That Mourns in Lonely Exile: Ransom Theory in Christmas Music

O come o come emmanuel
And ransom captive israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the son of god appears

Last Saturday, Allison and I went to an American Baptist Women's conference in Pasadena. Besides hearing some marvelous women preach, I was significantly struck by the worship. A woman named Shanni Love got up and sang with minimal music, and her song was essentially a prayer set to song. I hadn't considered the nature of prayer and music together as one principle, and it was striking.

Oh come thou day-spring come and cheer
Our spirits by thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death's dark shadows put to flight

It was a mixture of praise and lamentation, with eyes wide shut and heart wide open. To hear such adulation and loneliness set in the form of a prayer was just perfect. With that in mind, I did wonder if Protestants (like myself) tend to miss such things.

Oh come desire of nations bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid thou our sad divisions cease
And be thyself our king of peace

Worship is theology set to music, and Christmas music is the Karl Barth of systematics.

O Come O Come Emmanuel is pure Gospel theology. The future of Israel, coupled with the pessimism of the prophets and the hope of Messiah, wrapped up in rejoicing.

O come o come emmanuel
And ransom captive israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the son of god appear

Beginning with the ransom of Israel, we are already within the first century, living in continuity with a captive nation, a nation underneath the god of Rome. Oppression is currency and Israel is again bankrupt.

Oh come desire of nations bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid thou our sad divisions cease
And be thyself our king of peace

Women and men were waiting for the deliverance of their nation, waiting for the installment of Psalm 110, the most frequently cited First Testament passage in the New Testament. Greg Boyd states that this text "is used to express the truth that Christ is Lord because he has defeated God's enemies" (1).

This first century world was waiting to be put beneath the feet of God. During this Second Temple time, you have the writings of Qumran, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. These writings are full of despair, anger, satire and vengeance.

Israel is in need to liberation, of deliverance, and this song captures this spirit perfectly. The hope of Messiah is lingering, pervasive, and pregnant with possibilities. Given that we no longer live in this world, it is often difficult to picture and sense how such things were. But, thankfully, we have songs that linger and penetrate.

He's coming towards us now
He's coming towards us now
He's coming towards us now
He always will

The coming of God was an earthy historical reality that completely rerouted everything anyone anticipated. We have already been ransomed and liberated from bondage. Rejoice, rejoice.

--Nick

Footnote:

Gregory A. Boyd, Four Views of the Atonement, 31.

Christus Victor, a brief case

OPENING

I begin with an affirmation to the universal church, that Christ's death and resurrection is central to all atonement theories. In that, I agree that each atonement theory is grounded in some portion of the meta-narrative of Scripture. This includes the oft-maligned and majority held Penal Substitution Theory and even the Moral Influence Theory held by many within the Emergent crowd.


Simply stated, Christus Victor is the atonement theory that views Christ's death and subsequent resurrection as a cosmic victory over sin and death, which had kept humanity in captivity. It views the resurrection and the death of Christ as triumphant. This does not say that other theories do not have their place, or do not, in their own way, attempt to work out the same factors in their own views.

However, I do think that Christus Victor ought to be our primary lens by which we view atonement theories. I will offer some reasons why, and I do not expect this to cover each point of atonement nor do I plan on answering objections to my view. I simply am giving some reasons as to why Christus Victor should be our primary lens, and not at the exclusion of other theories.

In the first thousand years of church history, Ransom Theory or Christus Victor was the dominant view of atonement. Adherents included Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote:

When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death's prison. [1]

I think the early church had an aptitude for recognizing the spiritual realm, often equating salvation as a battle for souls, with God and the Devil fighting for each individual. Very theatrical, of course. However, I do think this method of viewing everything through a lens of spiritual warfare, but also God's ultimate victory, is what sets Christus Victor up as the best lens. It is both supernatural in focus and cosmic in scope.

1) PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS & THE WARFARE MOTIF

Through St. Paul, I do think Ephesians 6 offers us a glimpse as Christians into another realm. V12-13 speak directly to "wrestling against the rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over this present age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Using a militaristic battle cry, we are called to resist such "cosmic powers" and "evil."

