've been attuned to anything I come across or read that has Christus Victor themes. A recent find in this regard: the Medal of St. Benedict.
We were home last week visiting my family for Christmas. During our time there I was wanting to purchase The Rule of St. Benedict, one of the founding and guiding documents of monasticism. I dropped by the local Barnes & Noble to see if they had a copy. They didn't. But outside of town there is a Benedictine monastery that I knew had a bookstore. So I called out there, figuring that if anyone had a copy of The Rule of St. Benedict it would be, well, the Benedictines. (Incidentally, this monastery--The Benedictine Sisters of Erie--is the home of author Joan Chittister.)
So Jana and I drove to the monastery and shopped in the bookstore where I picked up a copy of The Rule and a few other books. While we were checking out the sister handed us a few St. Benedict Medals. She said, "Here, you can have some of these. They are Medals of St. Benedict." I took them and thanked her. Then she said, "They give protection from evil."
That caught my attention. Who doesn't want to be protected from evil? But more to the point, "protection from evil" rings with Christus Victor themes. So when I got back home I did a little reading about why the Medal of St. Benedict is associated with this sort of protection.
The medal, as you can see here, has two sides. On the front of the medal is an image of Benedict himself. In his left hand he is holding a copy of The Rule and in his right hand he is holding a cross aloft. Around the edge of the medal are the words Ejus in obitu nostro presentia muniamur. Translated this means, "May we be protected by his presence in the hour of death."
Due to the peace of his own death Benedict is considered to be a patron saint of the dying and the medal is often used in ministering to the sick and dying.
The Christus Victor themes are found on the backside of the medal. The back of the medal is dominated by a cross. On the vertical bar of the cross are the letters C, S, S, M, and L. On the horizontal bar of the cross are the letters N, D, S. M, D. Taken together these letters stand for the the Latin words Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux--Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux. Translated this means, "May the Sacred Cross be my light--Let not the dragon be my guide."
And there is more. Around the border of the medal are the letters V, R, S, N, S, M, V--S, M, Q, L, I, V, B. These letters stand for the Latin words Vade Retro Satana! Nunquam Suade Mihi Vana! Sunt Mala Quae Libas. Ipse Venena Bibas! Translated this means, "Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! Evil is the cup you offer. Drink the poison yourself!"
These are the inscriptions on the medal that relate to its association with protection against Satan, evil, and temptation.
(I haven't discussed all the symbolism on the medal but I can't resist one other comment about the medal. On the front side, to Benedict's lower right, is a broken cup of poison. On his lower left is a raven carrying away a poisoned loaf of bread. Apparently, some enemies of Benedict had tried to poison him on a few occasions and he was miraculously rescued each time. Consequently, Benedict is also the saint you'd pray to if you've been poisoned. So file that tidbit away.)
Because of the explicit command to Satan--"Begone Satan!"--the Medal of St. Benedict has often been used for exorcisms. In fact, the medal is often incorporated into the crucifix for this purpose creating a St. Benedict's Cross (though the more workaday use of the cross is like that of the medal--a general talisman/prayer against evil). The combination of the medal with the crucifix makes the St. Benedict's Cross a powerful weapon in the hands of an exorcist.
Obviously, I was thrilled to discover all this theology from the Catholic tradition. The next day, after reading about all this, I went to a store and purchased a St. Benedict's Cross. It's the must have gift for anyone thinking a lot about Christus Victor theology.
The cross has also proven useful in my marriage. After explaining the cross to her I keep using it to exorcise Jana. She'll be sitting quietly on the couch knitting or reading and I'll come around the corner holding the cross aloft saying, "Begone foul spirit!"
She is not amused.
And really, given my understanding of the Principalities and Powers exorcising my wife doesn't make sense. (Though it is great fun.) I mainly purchased the cross so I can have it with me when I go shopping, to work, to church and watch politics play out in this country and around the world.
"Begone Satan!" indeed.
Who's the patron saint of marriage counseling? ;-) Good fun, Richard. I trust "The Rule" will only develop the discussion further.
The humor in our family, obviously, tends to the ridiculous. Yesterday the boys were trying to exorcise the dog.
I'm actually thinking of blogging through the Rule in weeks to come.
You know, readers who don't know Jana and I may be a bit put-off by my joke at the end on this post. For those worried, just know that Jana reads my blog and that our goofiness is a two-way street.
