Introduction
Given the theological diversity and paradoxical images or metaphors related to salvation, it is challenging to fully grasp all that Jesus Christ accomplished in his glorious work. A range of atonement theologies has emerged throughout church history. Frederica Mathewes-Green’s article examines one of these doctrines through the lens of Orthodox Christianity. The author employs the Christus Victor model, which is the Latin translation of “Christ the Victor” (Anderson, 2022). The primary idea that underlies this concept is that God is victorious over the evil powers of the world, especially Satan, through Christ. Orthodox Christians hold the view that by defeating the wickedness and influences that oppose God, Jesus rescued the righteous trapped in the lair of Satan and established himself as the rightful ruler of the entire cosmos.
Plan of the Study
The paper has provided a summary of Frederica Mathewes-Green’s text titled “Rising Victorious,” which is contained in the book “Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross,” edited by Mark Baker. Since the article offers a unique perspective on atonement, this investigation aims to evaluate Mathewes-Green’s orthodox perspective through various theological literature and the course reading material. Finally, the paper will summarize the main findings and outline their implications for Christians. This paper aims to use Mathewes-Green’s text to critique central premises in the Christus Victor atonement framework and explore their strengths and weaknesses, helping Christians understand Christ’s role in their redemption.
Analysis
The act of redemption culminated in the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Romans 5:8 demonstrates that God has shown His own love for humanity, despite their sinful nature, by allowing Christ to die in their place. This view is synonymous with the substitutionary theory of atonement or the Western understanding of reconciliation presented in the course reading. In this case, Beilby & Eddy (2006) describe this as a situation where punishment is transferred from a guilty person to an innocent person (104).
However, Mathewes-Green’s article is based on Christus Victor’s model theory (43). The author indicates that Jesus died to conquer the powers of Satan and free humanity from their shackles (Koryakin, 2021). Unlike the substitutionary viewpoint, the article suggests that the cross did not satisfy God’s wrath against human sin but defeated evil, thereby setting humanity free (Anderson, 2022). The author asserts that Christ pulled Adam and Eve out of their pit of sin(Baker, 42). The central theme of this view on atonement is victory over darkness, which holds people in bondage.
Most Christians typically tend to downplay the intense struggle between God and Satan when talking about the atonement. The Western perspective focuses on an overly rational and abstract view of salvation (Koryakin, 2021). However, as indicated by Mathewes-Green, the Eastern Orthodox standpoint’s strength is that it not only sees Chris’s role in salvation as a moral motif for humanity to follow but also as part of God’s supernatural encounter with evil, which is considered integral to His overarching plan for salvation (Vrudny, 2020). This classical view of redemption has been neglected because many modernists may find conflict imagery to be crude or even disagreeable.
Reflecting on Mathewes-Green’s image of resurrection, she describes one of the scenes where chains holding Christ are unhinged, except for those binding the hands and feet of a vicious ancient evil in his own darkness (43). An individual may think the imagery is disconcerting and unnecessarily violent. However, Christus Victor’s model teaches Christians that the cross is not just a symbol of love to inspire them but rather a decisive encounter with Satan that the Lord had predestined in accordance with his plan.
The Orthodox perspective provides a meaningful understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which brought salvation. Despite the amount of evil entrenched in this world, it poses no threat to the Creator. The implication of this victory over the devil is that, regardless of how intensively Satan rails against Christians, they should not be troubled.
Thus, the dramatic language of conflict and conquest, where Jesus is portrayed as a superhero, using his mighty outstretched arms to lift a great weight, is contrary to an increasingly abstract view of atonement that people are familiar with (Mathewes-Green, 42). However, this correlates with Biblical teachings and may offer comfort to Christians because Paul likened righteousness to a breastplate, while their faith equated to a shield (Ephesians 6:15-16). This description denotes conflict because Christians are constantly embroiled in a fight against the devil’s schemes and cosmic powers (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Nevertheless, through the atonement, they can rejoice and celebrate a God who fights on their behalf. This is because, through the crucifixion, the blood of the Lamb was shed and defeated those wicked powers. Therefore, Christians should embrace Christus Victor to brace themselves against the evil in the world.
The views contained in the Christus Victor model can also be problematic. This is because most Christians agree that Christ’s death secured the forgiveness of sins, thereby reconciling them with God. Based on the course material, Jesus stood in the place of humanity and bore the full consequence of their sins (Beilby & Eddy, 42). People inherited the consequences of the original sin, as they are the descendants of Adam and Eve. However, despite being a fallen race, destined for destruction and deprived of Godlikeness, God punished his son to save them.
The Bible claims that God’s love is unconditional, which brought redemption for His people (John 3:16). The Father sent His Son to atone for people’s sins and disobedience (Woznicki, 2022). In this context, atonement can be considered substitutionary because Jesus incurred the punishment, or the death penalty, on behalf of humanity, thereby clearing them of their sins.
Thus, it may be argued that Christus Victor only focuses on the consequences of sin rather than on iniquity itself. Therefore, portraying Jesus as a hero, using his powerful open arms to unshackle Adam and Eve from their captivity, does not fix the problem of how they got there in the first place (Mathewes-Green, 42). Conversely, penal substitution theory addresses the issue of sin, as Jesus took the actual debt that was owed.
The opponents of this model may also argue that it disregards God’s justice, which requires a Christian’s debt to be paid. Based on the Eastern Orthodox perspective, it may imply that people are only released from bondage without payment of the debt (Farris & Hamilton, 2021). However, the Christus Victor concept is beneficial because it describes Christ as a victor over Satan, who subjugated humanity.
Despite its rich image and mystical elements, it should have been harmonized with other models, including penal substitution and ransom theory, to enable Christians to understand the meaning of atonement fully. Since these atonement viewpoints do not align with one another, it implies that focusing exclusively on the Christus Victor perspective might simplify the complexities of atonement theology. Thus, Christians may be limited in their interpretations whenever there is more than one dimension or aspect of the atonement.
Conclusion
The Christus Victor viewpoint presented in Mathewes-Green’s text provides a unique perspective on understanding Christ’s restorative work. Atonement is described as noisy and more vibrant than the presentation of substitutionary theory, which conveys a sense of silence. However, standing at either end of the perspective, there is a sign of struggle or conflict, which climaxes in God’s victory. Mathewes-Green shows that resurrection is a victory over death, sin, and dark forces that enslave Christians. The text indicates that the cross is a symbol of love that inspires many people and Christ’s decisive encounter with evil.
References
Anderson, F.R. (2022). Why did Jesus die and what does that have to do with me? A biblical and sacramental understanding of atonement. Wipf and Stock.
Beilby, J. & Eddy, B.R. (2006). The nature of the atonement: Four views. InterVarsity Press.
Farris, J. R., & Hamilton, S. M. (2021). Craig on penal substitution: A critique. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 63(2), 237-269.
King James Bible. (2022). King James Bible Online. (Original work published 1769)
Koryakin, S. (2021). Abandoning penal substitution: A patristic inspiration for contemporary protestant understanding of the atonement. Religions, 12(9), 1-14.
Mathewes-Green, F. (2006). Rising victorious. In M. D. Baker, (Ed.), Proclaiming the scandal of the cross: Contemporary images of atonement (pp. 42-45). Baker Academic.
Vrudny, K. J. (2020). The Mosaic of atonement: An integrated approach to Christ’s work by Joshua M. McNall. Theology Today, 77(3), 338-340.
Woznicki, C. (2022). Revisiting the somatic death objection to penal substitution: Original sin and the nature of consequences. Irish Theological Quarterly, 87(1), 50-65.