Reflections on Historical Views of the Atonement by Don Johnson and Larry Allen These notes developed from interaction

with an abridgment of the book, Christus Victor, by GUSTAF AULEN An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Atonement
Preface Dr. Aulen is professor of Systematic Theology in the University of Lund. His book is strictly an historical study; it contains no personal statement of belief or theory of the Atonement. Its importance and original contribution is its strong description of the view of the Atonement which is summed up in such phrases as Christus Victor, and God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This view directly connects the Incarnation and the Atonement together. It proclaims that it is God Himself who in Christ has delivered mankind from the power of evil. As the meaning of this view is grasped, the (early Fathers) patristic teaching stands out as a strong, clear, and consistent whole. It also becomes impossible to doubt that this view dominates the New Testament. It has therefore, every right to be called the typical Christian view, or, as Dr. Aulens phrase, the classic idea of the Atonement. Evidently, too, this classic idea is distinctly different from the Latin view (the definition of this and comparison of different views we will soon make.) The Latin view grew up in the West on the basis of the forensic (pertaining to law court) idea of sin as transgression of law. Anselm presented the first clear formation of it in 1099 AD; for that view regards the Atonement as not in the full sense Gods work, but rather as the act whereby - man in Christ - makes reparation 1 for mans sin. Dr. Aulen proceeds to show that Luther revived the classic (God in Christ) idea of the Atonement with mighty power, but that later theologians emphasized the forensic (literal payment) view, and so the Latin view is presently the dominate view. However, another group of theologians challenged the Latin (forensic) view and presented the subjective or exemplary view. They concentrated their whole attention on the psychological process of mans reformation. Dr. Aulen closes with the hopeful expectation that we shall yet see the classic idea of the Atonement return in its strength; for with all his restraint, he cannot conceal where his own sympathies lie. This book also shows that the Reformation was far more than a mere protest against abuses. Reformers endeavored to deliver Western Christianity from a system of thought that would reduce the gospel to only a set of moral principles to live by. By their time, Christianity had been turned into a system. The way to salvation was presented as a way of justification by works and by human merit. The church had returned again under the yoke of bondage, from which St. Paul had told the Galatians that Christ had set them free.

CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM AND ITS ANSWERS

REPARA'TION: 1. That act of repairing; restoration to soundness or a good state; as the reparation of a bridge or of a highway. 2. Supply of what is wasted; as the reparation of decaying health or strength after disease or exhaustion. 3. Amends; indemnification for loss or damage. A loss may be too great for reparation. 4. Amends; satisfaction for injury. I am sensible of the scandal I have given by my loose writings, and make what reparation I am able. AMENDS: Compensation for an injury; recompense; satisfaction; equivalent; as, the happiness of a future life will more than make amends for the miseries of this.

The Traditional Account The early church, it is said, had not developed a doctrine of
the Atonement. However, just prior to 1100 AD, Anselm of Canterbury developed a formal theory concerning the atonement. In his book, Cur Deus Homo?(Why A God-Man?), Anselm presented the idea that God is reconciled through an exact payment that Christs death makes to the justice of God. The names of Anselm and Abelard are commonly contrasted as the authors respectively of the objective and subjective doctrines of the Atonement. The objective view says Christ died in order to make God favorable to man and willing to extend mercy to man. The subjective view says Christ died in order for God to use it (the Atonement) to bring forth changes in a person in salvation. It is made only for the sake of the subject of salvation, the person being saved (and therefore, labeled the subjective view.) The last two centuries have been marked by controversies between the objective view and the subjective view with the classic view being simply forgotten. However, explanations regarding the atonement generally fit under one of the three following headings:

The Classic Idea

God in Christ Intense warfare Dualistic

The Latin View

Objective Legal Satisfaction God focused

Exemplary2 View
Subjective Moral Influence Human focused

The Classic (or intense warfare) Idea of the Atonement Its 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. He defeats all the tyrants under which mankind is in bondage and suffering. Through Christ, God reconciles the world to Himself. Consider the Biblical idea of reconcile. Thayers Lexicon says reconcile means to: to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value to reconcile (those who are at variance) return to favour with, be reconciled to one to receive one into favour. The UBS GNT Dictionary says reconcile (the Greek word, katallasso, Strongs #2644) means: put (someone) into friendship with God; reconcile (as of a wife with her husband). The Apostle Paul focused on reconciliation. He wrote, 2Cor 5:18-20 (NASU) Now all [these] things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. Eph. 2:13,19 (NASU) But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, Col. 1:20-22 (NASU) and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, [I say], whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, [engaged] in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-2

EXEMPLARY: Serving for a pattern or model for imitation; worthy of imitation. The christian should be exemplary in his life, as well as correct in his doctrines.

Certainly the classic view describes a work of salvation, an intense warfare of salvation. It is a work wherein God reconciles the world to Himself. The intense warfare is a cosmic intense warfare, and the victory over hostile powers brings to pass a new relation, a relation of reconciliation between God and the world. Still more, the victory is over the hostile powers. The classic idea of the Atonement is set forth as the Divine victory over the hostile powers that hold men in bondage. Yet at the same time these very powers in a measure carry out Gods own judgment upon sin. Nevertheless, Divine Love prevails over punishment. The atonement reveals to us how much this victory cost God. The background of the classic idea is dualistic, that is, a struggle between two opposing powers. God is in Christ accomplishing a victory in His war with powers that battle against His will (ultimate purpose). It is the opposition between God and the rebellion of demonic powers and people who resist Him. It is between the Divine Love and the rebellion of created wills against Him.