Recognizing the role of the "Adversary" as a cosmic schemer of this "present age" is a helpful reminder. Indeed we see the conflict written against "hostile waters" which seems to indicate a time of folklore where the Hebrews believed the earth was enshrined in water, with water being a sinister force. However, God is shown to be king over such hostility, causing it to flee at the "sound of His thunder" (Ps. 77:16). 

It is God who is ultimately victorious over such forces (Hab. 3:15) and who sits above "the mighty waters" (Ps. 29:3-4, 10). Given the language used throughout Scripture to God being bigger than opposing forces and being a force to reconcile and be reckoned with, see Eph. 1:22, Ps. 8:6, 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:27, Colossians 1:15-20. The language of warfare and utter destruction is well attested, almost to the point of being anesthetizing.

You even have the Hebrews adopted foreign "monsters" such as Leviathan. Leviathan (possibly a reference to Tiamat, a Babylonian god of the primordial sea) is shown to be ferocious with many heads and the ability to breathe fire (Job 41:26-27), but was shown to be no match for YHWH. According to Ps. 74:12-14, God utterly destroyed him. The imagery of appealing to foreign gods and monsters of mythical proportions was and is symbolic of YHWH being supreme over such created beings. Even in Colossians 1, Paul explicitly emphasizes the sovereignty and preeminence of Christ against a foreign ruler, namely Caesar, who believed himself to be above all things. In essence, St. Paul is writing a letter of treason against a "principality" and using him as an example of the power of the one true God as both source and sustainer.

Regardless of the terrifying aspect of the worst of creation, we can bet our lives that YHWH is above all things and that this cosmic battle is not eternal in duration. The warfare motif is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, and it is even stronger in the New Testament.

2) RANSOM & IMMORTALITY

In Adam, we have the consequence of mortality, without any hope of immortality apart from Christ, which is a gift that God gives to the saved. Even in the Old and New Testament (Prov. 12:28, Ezekiel 18:4, I Cor. 15:53-54, 2 Tim. 1:10 and others), we can see that immortality is something to be sought after, and a gift that only God can give. Thus, mankind doesn't seem to be born with immortality and can only become immortal (Strong's 862-- Aphthartos -- Uncorrupted, imperishable, immortal (of the risen dead)). God alone appears to be immortal (Rom. 1:23).

In this, sin has it's grip upon humanity. It not only keeps us from attaining immortality, which is contested in that we may have never had it, but also showcases the full effect of Adam's sin and Christ's death, which brings life and justification (Rom. 5:12-21). In him we have deliverance and the forgiveness of sins.

In this same vein, deliverance from sin and death seems to be a dominant theme in Scripture. Mark 10:45 speaks about Christ "giving His life as a ransom for many." In the present context of servanthood and submission, to think of the Son of Man as anything less than a conquerer was unheard of. Christ as a servant did, in a cosmic way, destroy everything that was sin. Moltmann speaks of this as such:

God allows himself to be humiliated and crucified in the Son, in order to free the oppressors and the oppressed from oppression and to open up to them the situation of free, sympathetic humanity.

The line of thinking is deliverance from bondage and oppression and the sin of this world. In refuting the heresy of the time, St. Paul speaks of this as "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" in I Timothy 2:5-6. As is seemingly consistent with Pauline literature, the idea of past bondage is given over to Christ, who destroyed the "old man" that was once Saul, and is reborn as our St. Paul.

We are not ransoms, but prisoners. Prisoners to, simply put, sin. This includes to our flesh but also to the "God of this age" (2 Corinthians 4). In Jesus laying down his life as a substitute, he effectively destroyed what had reigned as condemnation. In fact, much of his earthly ministry was to subvert the effects of the Law, and his death, by perverse trial and condemnation by a ruling principality, culminated in the utter worthlessness of "human justice."

The cosmic significance is staggering, and seems to fit better within Christus Victor.

3) INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY & "ALREADY, NOT YET"

This is the easiest part to argue for. It isn't often that you have Thomas Schreiner and N.T. Wright in agreement on one topic. However, I do think Christus Victor strongly supports IE and I shall give some examples.

All things are seen as "already established" and "awaiting consummation." Christ's ministry on earth included the healing of the blind, casting out demons and speaking in tongues. When the 72 returned to Jesus, they proclaimed that "even the demons are subject to use in your name!" (Lk. 10:17). Having unclean spirits proclaiming Jesus as "the Son of God" (Mark 3:11) symbolizes the uniqueness of Christus Victor in that it is shows the effects it has upon believers, but also demons.