This is hilarious. I could see uses after a hot curry.
Great idea. "Begone foul spirit!" I tried that on my wife too, but it didn't work with her either. She just smiled and kissed me. I guess that's why I love her so much. ;)
As far as Christus Victor is concerned - "The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." - Nothing else makes sense to me. Sin, death, and the devil (whoever or whatever that is) are our enemies. Those are the things which we need to be saved from... NOT God.
Agreed. That's the best part of the theology. I spend my life fighting alongside God against evil--which is really a grand adventure--rather than spending my life in a Puritan funk of worry over if God really loves me.
Watch out, or Jana might up the exorcism ante and begin sneak attacking you with a squirt gun filled with holy water.
....Not that I ever did something like that. [/shiftyeyes]
See my Slavery of Death series.
I'll let Richard (and his Slavery of Death series) speak for himself. As for me, I see that Christ's death and resurrection has taken on and defeated our sin and death itself. He proved that death is not a problem for God, and proved that nothing we could ever do - even slaughtering Him on the cross - could ever separate us from the love of God. Religion teaches otherwise, and it is that religious notion that has us in bondage - that our sins could separate us from the love of our heavenly Father. And it is that bondage that Christ frees us from. He took away the sin of the world. It's a done deal. We just don't get the peace of knowing that UNTIL (not IF) He opens our eyes to that fact.
What do you say, David... has Christ defeated sin, death, and the devil? Or will they defeat Him?
Richard,
Jim,
What I am trying to do is get past the 'words' to the intended meaning. I know we all (the three of us, at least) believe He 'defeated' sin, death, and the devil.' Do either of you actually believe that is a question we ought to be dealing with? And, of course, I have read the series on the slavery of death. Yet, even a simple word like 'devil' is misleading. I am quite sure that the three of us have different understandings of what that word 'means.' Yet, we can talk about how Christ defeated the devil and think we are in agreement. All the while, misunderstanding what the other is trying to communicate.
Let me try this. After the cross, was the devil any less the devil? Was death any less death? Was the sin that I commit every day less 'sinful?' In what sense was there a victory? What is your understanding of what actually changed?
"Do either of you actually believe that is a question we ought to be dealing with?"
I think the apostles definitely taught that we should be "fighting alongside God against evil" (to use the words you were questioning), the devil in particular but also sin and death. The Christian struggle with the devil is all through the epistles. Some examples:
Eph 4.26-27
"“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.
Eph 6.11
Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.
2 Cor 11.3
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning,
your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure
devotion to Christ.
1 Tim 3.6-7
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
James 4.7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
1 Peter 5.8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
1 John 3.10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
Rev 2.10
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil
will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer
persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and
I will give you life as your victor’s crown.
It think it's very clear that the struggle with the devil is a lifelong aspect of the Christian walk. What I think has changed, since Pentecost, is that the Holy Spirit enables the church and the individual to successfully, but by no means inevitably or easily, "put on the full armor of God to stand against the devil's schemes."
"What is your understanding of what actually changed?"
Our view of God changed (or changes as we become aware of what Christ demonstrated about Him). Before Christ, the law (and its violation - sin) told us what we must do to "get right" with God - which is what religion teaches. Christ destroyed religion by demonstrating God's love for us -- "in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." We "repent" when we change our minds about God (what we were taught by the "traditions of men" - that our sin separates us from Him) and accept His unconditional love for us.
Until the "restoration of all things" death is still with us... sin is still with us... the devil (ignorance, deception, bigotry, etc., etc.) is still with us. The knowledge that those "things" are not permanent is what frees us from our bondage to them. The knowledge that they do not separate us from God is what sets us free to live and love without the fear that our good works, or imperfections and failures, are to be used as measuring sticks to save or condemn us.
Do I "think that is a question we ought to be dealing with?"
Absolutely, for religion teaches us that our sins, death, and the "devil" have the power to separate us eternally from our Father. It teaches that it is up to US to defeat them or God will have no choice but to throw us away. The revelation that those things have already been defeated (which must still be realized as truth in order for us to experience peace now) is absolutely necessary for us to experience the freedom which Christ gives us. "The truth will set you free." NOT free from sin, or death, or the effects of ignorance and deception... but free from the religious mindset that we are actually in a battle with them - a battle that WE must "win" or else.
“The greatness of Christianity lies in its being hated by
the world, not in its being convincing to it.