The Classic View vs. The Latin View

The major difference between the classic (intense warfare) view and the Latin (legal satisfaction) view is this: the classic view focuses upon Gods struggle with evil powers as He defeats rebellion. The Latin view focuses on Jesus giving Himself as an offering to the Father on mans behalf.

The Classic View vs. the Subjective View

The major difference between the classic view and the subjective view is this: The subjective view only focuses upon an internal change within man, in his attitudes, resulting in his surrender to God. The classic view not only presents a change taking place in man, it also describes a complete change in the situation, and a change in the relation between God and the world. The atonement is not regarded as affecting men primarily as individuals, but as Gods greatest weapon in an intense warfare for a worlds salvation. This classic view was, in fact, the ruling idea of the Atonement for the first thousand years of Christian history.

Why has the emphasis of the classic idea been lost?

One reason is that theologians tended to confuse the Classic idea of the Atonement with the Latin view. How could this happen? This failure to distinguish clearly between the Classic and Latin views arose because many ideas and images are used in common by both. Another reason that the classic idea was no longer emphasized was because many theologians in the 1700s and 1800s did not like the idea that the Sovereign God would have a genuine struggle with opposing powers. They viewed all events as only the activity of God working out His own will. Thus, they did not believe there was any ultimate conflict. In contrast, the very heart of the classic view is Gods conquest over opposing powers in a genuine spiritual warfare against rebels who are doing evil things that were never the will of God. When theologians viewed reality has having no genuine spiritual warfare, they then simply ignored the classic view as being irrelevant and meaningless. When theologians threw out the idea of hostile powers genuinely bringing forth evil contrary to the will of God, they threw out the basis of the classic view.

The Historical Perspective The study of the atonement is absolutely essential. Every
view regarding the atonement affects how we understand what Gods character is like. Indeed,

every idea about the atonement comes from its particular concept of the nature of God. There is in reality a close relation between the early church Fathers and the New Testament. And the early church Fathers had a widely different view of the atonement than the Latin theory that fully developed around 1200 AD.

Chapter Two Irenaeus

In examining the teaching of the early church fathers, consider first the writings of Irenaeus, about 200 AD. No one better represents the thinking of the church fathers than Irenaeus. No one did more to set the lines on which Christian thought was to move for centuries after his day. His strength lies in that, unlike the early Apologists and the Alexandrians, he did not try to use a Greek philosophical approach to Christianity. He devoted himself altogether to the simple study and explanation of the central (NT) ideas of the Christian faith. His writings have importance because he is a highly respected Bible student and the first patristic writer to give us a clear doctrine of the Atonement and redemption. The idea of the Atonement recurs continually in his writings, freshly treated from ever new points of view. His basic idea is in itself clear and unmistakable. The Purpose of the Incarnation Why did Jesus come to earth? Irenaeus responded: Christ became man that we might be made like Christ in our lives for we could not otherwise attain to incorruption and immortality except that we had been united with incorruption and immortality. Without doubt these words contain an important side of his teaching.

Comparison of the Liberal Protestant View To the Conservative Protestant View

Liberal Protestant theologians say Irenaeus taught a physical doctrine of salvation a view that salvation is the bestowal of divinity. Jesus came to bring immortality to mankind. Liberal theologians say the idea of deliverance from sin was of secondary importance to Irenaeus. According to the Liberal view, Irenaeus taught: the gift of immortality is regarded as dependant on the Incarnation as such, by the entrance of the Divine into humanity. Human nature is automatically endued with Divine virtue and thereby saved from corruption. This is primarily a theology of the Incarnation, not of the Atonement; the work of Christ holds a secondary place in this misrepresentation of Irenaeus. The Conservative View: Consider again the question: Why did Jesus come to earth? Answer: That He might destroy sin, overcome death, and give life to man. God created man to have life. If now, having lost life, and having been harmed by the serpent, if he were not returned to life, but instead completely abandoned to death, then God would be defeated. The malice of the serpent would have completely defeated Gods will. Irenaeus declared: Since God is both invincible and willing to forgive, He showed His graciousness in correcting man, and in proving all men. But through the second Man He (God) bound the strong one3, and spoiled his goods, and annihilated death, bringing life to man who had become subject to death. He who had taken man captive through wrongful deceit, was himself taken captive by God. Man who had been taken captive was set free from the bondage of condemnation.
3

Matt 12:29 (NASU) how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong [man]? And then he will plunder his house.

Irenaeus makes his point clearly. The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death and the devil. In Irenaeus thought, the Incarnation is the necessary preliminary to the atoning work, because only God is able to overcome the powers which hold men in bondage. Man is helpless. The work of mans deliverance is accomplished by God Himself, in Christ. Irenaeus makes no division between Incarnation and Atonement. He makes no statements that would leave the impression that somehow there is a separation between the Father and the Son. He does not present Christ accepting us and then working to bring the Father to the willingness to accept us. The crucial point Irenaeus makes is that God Himself, through Christ, accomplishes the work of redemption, and overcomes sin, the death, and the devil.