The idea that the Kingdom of God was established and birthed in the 1st Century and is awaiting the full consummation is a widely held Christian belief. I believe it fits perfectly with Christus Victor.

4) YHWH'S FINAL VICTORY

To emphasize God and Christ's victory of sin itself is also foundational to the Christus Victor model. Given the warfare motif as seen above, to believe that God reconciled "all things to himself" (Col. 119-20) seems to suggest spiritual entities as well on top of the possibility of the "new earth" being "won over." This is speculative so I won't insist upon it.

In Ephesians 1, we see that God putting "his enemies beneath his feet" seem to signify the utter end of sin in the sense of "already, not yet." This fits perfectly with God's perfect love in saving sinners from bondage, and that nothing can ultimately separate us from him (Rom. 8:35-39, John 1:29, 3:16).

This holds true to the teaching that the "Adversary" is "driven out" (John 12:31). In doing so, Jesus "disarmed the powers and the authorities, [He] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:13-15).

The cross symbolizes the ultimate destiny of sin, the cosmic significance of God triumphing over this temporal evil, and that paying such a cost is "costliest grace," according to Bonhoeffer. This world has been "set free" and "liberated from bondage" (Rom. 8:18-23).

The cross symbolizes God's perfect love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

The cross symbolizes the healing brought forth by Christ's desire to save and to heal (Matt. 8:1-17, with emphasis on v17).

5) CONCLUSION

Gregory Boyd sums up Christus Victor as thus:

Whereas other models tend to isolate the meaning of Christ's death from his lifestyle, his healing and deliverance ministry, his teachings and even (in some cases) his resurrection, the Christus Victor model reveals the profound interconnectedness of everything Chris was about. All these things are ultimately about one thing: establishing the reign of God by vanquishing the reign of Satan and the powers through the power of self-sacrificial love. [3]

In summation, Christus Victor seems to not only emphasize the cosmic scope of all things, but also maintains substitutionary atonement and the element of sacrifice. It can include the Healing View and the Moral Influence, with Jesus' moral teachings, healings and living by example central to His ministry.

FOOT NOTES

[1]. Gregory of Nyssa, "An Address on Religous Instruction," Chapter 23. LCC, III, 300.

[2]. Jurgen Moltmann, "The Crucified God."

[3]. Gregory Boyd, "Four Views of the Atonement," 46.

Agnus Dei

Agnus dei

Agnus dei

Qui tollis peccata mundi

Agnus dei

Agnus dei

Qui tollis peccata mundi

Dona nobis pacem

Dona nobis pacem

pacem

Dona nobis pacem

Wainright/Agnus Dei

--Nick

The Problem with Christus Victor? (part 1)

I read this very interesting post over at "Covenant of Love", written by Derek Ouellette. You should check it out. I copied the entire response here, and included the link to Mark Galli's original post. I hold to Christus Victor as my primary but not exclusive model of the atonement. 

Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, wrote an article titled The Problem with Christus Victor. As someone who believes Christus Victor ought to be the umbrella atonement motif for the Christian faith, this post is a response to that article.

Mark writes:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness.

“do tell me if you see otherwise”, I take that as an invitation to discussion. I hope to “tell” Mark “otherwise” before this post is through and show how that perception can easily go both ways.

Some Significant Points:

There are a few things I believe that are significant to point out in this discussion. I believe it is significant that the Church Father’s held to the Christus Victor atonement motif unanimously up to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy of the fifth century, at which point it began to fall out of favour in the Western Church. It believe it is significant that the Eastern Church has always held to the Christus Victor motif from the time of the Father’s of the Church up to this very day. I believe it is significant that the Augustine/Pelagian controversy was virtually unheard of in the Christian East and remains a non-issue (notice the connection between that fact and that the Orthodox still holds to the Christus Victor motif). I believe it is significant that since the Reformation the dominant atonement theory in the West has been Penal Substitution. I believe it is significant that Protestants who react against the growing return to the Christus Victor motif seem to be most concerned with how they perceive that it raises “works” (global concerns and social agenda’s et cetera) above or against personal guilt and a personal need for forgiveness.