Let me be fodder for wild beasts—that is how I can get to
God. I am God’s wheat and I am being
ground by the teeth of wild beasts to make a pure loaf for Christ. I would rather that you fawn on the beats so
that they may be my tomb and no scrap of my body be left. Thus, when I have fallen asleep, I shall be a
burden to no one. Then I shall be a real
disciple of Jesus Christ when the world sees my body no more.
But if I suffer, I shall be emancipated by Jesus Christ; and
united to him, I shall rise to freedom.”
Ignatius of Antioch;
to the Romans.
Joel, I cleaned up some of the formatting.
I LOVE that. Just about went on Amazon and bought myself one. When I worked in forestry, a bald-headed melissophobic (afraid of bears) I worked with named Geoff used to exorcize bears (and bugs, and bad attitudes) all the time... I wonder if this might have helped. As for me, I've only ever performed exorcisms on the spirits of iniquity that sometimes possess my electronic devices. Which - given some of the weird things I've seen in my life - could be playing with (electrical) fire.
I might need an exorcism on the spirit of not measuring up and not feeling worthwhile...
Well, there is feeling worthless and actually being worthless. Two different things that are often hard to keep apart.
Who isn't afraid of bears? That seems like a reasonable phobia. :-)
Whether we should fight alongside God or not or whether those Scriptures prove anything about what the apostles taught was not what I was referring to with the quote with which you begin your response. Sadly, the questions that I did want to hear from you about are now history.
But, since you dealt with this subject, I'll try to explain my original comment about 'fighting.' Scripture teaches that believers are to resist, flee, be alert, stand firm in faith, etc. Not fight. None of us are 'strong' enough to fight the devil or sin or death. Now it might just be that when you referred to 'fighting' you meant the passive resistance I just mentioned. Nevertheless, I read 'fight' as something active and agressive and contrary to Scripture.
If I understand your answer to the first question you quote, what changed is 'man's view of God.' Nothing 'concrete;' just knowledge.
As to the second question you quote, your response seems to be that we (meaning only you, me, and Richard) need to discuss that question because of what 'religion' teaches. Again, I tried to explain that we (the three of us and nobody 'connected' with 'religion') already agree that those things were defeated. That was why I asked what I thought was a rhetorical question.
Whatever religion may or may not teach; Scripture does not teach that it is up to any of us to defeat sin or death or the devil. My question was 'in what sense were they defeated on the cross?' And your response seems to be because we now know they were. This doesn't seem to answer the question of 'in what sense . . . ?'
It's true that it's not up to us do defeat anything. We participate in the victory won by Christ. But that participation is a daily battle with the devil, a battle that can be lost if we are not vigilant. As for what changed in this battle, in my answer below I gave an answer: Pentecost.
Just to make sure I understand: What changed at the cross is that the Holy Spirit came and indwelt everybody 50 days later. By the way, you do know that the only people who were told to repent at Pentecost were the Israelites who had just killed their Messiah? That was what they were told to repent about. Gentiles don't have to do that.
"As to the second question you quote, your response seems to be that we (meaning only you, me, and Richard) need to discuss that question because of what 'religion' teaches. Again, I tried to explain that we (the three of us and nobody 'connected' with 'religion') already agree that those things were defeated."
Sin and death were defeated on the cross in the sense that REGARDLESS of what anyone may teach or believe, DEATH and SIN do not separate us from God. And as I said, we do not enjoy the peace inherent in that UNTIL we have come to accept it. In my comments, "we" always applies to mankind, not just you and I and Richard.
As I understand your position David, from our own personal email discussions and from your comments on this blog, you do NOT believe that sin, death, and the devil were defeated - at least not for everyone. Though you deny the label, but only by giving its tenets different names, your theology is essentially no different than Calvinism in that you assert that salvation is only for some (the "elect;" those who "choose" to believe; or whatever other "condition" you place on it). I am at a loss then to understand why you are claiming here to believe that sin and death were defeated, and to understand what your whole point actually is. Just what effect are you trying to produce, or what statement are you trying to make, by asking your "rhetorical" questions? If you actually believed that sin and death and the devil WERE defeated you wouldn't be asking the questions you did. Please forgive me, but I suspect you have a hidden agenda.
Of course you are forgiven for being suspicious; but, no, I do not have a hidden agenda. And, I only asked one rhetorical question. The others were sincere, straight forward questions.