Sin, Death, and the Devil Irenaeus declared that sin affected the whole man. Irenaeus
is definitely opposed to a moralistic view, which would have no other meaning for sin than as separate and individual acts of sin. Instead he taught that man is an indivisible unit and everything a person does is inseparably connected together. Secondly, he openly opposed the Gnostic teaching that sin is matter, and man is sinful simply because he has a physical body and has contact with the physical world. Gnostic teachers said the human nature has two parts - the lower self that is full of sin; and a higher self that is uncorrupted spiritual existence. Declaring that peoples sinfulness does not come from being physical, Irenaeus declared: They who have fallen away from the Fathers light, and transgressed the law of liberty, have fallen away through their own fault, for they were made free and self-determining Submission to God is eternal rest, they who fly from eternal rest reach such a dwellingplace as befits their flight. People, by their own rebellion have become guilty in Gods sight, and lost fellowship with God. Men were by nature sons of God, because they were created by Him. But according to their deeds they are not His sons. In law they have become alienated. They who do not obey God are disowned by Him and cease to be His sons. Thus, Irenaeus taught that sin and death are inseparable. Irenaeus declared, Those who do not believe in God, and do not do His will, are called sons, or angels, of the devil, since they do the works of the devil. And from the devils dominion men cannot escape, except through the victory of Christ. Irenaeus taught that the devil himself is a rebel and a robber. He said, The Word of God, who is the creator of all things, overcame him through man, and branded him as an apostate, and made him subject to man. See, says the Word, I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy. Irenaeus makes another point demanding closer attention: the genuine justice (or rightness) of Christs victory over the devil. Irenaeus declared, He who is the almighty Word, and true man, in redeeming us reasonably by His blood, gave Himself as the ransom for those who had been carried into captivity. And though the apostasy4 had gained its dominion over us unjustly, and when we belonged by nature to almighty God, (our deserting God) had snatched us away contrary to nature and made us its own disciples, (nevertheless) the Word of God, who is in no way lacking in the justice, which is His, behaved with justice even towards the apostasy itself. God redeemed that which was His own, not by violence (as the apostasy had) but by persuasion; so that the ancient creation of God might be saved from perishing, without infringement of justice. Irenaeus exhibits the righteousness of Gods work, by showing that God does not use external compulsion, mere brute force, but acts altogether according to justice. God deals according to justice even with the apostasy itself. The underlying idea is there: the apostasy of mankind
4

APOSTASY: abandonment, a total desertion, or departure from the true and living God.

involves guilt, and man deserves to lie under the devils power. God acts in a way that befits God; and even with the devil, God deals in an orderly way.

The Atoning Work Irenaeus is altogether free from the tendency to emphasize the death
of Christ in such a way as to leave out the rest of His earthly life. By His life of obedience, Christ submitted to Gods will and annulled the disobedience. By His obedience unto death the Word annulled the ancient disobedience committed at the tree. His preaching and teaching are also regarded in the same light; the teaching by which we learn to know the Father. Christs life and teaching form an element in His victory over the powers of darkness, but His death is the greatest weapon in His arsenal in Gods intense warfare against sin, death, and the devil. The work of the Atonement is a conflict with the powers of evil and a triumph over them. God is the Reconciler. By His passion Christ has reconciled us to God. Irenaeus does not think of the Atonement as an offering made to God by Christ from mans side, or from below. God always remains the One bringing forth the work of redemption. The Word of God, who is creator of all, overcoming the devil through man, and declaring him an apostate, made him (the devil) subject to man. The redemptive work is accomplished by the Logos through the Manhood as His instrument; for it could be accomplished by no power but God Himself. God had mercy upon His creation and presented to them a new salvation through Christ. His purpose was that men might learn by experience that they cannot attain to incorruption of themselves, but by Gods grace only.

CHAPTER THREE THE FATHERS IN EAST AND WEST

In spite of all the diversities of the early church fathers, they have general agreement on their view of the atonement. In fact, there are not different theories of the Atonement in the Fathers, but only variant expressions of one and the same idea. Consider first the eastern, Greek Orthodox churches. In all the Greek fathers we find, amid some diversity of terms and images, one and the same intense warfare view of Christs redemptive work.

The Eastern Churches

Consider the most important names, Origen, Athanasius, Basil of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom. Though they represent different schools of thought, they express a deep-lying agreement in their interpretation of Christs work. Even Origen, though he was dealing philosophically, nevertheless, when he speaks directly of the meaning of Christs work, he adopts the same classic idea of the Atonement that was common to the Greek Fathers. Even philosophical influence was not able to modify the classic idea of the Atonement. This shows how deeply rooted the classic view was.

The Western Churches

However, looking at the western church, the subject of the atonement becomes more complicated. Here it is possible to identify the first traces of the Latin 5 view of the Atonement that came into full and clear formulation in the work of Anselm around 1099 AD. However, prior to Anselm, The Latin view was never fully worked out. Instead, the classic idea was always the dominate view, not only in the eastern churches, but also in West. We find it in Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Caesarius of Arles, Faustus of Rhegium, and Gregory the Great. It is
5

Latin view: Jesus paid for our sins.

especially significant that Augustine held to the classic idea. In Augustine the classic-intense warfare view is closely connected with the Incarnation.

The Incarnation and the Atonement The inseparable connection between the idea
of the Incarnation and the Atonement is the leading characteristic of the doctrine of redemption in the early church. Like Irenaeus, the later church fathers believed that God Himself entered this world of sin and death for mans deliverance. God Himself took up the conflict with the powers of evil and accomplished an atonement between Himself and the world. Gregory of Nazianzus sums up the purpose of the Incarnation thus: that God, by overcoming the tyrant, might set us free and reconcile us with Himself through the Son.