There is more going on beneath the surface of Mark’s article then just which atonement motif one prefers. It’s amazing how many “issues” raised by Protestants go back to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy and exposes the Protestant terror of anything that smacks of smuggling works-based salvation in through the back door.

Mark’s View of the Christus Victor View:

Mark correctly draws out some of the strengths of the Christus Victor “model”: That this view emphasizes Christ as the victor, that in his death and resurrection he overcame the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, and death. But before long the article takes a decisively wrong turn:

While the model assumes humanity’s guilt for getting ourselves into this predicament—beginning with the original sin of Adam and Eve—the theory’s anthropology (view of humanity) emphasizes not our guilt but our victimhood, at least the way it is often discussed today. (emphasis mine)

That emphasis sets the direction of the article. One is left with the impression that there is a problem with the Christus Victor motif itself, when in reality Mark is concerned with “the way it is often discussed today“. The problem throughout the article is that Mark does not do a good job separating the Christus Victor motif from “the way it is often discussed today”. As the title itself suggests, it is the motif itself that has serious problems.  So in the readers mind Mark  appropriately  chucked out the baby with the bathwater. While acknowledging that the Christus Victor motif is biblical, according to Mark it is just one of those things we “Protestants” should be cautious not to over emphasize. We shouldn’t talk about it very much. Yet Mark’s double standard is that it is somehow okay for the Eastern Church to emphasize Christus Victor, just not us Western Christians.

Here, I’m simply suggesting that Christus Victor may not be a theory that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, should tie their wagons to.

And why is that? Because, according to Mark, 1) “it’s clearly a secondary atonement theme in the New Testament”, and 2) “at least for today’s Protestants, it has an uncanny tendency to downplay a sense of personal responsibility, which in the end, sabotages grace”.

Is Christus Victor Secondary?

Mark acknowledges that the Christus Victor motif emphasizes the role of Christ’s atonement in regards to the whole cosmos. That being said it is difficult to reconcile his claim that it is secondary and that God is really (perhaps we might say, merely) concerned with individual sin, until you see that Mark has qualified his statement with the phrase “New Testament” by which it seems he means “Pauline Epistles and Hebrews”. (A very Protestant approach to the “New Testament”.)

It is significant that in discussing the role of the atonement of Jesus Christ Mark does not turn to the Gospel’s at all. It is also significant that when he speaks of the Christus Victor model he does so in terms of Christ’s death and resurrection, but not in terms of Jesus’ life and actions throughout his ministry which, incidentally, happens to be termed “The Gospels”. This is a Penal Substitution approach to the atonement applied to the Christus Victor motif. Furthermore the long held belief by Christians that the first reference to the atonement is in Genesis 3:15 happens to be a Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution, reference. When the rest of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in on the subject, the idea that Penal Substitution theory is dominant cannot be sustained.

Major themes running through both Testaments include Egypt and Exile, where the great atonement themes in the Egypt event with the sacrifice of a Lamb, the beginning of the passover with the blood spilled on the door posts so that the angel of death can pass over, are all within the context of deliverance, redemption, freedom and victory, and in fact the term “righteousness” is often used synonymously as “vindication” and in the context of military deliverance and victory as in the case with Deborah. The ongoing atonement for Israel’s sins are all conceived within this framework. The continuing sin of Israel landed God’s people right back into bondage in Exile in need of redemption, freedom and deliverance again. It needed another Lamb with spilled blood to end the Exile and defeat the principalities and powers of the air.

Christ’ work throughout his ministry in the Gospels is a testimony to this defining redemption motif.

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news [Gospel] to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, torelease the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” – Luke 4:18-19

Jesus’ mission was summed up in that Isaiac prophecy as he said himself. Through his ministry he did those very things including casting out demons everywhere he went, forgiving sins (yes!) and commanding, “go and sin no more” because it is not just that you have been forgiven of your personal sin, but that you have been set from and are no longer bound to them. In regards to an individual, this is what Christus Victor emphasizes against the raising up of the Penal View. Not just that you’ve been forgiven, but that now you can “go and sin no more” because the chains have been broken.