Since I can see my questions are somehow confusing, here's my answer to them. Something very real happened on the cross. Not just that we (all of mankind) didn't know how much God loved us and that act showed it to us. How does Jesus' dying on the cross prove that God loves us? Unless there is something substantial about that act, then the act itself proves nothing. And, the 'coming' of the Holy Spirit is not what happened on the cross. If I were to suffer a meaningless death would that somehow prove that I loved my family???
On the cross, Jesus provided the payment for the sin debt we all owe. He did not harm or inflict damage on the devil or death or sin in some physical or spiritual sense. The devil had (and still has) the power to influence people to sin. Sin leads to death (and yes, death also leads to sin without the slightest Scriptural conflict.) We all do sin and there are consequences for that. You don't believe that; but, I do. On the cross God provided a solution that none of us would ever have come up with, He made our payment and set the ground rules: just believe in the payment. It is nonsense to those who are perishing.
We were talking about what changed for me in my daily fight against the devil. The empowerment via the Spirit is the most significant thing relevant to that issue. What happened on the cross, of course, allowed for that to happen.
Hey! Now I am not only a foul spirit but I'm also GOOFY!!! Wherever will this end?
In all seriousness, I love the many twists and turns of being married to Richard. I have come to expect the delightfully unexpected on a daily basis. I hope there is a series on The Rule. I'd read that one for sure.
Uh oh. My boss just showed up. :-) Love ya Sweetie! I'll do a series on The Rule just for you.
To David: (No REPLY available below so I'll make my last one here.)
"We all do sin and there are consequences for that. You don't believe that; but, I do."
You are putting words in my mouth that I have never uttered. Of course there are consequences for sin - "the wages of sin is death." We all are dying, but the last enemy to be defeated is death. And the GIFT (NOT reward for meeting His "conditions") of God is eternal (aionian) life.
"On the cross, Jesus provided the payment for the sin debt we all owe."Apparently not if some will be paying eternally for their debt themselves."On the cross God provided a solution that none of us would ever have come up with, He made our payment and set the ground rules: just believe in the payment."An interesting accounting system: An anonymous donor pays off your mortgage, but the "just and righteous" banker continues to extract payment from you. I see no justice nor righteousness there, but if you do I can only pity you. Congratulations then, on being wise enough to meet God's conditions for saving you through His grace (UNmerited favor). Please be sure to take the credit for doing what others could not. But I know that you will not take any credit for you have stated that you could not believe UNTIL God gave you the ability to do so.... And the never-ending spin of Calvinism goes on.....God is sovereign.... man is responsible.... Man cannot believe until God empowers him to do so.... but man is responsible for believing. Makes perfect sense.
Jim,
This is actually in response to your next comment; but, the 'system' doesn't permit responses to it . . .
"You are putting words in my mouth . . ."
Sorry, that was not my intent. Just a misunderstanding on my part. I apologize.
"Apparently not if some will be paying eternally for their debt themselves."
This is not my view. The debt has been paid for; I thought we agreed on that. Where we part company is that you seem to see that payment as automatically applied to everybody's account. All that is missing is that not all people see that yet; but, they eventually will. God says belief is required to make the payment apply to an individual. People will not go to eternal punishment because their sin has not been paid for but for their not believing God and His solution.
"I see no justice nor righteousness there, but if you do I can only pity you. "
Now, now . . . We don't need each other's 'pity.' Again, you conflate payment for sin with trusting what God has revealed. They are two completely different things. At the cross the sin of EVERYBODY was paid for. But, only those who trust this payment are declared righteous. And 'bowing their knee' in the visible presence of God is not trust it is subjugation and therefore of no value with God.
"Congratulations then, on being wise enough to meet God's conditions for saving you through His grace (UNmerited favor)."
Alas, more unmerited sarcasm. You know I take no credit for having been saved. It is a gift. Please stop distorting what I have said.
"God is sovereign.... man is responsible.... Man cannot believe until God empowers him to do so.... but man is responsible for believing. Makes perfect sense."
Still a misunderstanding of my view. (Note, I did not say my view is the correct one; only that you continue to misrepresent it.) "Man cannot believe . . ." This is not what God says. He says we are responsible because we 'can' believe Him but won't. Won't is not the same as can't. A god who blames me for what I can not do is not the same as the one in Scripture.