Christ and the Devil While the Fathers have a variety of opinions regarding Christs
dealings with Satan, they do all agree that the devil was rightly and reasonably overcome. And He should be. God created man to belong to Him; the devils dominion over man was a perversion of the right order. Opinions differed among the Fathers on the subject of whether the devil ever had any rights over man and therefore, they differ in thinking regarding the manner of Christs dealings with the devil. The most common view, as expressed by Gregory of Nyssa, is that since the Fall the devil possesses an incontestable right over fallen man, and therefore a regular and orderly settlement is necessary. Gregory takes an analogy from slavery and emancipation. If a slave is set free by an act of violence, then he is not rightfully set free. The favorite image of Ransom consists in the owner being offered all that he asks as the redemption-price of His poverty. However, this teaching of a ransom-price paid to the devil was directly challenged by Gregory of Nazianzus. He denied that the devil could have any real rights over men, and therefore rejected any notion that God made any transaction with him. It is not fitting that the devil, who is a robber, should receive a price in return for what he had taken by violence, to saying nothing of the massive payment of the immeasurable value of the Son of God Himself. Likewise, Origen also discussed to whom the ransom-price is paid. He said it could not be paid to God. Origen declared: But to whom did He give His soul as a ransom6 for many? Surely it was not to God. Could it, then, be to the Evil One? He had us in his power, until the ransom for us should be given to him, even the life (or soul) of Jesus. He (the Evil One) had been deceived, and led to suppose that he was capable of mastering that soul, and he did not see that to hold Him involved a trial of strength greater than he was equal to. As time past, Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the idea of ransom altogether. He will not allow that a ransom was paid to the devil, nor to God, for, as he says, we were not in bondage under God. He prefers to use the idea of sacrifice. Augustine said that the devil found Christ innocent, but smote Him anyway. Therefore, he shed innocent blood, and took what he had no right to take. It is therefore fitting that he should be dethroned and forced to give up those who were under his power.
6

Vines Dictionary: In 1Tim 2:6 the word, ransom, is significant. There Paul uses the preposition is huper, meaning, on behalf of He gave Himself a ransom on behalf, for the sake of all. The ransom was provisionally universal, while being of a vicarious (a suffering on behalf of another) character. Thus the three passages consistently show that while the provision was universal, for Christ died for all men, yet it is actual for those only who accept God's conditions, and who are described in the Gospel statements as "the many." The giving of His life was the giving of His entire person, and while His death under divine judgment was alone expiatory (capable of removing the judgment of the law), it cannot be separated from the character of His life which, being sinless, gave virtue to His death and was a testimony to the fact that His death must be of a vicarious nature (a suffering on behalf of others.)

Behind all the speculation regarding the deception of the devil, lies the thought that the power of evil always overreaches itself. When it comes in conflict with the power of good, with God Himself, evil ultimately loses the battle. It loses the battle at just the moment it seems to be victorious. Regarding the Atonement as Gods own salvation work, the fathers emphasized that it is carried out in and through a man. The Incarnation is the manifestation of Gods goodness and the fulfillment of His saving work in the flesh, under the conditions of human nature. The fathers repudiated the Apollinarian heresy, according to which the Logos replaces the human mind. They also repudiated the Monophysite heresy, where the human mind in Christ is said to merge into the Divine. Both heresies contradicted what Paul wrote: Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

CHAPTER FOUR THE NEW TESTAMENT Interpretations of the New Testament Teaching Clearly, if the classic idea of
the Atonement dominated the whole patristic period, then it is altogether likely that it will be found firmly rooted in Apostolic Christianity. The Latin view only began to be introduced in the West little by little after 200 AD. It never was completely expressed until the Middle Ages.

The Intense warfare of Redemption in the Pauline Epistles If W. Wrede is

correct in his book Paulus, the Pauline teaching belongs neither to the Latin view, nor to the subjective view. It really hangs closely together with the view we have studied in the church fathers, and belongs to the classic view. He declared both conflict and triumph; of powers of evil under which mankind is in bondage. There is also the idea of victory over the powers of evil won by Christ come down from heaven that is, by God Himself coming to save mankind. The Pauline teaching is not an explanation of redemption. But he declared the fact of redemption. And what he wrote concerning it is essentially one and the same with that of the early church. We may note that while Paul, like the Fathers, grouped together sin and death, he made considerably less reference to the devil. Yet in some important passages, he does speak of great demonic forces, principalities and powers which Christ has overcome in the great conflict. Among the powers which hold man in bondage, he refers to the Law; and this is the most striking point of contrast between his view and that of the Fathers. Paul proclaimed the victory of Christ in the ransom (or freeing) of man from the curse of the law that he was under. Man could not free himself. Christ delivered him. With regard to sin and death, sin takes the central place among the powers that hold man in bondage. The salvation won by Christ has come unto all men to justification of life (Ro. 5:18); even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Ro. 6:11). The NT gives special weight upon the Pauline teaching above all, on the principal passage: Ro. 3:24, Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood, to show His righteousness, because of the passing over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God. The classic idea of the Atonement had as its principal passage, 2 Cor. 5:18, Now all [these] things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

The Classic Idea in the Remainder of the NT In the gospels, we meet the image
of Ransom, so dear to the Fathers: the Son of man is come to give His life a ransom for many