Is it any wonder John could write:

“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” – 1 John 3:8

Of course this verse is in the context of personal sin, but that’s just it. Mark’s claim that Christus Victor fails to address personal sin and personal responsibility is simply wrong. “He who does what is sinful is of the devil” says John immediately before the one I just cited, but Jesus came to “destroy the devil’s work” so that you do not need to be of the devil any more. You’ve been forgive, of course, but you’ve also been set free. In fact, John’s point actually addresses the danger of raising the Penal View above the Christus Victor motif: if you claim to be forgiven but are still in sin, it means you have not been set free and are still “of the devil”.

Jesus told the disciples that he has given them authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the wiles of the evil one. When they returned from the mission field he sent them on, he hold them that he saw Satan falling from heaven. We are told by John that “the world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19) and Jesus called Satan the “prince of the world” (John 14:30) and Paul refers to Satan as “the ruler of the Kingdom of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). Is it any wonder that the central message of Jesus throughout his ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God in which Jesus says, “the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12 ESV).

Obviously the Penal Substitution view is not the dominant atonement teaching when all of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in. In light of this fact, I find it astounding that Mark would make this statement:

With “no extensive discussions of Christus Victor anywhere in the New Testament—one begins to wonder how much stock we should put in Christus Victor. In short, should we be so quick to marginalize substitutionary atonement?”

The whole of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, discuss Christus Victor. Is that extensive enough for you? The substitutionary atonement theory should not be marginalized, but it should be put in its place and not at the expanse of the complete work of God in redemptive history.

Does it Sabotage Grace?

Earlier I made the connection between Protestant fears of Pelagianism and Christus Victor. This is where I think Protestants tend to overreact and scurry away from anything that – to us – smacks of sneaking works based salvation in through the back door. We’re so scared of slipping into one heresy (works based salvation) that we run fool-headed into another (antinominism).

Where Mark sees Christus Victor as potentially sabotaging Grace, I see Penal Substitution theory as sucking Grace dry of its substance. The Grace of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the hole Gospel including his ministry, his death and his resurrection and ascension. It is not just about how “I am forgiven so that I can go to heaven” as is often emphasized by those who preach the Penal View exclusively. That cheapens Grace. It is about how God has set us free from the powers of Sin, Satan and Death – the three enemies of the Cross. It is about how “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus]. Therefore go and make disciples” (Matthew 28:18). So even the Great Commission is wrapped up in the Victor motif. It is about taking the Lord’s Prayer seriously that “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”, it is about taking the Beatitudes seriously, it is about taking Grace and the Gospel seriously.

Where Mark sees the Christus Victor motif as emphasizing human’s as simple victims that need to be set free, the Eastern Church sees the Penal Substitution theory as emphasizing Christ as the victim. Both are an exaggeration. For the Penal View the idea is not that Christ is the victim, but rather the he is the Vicarious One. For the Christus Victor motif, humans are not so much mere victims, as they are in need to redemption from sin, death and Satan. This of course includes, but is not restricted to, Penal Substitution.

Returning to the quote at the start of this post.

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness

The perception goes both ways:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion [the Penal Substitution theory] don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal [freedom] from sin or the need for divine [deliverance].

Thinking about Lent

It is fascinating that Mark concludes his article with this:

Something to think about, anyway, especially during Lent, when many of us ponder the great mysteries of sin and atonement.

In my home city a 40 Day Prayer Vigil for Right For Life has been taking place this Lent, and it is significant that Protestants make up less then 5% of the Christians who are actively involved in this event. But with the dominant view of the atonement being what it is in Protestant teaching still today, (that I have been forgiven frommy personal sins so that I can go to heaven, i.e. Penal Substitution), is it any wonder that Protestants are not always front-liners in matters of contemporary social Kingdom agenda concerns. That is best a matter for those who believe that Jesus’ mission is bigger then me and my heavenly future.

One of Mark’s primary concerns in the article is how many who hold to Christus Victor polemically distort the Substitutionary View. I think he’s right, and so from one who holds to Christus Victor as the dominant atonement motif, I want to address the concern and add a corrective measure. It is unfortunate though that in reacting to an overstatement on the part of the Victor adherents, Mark himself would make so many overstatements.

Covenant of Love, Christus Victor pt 1

I will post part 2 when it becomes available. Thanks for reading. Check out Derek's blog. 

--Nick