Geoff took it to wonderfully entertaining extremes. He once brought all of us to hilarity by panicking because of a bear-nightmare and cutting his way through the side of his tent, screaming, in the middle of the night. Nothing funnier than a bald, middle-aged man in his whitey-tighties, half-asleep, screaming and brandishing a knife at invisible bears.
Jim,
OK, I'll take one last shot at clarification.
I am not in a position to credit or blame anybody; least of all the one who created me. Apparently, if God is not who you have decided He must be, then you are in a position to blame Him for being 'responsible for being unloving' (per your definition).
Another correction to what you keep saying about me: In fact, I have never tried to earn or deserve God's love or even salvation itself. Nor do I "deeply desire to believe but will not admit to for fear of offending God."
"David, how am I misunderstanding your view, or distorting it, when you clearly state that you are saved BECAUSE you believed - an action by a choice on YOUR part - but yet still claim to take no credit for that action?"
Here it is in the simplest language I can muster.
1) God has revealed the truth and expects me to believe Him.
2) I don't want to believe Him.
3a) He sovereignly chooses to save me by giving me saving faith.
3b) He sovereignly chooses to NOT give saving faith to some.
4) I (now with saving faith) do believe Him.
5) He credits me with Christ's righteousness and I am now 'saved.'
I do nothing in this scenario that merits anything. The faith and the resulting salvation are both gifts. It is all God and if you wish to blame Him for not meeting your criteria of love then go for it.
ps. Forgive me but I can't resist trying to clarify a seeming misunderstanding of Scripture on your part. Saying 'Christ is Lord' is not what one believes through saving faith. It comes after and can only be believed when the Holy Spirit does in fact already indwell that person. Of course, anybody can say it at any time. It is the true belief that is being discussed in the verse you quoted. (I also am aware of what Romans 10:10 contains.)
David, first forgive me for not sticking to my own words - that that is "all I have to say." But your response compels me to respond again.
"Here it is in the simplest language I can muster.
1) God has revealed the truth and expects me to believe Him.
2) I don't want to believe Him.
3a) He sovereignly chooses to save me by giving me saving faith.
3b) He sovereignly chooses to NOT give saving faith to some.
4) I (now with saving faith) do believe Him.
5) He credits me with Christ's righteousness and I am now 'saved.'"Regardless of how you wish to phrase it, GOD is the first cause, and thus the responsible party, in your believing. You attempt to blame it on a "moral" inability within you - "I don't want to believe" - as if your moral capabilities are somehow OUTSIDE of your designed nature. But you forget that your nature (and everything included in that - mental, physical, moral, and spiritual abilities and inabilities) is a function of GOD'S design and choice... NOT yours.Just as you said, but still fail to "see": It is GOD'S choice who believes and who does not. And thus it would be GOD'S choice who spends eternity in heaven or hell (at least as espoused by "orthodox Christianity").If you can honestly say that you would "love" a god who sovereignly chooses (before they were ever born) to eternally torment his own creations, then you need to examine your own heart, and in whose image your are making yourself.As far as "my criteria for love" is concerned, it is the same as God's - I love ALL of my fellow man. Instead of asking, "What does the law say I must do? (condemn and stone the adulterous woman), I instead ask, "What fulfills the law? And the only answer Christ gives me is "love." I am to love her, and you, and all of humanity. It seems that you are implying that God's criteria for love is somehow different... that it may entail condemning and torturing someone for all of eternity? What is your criteria David? And that of your God?
"ps. Forgive me but I can't resist trying to clarify a seeming misunderstanding of Scripture on your part. Saying 'Christ is Lord' is not what one believes through saving faith. It comes after and can only be believed when the Holy Spirit does in fact already indwell that person. Of course, anybody can say it at any time. It is the true belief that is being discussed in the verse you quoted. (I also am aware of what Romans 10:10 contains.)"
There is absolutely no disagreement between us here David. "It comes AFTER and can ONLY be believed when the Holy Spirit does in fact already indwell that person."
That, once again, is GOD'S choice, NOT ours... and only HE can be given the credit or blame for it. Our disagreement is not WHO initiates or restricts our faith, but in WHO receives the credit and blame for it. You want to claim that it is MAN, while I firmly hold that it is GOD... just as you so use the scripture to declare. Why you won't see what your own use of scripture reveals is simply a question you need to ask yourself.
"Miracles of St. Benedict and His Medal" is available at www.CatholicChurchSaints.com