(Mk 10:45) that is to say, in order to restore men to freedom. The idea recurs often in the NT: Eph. 1:7; 1Tim. 2: 6; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 1:5. And in the sub-apostolic literature, The Lord Jesus, who was prepared beforehand thereunto, that appearing in person He might redeem out of darkness our hearts, which had already been paid over to death and delivered up to the iniquity of error (Barnabas 14:5). The classic idea is prominent in the writings of John the beloved disciple. He presented conflicts constantly between light and darkness, and between life and death. The world stands against God as a dark hostile power: the whole world lies in the evil one (1 Jn. 5:19). Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out (Jn. 12:31). The purpose of Christs coming is thus summed up in 1 Jn. 3:8, To this end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. The letter to the Hebrews presents the same double aspect as the Pauline and the patristic (200-700 AD) teaching, as characteristic of the classic idea. It regards the sacrifice of Christ both as Gods own act of sacrifice and as a sacrifice offered to God. This double-sidedness is never expressed in the Latin view. The Latin view focuses upon the sacrifice of Christ; it never reflects on Gods own act of sacrifice. In Hebrews, the sacrifice of Christ is not made part of a legal scheme, as is the case when the sacrificial idea is used in the Latin view of the Atonement. To quote R. Gyllenberg, men are called to be partakers of the heavenly, eternal world, but there is no way leading there from earthly existence. No religion starting from mans side, no man-made sacrificial offering, can raise men to heaven. The Law cannot remove the consequences of rebellion and make perfect (Heb. 7:19.) Law cannot give salvation (to men under its curse); they must be forgiven and restored by God Himself by another means from the law. In these circumstances the heavenly priesthood of Christ opens up entirely new possibilities. The classic idea of the Atonement roots itself also in some of the greatest passages of the OT, such as the revelation of God as the Divine Warrior in Isa. 59:16; and the Good Shepherd in Ez. 34:11. Nevertheless, the NT idea of redemption presents a genuine revolution. It declares that sovereign Divine Love has taken the initiative, broken through the order of justice and merit, triumphed over the powers of evil, and created a new relation between the world and God. The classic idea dominates Apostolic Christianity. In contrast, the Latin idea grew gradually, building on a different basis namely, the typical Latin idea of penance (to perform a voluntary act of self-punishment or suffering to satisfy some past injustice). We have the right to say that the real problem is that men have attempted to find this Latin doctrine in the NT.

CHAPTER FIVE - THE MIDDLE AGES The Beginnings of the Latin Theory of the Atonement It is possible to give a
precise time of the first appearance of the Latin theory. Tertullian prepares the building materials; Cyprian begins to construct out of them a doctrine of the Atonement. In Tertullian we find the fundamental concepts of satisfaction and merit: both words apply to penance. Satisfaction is the compensation a man makes for his fault. How absurd it is, writes Tertullian, to leave the penance unperformed, and yet expect forgiveness of sins! What is it but to fail to pay the price, and, nevertheless, to stretch out the hand for the benefit? The Lord has ordained that forgiveness is to be granted for this price: He wills that the remission of the penalty is to be purchased for the payment which penance makes. Thus Penance is satisfaction. It is the acceptance of a temporal penalty to escape eternal loss. The idea of Merit is associated with the performance of that which is commanded -- the observance of Law. If such observance in general is meritorious, in its special sense the term applies to acts called supererogation (going beyond what is strictly required by obligation, like

doing an extra credit problem on a math assignment and getting a score of more than 100%). This extra credit includes, according to Tertullian, fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc. Therefore, according to this idea, it is possible for men to earn an over-plus of merit. Yet in spite of this, Tertullian never taught the idea that such excess merit can be done by one person for another. He never presented the idea that Christ could do something and then transfer to somebody else the merit. This idea came from Cyprian. With this idea provided by Cyprian, the way is now prepared for the Latin theory of the Atonement. Cyprian himself began to talk of an over-plus of merit earned by Christ, and to talk of Christs work as a satisfaction. Cyprian asserted that doing penance can claim recognition from the Divine justice. He wrote, Since God as judge watches over the exercise of justice, which for Him is the greatest care of all, and since he regulates His government with a view to justice, how can there be any room for doubt that with reference to all our acts, and so with mans repentance, God must act according to justice? From the point of view of a legal relationship between two parties, Cyprian worked to interpret the work of Christ. He said that Christs passion and death earned an excess of merit, and this is paid to God a satisfaction or compensation. We have here then the whole essence of the Latin idea of the Atonement. The Latin idea of penance gave the sufficient explanation of the Latin idea of the Atonement. Its root idea is that man must make an offering or payment to satisfy Gods justice. This is the idea that is used to explain the work of Christ. Two points immediately emerge: First, the whole idea is essentially legalistic; secondly, the emphasis placed upon the atonement is that is the work that Christ did as a man in relation to God. This view is a total contrast to the outlook of the classic (God in Christ) idea. With Tertullian and Cyprian, the seed ideas of the Latin doctrine began to appear. Nevertheless, during the 4th century, the Latin view never became the dominate view. It only gradually worked its way forward, for the most part, a silent, unchallenged advance.

Anselm of Canterbury Benedictine monk 1033 1109 The Latin theory of

the Atonement first appeared fully developed in the writing of Anselm: Cur Deus homo? (Why a God-Man?) This book is universally regarded as the typical expression of the Latin theory. Anselms basic assumption is that a required satisfaction for transgression must be made by man. The argument proceeds: Men are not able to make necessary satisfaction, because they are all sinful. 1. If men cannot do it, then God must do it. 2. But, on the other hand, the satisfaction must be made by man, because man is guilty. 3. The only solution is that God becomes man; this is the answer to the question Cur Deus homo Why a God-man? Believing that a satisfaction needed to be made, Anselm worked to show how the Man appears who is able to give the satisfaction which God absolutely demands. The satisfaction must be made by man; and this is precisely what is done in Christs atoning work. It is therefore essential to the theory of Anselm that the Incarnation and the Atonement are not inseparably connected together, like is true of the classic view. For Anselm the central problem is: Where can a man be found, free from sin and guilt, and able to offer himself as an acceptable sacrifice to God? The only solution: God must become man. While the early fathers showed how God became incarnate that He might redeem, Anselm taught instead a human work of satisfaction, accomplished by Christ. When Anselm introduced the idea that Christ paid satisfaction to His own Divine nature, he thereby shifted focus away from GOD reconciling the world to Himself as God-man. The focus now became the God-man

making an offering to the Father and through it, supplying the merit which no other man could accomplish. This shift of focus removed the double-sided characteristic pressed home by the classic idea. The emphasis became the primary concern that Christs death would bring to the satisfaction of God. Anselm explicitly rejected the Divine Love and mans rebellion outlook. This is different from the classical view that Christs death brought victory over a long conflict. In the Latin idea, it is necessary that God shall receive the satisfaction which alone can keep forgiveness from being an irresponsible act. Therefore, Christ died. The Atonement occurred to meet strict requirements of justice; God received compensation for mans default. It is Gods will that Christ on behalf of men should make satisfaction which His justice demands. Therefore Anselm taught that the concept of Atonement is judicial in its inmost essence. He carried the legal idea further when he taught that the merit earned by Christ became available to men. This idea expresses the system of penance. Penance is the idea that a person must perform a voluntary act of self-punishment or suffering to satisfy some past injustice. How absurd it is, Tertullian had written, to leave the penance unperformed, and yet expect forgiveness of sins! What is it but to fail to pay the price, and, nevertheless, to stretch out the hand for the benefit? The Lord has ordained that forgiveness is to be granted for this price: He wills that the remission of the penalty is to be purchased for the payment which penance makes. Thus Penance is satisfaction. But since it is impossible for people to ever do what must be done, Jesus did it for us. He did the penance of our obedience by obeying for us. He did the penance of our suffering by suffering for us. Anselm said that it met the strict demands of justice when the extra merit earned by Christ is carried to the credit of men.

The Theology of the Later Middle Ages The dominate view of the Atonement in
the Middle Ages was, if not Anselms complete system, at least the basic Latin type of doctrine. The prevailing ideas are: 1. The payment of satisfaction is the essential element in Atonement and as accomplished by the death of Christ; 2. The payment is primarily the work of Christs human nature, but it gains increased meritvalue on account of the union of human nature with the Divine nature in Christ. Thomas Aquinas taught this explicitly: the human nature of Christ makes the offering, but, because He is God, the merit of His work is not merely sufficient, but super-abundant. The line of the Divine operation in the work of redemption is crossed by the line which represents the offering made to God by the human nature. The Latin view became decisively the dominate theory. It was completely in accord with the general nature of mediaeval theology. A point of special interest, however, is the argument that the merit of Christ cannot be infinite because He only suffered in His human nature. This criticism shows that our interpretation of the Latin view is correct, when we insist that this doctrine lost sight of the older patristic view, that the Atonement is the work of God Himself throughout.

The Humanistic Subjective View Abelard Commonly, Abelard is called the father of the so-called subjective doctrine of the
Atonement. This idea is that the atonement is only a moral influence to get people to turn from sin and live a moral life. The interesting thing about Abelard is that the Latin theory of the Atonement had no sooner received its complete theological formulation than it found a critic. The controversy began and has never ended.

Abelard attacked the imagery of the classic idea of the Atonement and its dualistic outlook, as well as Anselms theory. He rejected the idea that the Atonement was connected in any way with the devil. He also opposed the idea of satisfaction. Instead Abelard emphasized that Christ is the great Teacher and Example, who arouses responsive love in men. This love within mans heart is the basis upon which reconciliation and forgiveness rest and is treated by Abelard as meritorious. In doing so, he ended up presenting the Latin idea of merit (It is as if we become worthy of being forgiven if we have chosen to love and to obey God. It would be wrong of God if He did not release us from judgment for our sin.)

The Devotional Aspect It is seemingly impossible to over-emphasize the importance

and influence of the religious phenomenon of Devotion to the Passion, or Passion-mysticism during the Middle Ages and also in both Roman and in Protestant Christendom. Theology and piety united in focusing attention on the passion and death of Christ. Yet while theology emphasized Christs death, piety directed its gaze to the passion of Christ as a whole, meditating upon His death as a martyrdom. The appeal of the passion, the martyrdom of Christ, has never been so deeply felt as in mediaeval religion. The attitude of the Christian is to be meditatio et imitation (meditate and imitate) -- enter with loving compassion into the unspeakable sufferings of Christ, follow in His steps, and thereby be cleansed and united with the eternal Divine Love. This Devotion to the Passion co-operated with the Latin theory in banishing what remained of the classic idea of the Atonement. Perhaps, rather, piety effectively completed the work that theology had begun. What was lost was the realization of triumph and victory over conflict. The triumph-crucifix of an earlier time is now ousted by the crucifix which depicts the human Sufferer. Not that the classic idea of the Atonement was entirely lost. It was far too deep-rooted and powerful to disappear altogether. It still lived on in hymnody and in art.

CHAPTER SIX LUTHER The Classic Idea in Luther Though later Lutheran leaders did not hold to the classic
view, the teaching of Luther himself was a revival of the classic view as taught by the Fathers. Luther loved violent expressions, strong colors, and realistic images. In numerous passages he described Christs conflict with Gods tyrannical enemies. It is plain that they embody the identical idea as that of the Fathers. The three enemies are the familiar trio of the early church: sin, death, and the devil. A typical passage and central point taken by Luther is from Galatians 3:13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us that upon the Gentiles (there) might come the blessings of Abraham in Christ. Luther comments: Christ, who is Gods power, righteousness, blessing, grace, and life, overcomes and carries away these monsters: sin, death and the curse. Here he quotes Col. 2:15: Having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Luther further commented: When therefore you look upon this person (Christ Jesus), you see sin, death, Gods wrath, hell, the devil, and all evil, overcome and dead. As Christ by His grace rules in the hearts of the faithful, there is found no more sin, death, and curse; but where Christ is not known they still remain. For our victory, as John says, is our faith. Luther connected the Atonement again to the Incarnation. For Luther, the Deity of Christ is not simply a fact of reality. It is God Himself bringing forth the work of redemption, Gods own Blessing, Righteousness, and Life. The classic-dualistic-intense warfare view has returned. We have only to listen to Luthers hymns to feel how they thrill with triumph, like a fanfare of trumpets.

Law and the Gods judgment against sin Luther maintained that the Law is at the
same time good and evil. It is good as an expression of Gods will and commandment; yet it is also thought to be a tyrant that provokes to sin and increases sin. It is not merely that Law stands as a judge against mans rebellion, and carries out condemnation, it is much more. The (external) observance of Law (while man remains in sin) can never lead to salvation. This fundamental thought of Luther was that the Law (Gods direction for how to rightly relate to God and our fellowman) could never set the spiritual life on its right basis. No, (penalty or curse) rather destroys it. At the very heart of Luthers theology was the idea that the Wrath of God is an enemy from which Christ delivers us. In the common teaching of the middle ages, the wrath of God was reserved for the judgment to come. However, Luther declared it was in the present, as resting even now, in all its awfulness, on sinful and guilt-laden man. The importance of this point for the discussion of the Atonement is that in Luther the Wrath of God takes the place of the retributive justice of the mediaeval scheme (of exact legal satisfaction). It is typical that Luther should prefer the personal term, Wrath of God, in place of the judicial term (justitia distributiva - distributive justice). Evidently he stressed that God is intensely active and personally engaged in judging man in order that He might maintain the order of Grace which He has established. The Wrath of God (present judgment) is a phrase declaring Gods immediate and direct reaction against mans sin. Though the Wrath of God is identical with His will, yet according to Luther, it is a tyrant -even the most awful and terrible of all tyrants. It is a tyrant because it stands opposed to the (purposes of) Divine Love. At this point the idea of Gods own conflict and victory is brought by Luther to a paradoxical sharpness beyond anything we have so far met. It would seem almost as if the conflict were carried back within the Divine Being itself. Luther presents us here with a conflict between the Divine curse of Wrath, and the Divine blessing of Love. The wrath is the Wrath of God. Yet it is the blessing that represents Gods inmost (fundamental) nature. The curse must give way, for if the blessing could give way, God Himself would have been defeated. Thus the victory that is won by the divine blessing in Christ is altogether Gods own act of victory. In contrast, the Latin theory, (Christ making a satisfaction) is a rationally conceived substitute to harmonize the demand for punishment and the remission of punishment (forgiveness). The Latin theory teaches that the demand of Gods justice is satisfied by the compensation paid by Christ from mans side to the Father. However, in Luther, the idea of satisfaction has disappeared. It disappears because the dualistic outlook is maintained, and because the victory over the Curse and the Wrath is in the fullest sense Gods victory. It is Gods act of victory, when Christ goes under the Divine wrath (voluntarily as a substitute for penalty), and bears the burden of the punishment coming from wrath and hanging over men. Thus the Love (supreme purpose) of God breaks through the Wrath in the vicarious7 act of redemption. While Wrath is overcome, this does not mean that it is to be regarded as only pretended, or that it ceases to exist. Luther said that we get beyond (out of reach of wrath) through the Atonement, but it still remains latent (subdued) in and behind the Divine Love. In presenting this theme of overcoming the Divine Wrath, Luther gives the characteristic teaching of the classic idea, but with greater depth than before. It is the essential double-sidedness of the classic view namely, that God is at the same time, the Reconciler and the Reconciled.

Vicarious: suffering of one person on behalf of another. Christ suffering the incredible curse of the cross, that mankind may be freed from the curse of the law.

Luther and the Latin Doctrine of the Atonement The use of the terms
sacrifice, merit, and satisfaction by Luther has commonly been taken as proof that his teaching on the Atonement belong to the Latin type. But the conclusion was far too hastily drawn. Actually, his use of the idea of sacrifice agrees closely with that of the early church. It has the same double aspect of God, as making the sacrifice while also receiving it. Luther loves to speak of the Sacrifice of Christ as the one true Sacrifice, in contrast with the sacrifices offered by men. The sacrifice is Gods own sacrifice, while at the same time regarded as offered to God. Luther declared that its purpose is to emphasize how much the atoning work costs God. Luther used the term Christs merits in close connection with the idea of Gods grace and mercy towards men. Thus the merits of Christ mean the same thing as the work of Christ. Justification is altogether the fruit of Gods redeeming work; the righteousness of which men can (freely) partake depends wholly on Gods grace. Luther spoke of satisfaction in relation to the wrath of God (imminent judgment). There is no thought here of a satisfaction to the legal claims of the Divine justice; for it is God Himself, who in Christ prevails over the wrath and the curse (present and future judgment). The satisfaction is made by God, not merely to God. Luther stands out in the history of Christian doctrine as the man who expressed the classic view with greater power than any before him. He makes a direct connection with the teaching of the NT and the fathers. Later however, the doctrine of Lutheranism became a very different thing from that of Luther.

CHAPTER SEVEN - SINCE THE REFORMATION Luther And His Successors Luthers teaching on the Atonement was not followed by
his contemporaries, nor by those who came later. Without hesitation and without delay they reverted to the Latin doctrine. The tradition was fixed long before the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy. They interpreted him from the first in the light of the traditional belief of the MiddleAges.

The Doctrine of the Atonement in Lutheranism The doctrine of the Atonement

in Lutheranism is not identical with Anslem, but it is of the Latin type. The underlying idea is that Gods justice imposes its law and must have satisfaction. The theory is that satisfaction given through the vicarious obedience and vicarious punishment 8 of Christ is the logical compromise between the demand for punishment and the demand for forgiveness. The word compensation is typical of the Protestant form of the Latin doctrine. It states there is an exact payment that the justice of God demands in order that His Mercy may be free to act. Through this compensation the opposition between the Divine Justice and Mercy is reconciled, and God is (rendered able or paid) to forgive. The doctrine of the Atonement in Protestant tradition belongs indisputably to the Latin type. The classic idea was completely suppressed. Some phrases and images still occasionally occur, but they are mere reflections and have no effect upon theology. However, the Easter hymns continued to reflect the classic idea of the Atonement.

The Arrival of the Subjective Doctrine During the 1700s, criticism of the Latin
theory grew, with some leaders presenting the subjective view that Christ died only to get people to make right moral choices. Those holding this view did not like the Latin doctrine of
8

Vicarious obedience and vicarious punishment: the idea that Jesus did our obedience for us and that he took our punishment from God for us.

exact retributive justice (an act to satisfy Gods anger against sinners.) They said the Latin doctrine contradicted the simple teaching of Jesus who revealed to the world the love of the heavenly Father. It was therefore to them a horrible idea to think that the Father must be rendered merciful through a satisfaction offered to Him. The death of Jesus could not be interpreted in this way. They emphasized that Jesus was a perfect example, and His death was an incredible act of love to let the world know how very ready God is to have all mankind reconciled to Him: For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, And abundant in loving-kindness to all who call upon You. Psa. 86:5(NASU) Theologians holding this view emphasized Gods benevolence and goodwill toward the world. Therefore, so far as God was concerned, no Atonement was needed. What God was after was to get man to repent and change his life. Therefore, God responds by rewarding mans moral change with an increase in happiness. The ruling idea is essentially anthropocentric (mancentered) and moralistic. It is now clear that the rejection of the Latin theory of satisfaction actually involved a weakening of the idea of sin. The subjective view intensely emphasized that no influence could change Gods attitude towards man. Yet at the same time the subjective view assumed that a great influence came upon God from mans side, through their change and submission to God, that God became willing to forgive. In effect then, the atonement depended upon that which is done in and by men, on their penitence, their conversion. Therefore Gods attitude toward men is really made to depend on mens attitude toward God. The same idea is applied to Christ and His work. The effect of Christs atoning work is: that when God saw the (exemplary) character of Christ and His place as the Representative Man, God gained a new and more hopeful view of humanity.

CHAPTER EIGHT THE THREE TYPES (IN SUMMARY)

The history of the doctrine of the Atonement is a history of three distinct views. The classic idea began with Christianity itself and remained the dominate view for a thousand years. The origin of the Latin view can be exactly determined. It belonged to the West and became the dominate view during the Middle Ages. Though Luther returned to the classic view, and taught it with unique power, post-Reformation theology went back to the Latin view. The Latin view became common view in both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches. The Latin view wanted to show a continuity in the order of merit and justice, which resulted in a discontinuity in Gods character: without the atonement, God is angry and wrathful, with the atonement, God is enabled to become merciful and forgiving. In contrast, the classic view showed a continuity of (personal) Divine operation, and a discontinuity in the order of merit and justice. The Atonement was not acting upon God and changing Him, but instead was something God Himself did for us in Christ. He did it to reconcile the world to Himself. The continuity of Gods operation is the dualistic outlook, the Divine warfare and the triumph in Christ. This activity required a discontinuity in the legal order; there is no satisfaction of Gods justice, for the relation of man to God is viewed in the light of grace, not of merit and justice. The Latin view consists in the offering of satisfaction by Christ and Gods acceptance of it. Men have nothing to do with this act except in so far as Christ stands as their representative.

Justification is a second act (after satisfaction is offered), in which God transfers or gives to men the merits of Christ. There is no direct relation between Christ and man. In the third view, the subjective view, the Atonement is no longer regarded as carried out by God. Rather, The Reconciliation is the result of some process within man, as conversion and changed behavior. Christs work is no longer thought of as Gods work for mans salvation. Rather, Jesus is the perfect Example, the Ideal Man, the Head of the race. Christs atoning work affects God who now sees man in a new light. It is a matter of an approach of man to God, from below upwards, and not of an approach of God to man. The classic view showed us the Atonement as a movement of God to man. God is closely and personally engaged in the work of mans deliverance. In the Latin view God seems to stand further away, waiting for a satisfaction to be paid by man, (through Jesus acting as his representative and making the payment) to God. In the subjective view God brings forth the atonement in order to inspire a response within man so that he changes his life and returns to God. All the emphasis is on mans movement to God.

Final comments by Gustaf Aulen: Why did I write Christus Victor?

My aim in this book has been historical, not an apologetic aim. It has been my endeavor to make clear the nature of the various views of teaching on the Atonement as they have emerged in history. I have tried to fix the actual character of the classic view, because it has been so grievously misinterpreted and neglected. I have tried to show how important is the place it has actually held in the history of Christian thought. It can scarcely be denied that the classic idea emerged with Christianity itself, and on that ground alone cannot be refused a claim to embody that which is most genuinely Christian. The fundamental idea of Atonement is, above all, a movement of God to man, not in the first place a movement of man to God. As the classic idea resumes a leading place in Christian theology, I believe we shall hear again its tremendous paradoxes: that God, the all-ruler, the Infinite, accepts the lowliness of the Incarnation; we shall hear again the old realistic message of the conflict of God with the dark, hostile forces of evil, and His victory over them by the Divine self-sacrifice. Above all we shall hear the note of triumph! For my part, I am persuaded that no form of Christian teaching has any future unless it constantly remembers the reality of the evil in the world, and goes out to meet that evil with a battle-song of triumph. Therefore I believe that the classic idea of the Atonement and of Christianity is coming back that is to say, the genuine, authentic Christian faith. Notes DJ 2002, and LA 2003