CHAPTER 5

CHRISTUS VICTOR THEORY

Having God disarmed principalities and powers,

He made a public spectacle of them,

triumphing over them in it in the cross.

Letter to the Colossians 2:15

In 1913 Gustaf Aulén,⁷⁹ a Lutheran Pastor, published the book Christus Victor.⁸⁰ In his book he advocated an idea of salvation that, according to him, had been dominant among the Church Fathers since the 2^nd century; for this reason, he called it the Classic idea and gave it the name Christus Victor. The fame of this book grew exponentially, and the proposed theory assumed a worldwide scope, often replacing and sometimes complementing pre-existing theories and spreading widely in the Churches.

Aulén argued for the existence of three main theories of salvation: the Classic (or Dramatic) theory, which according to him was the one professed by the Fathers of the Church; the Objective (or Latin) theory of Satisfaction, of Anselm of Aosta, which later evolved into Penal Substitution; and the Subjective (or Humanistic) theory of Moral Influence, of Peter Abelard, theories to be analysed later. The term “objective” described any kind of doctrine that explained reconciliation as a change that would take place outside man, whereas in the “subjective” theories such a change would take place in man; this classification is maintained to this day. In his book, Aulén advocated the idea that the Classic theory was the only doctrine professed by the Fathers, and therefore the oldest and closest to the original spirit of the Church and the New Testament; he argued that the Classic type could be called “the distinctly Christian idea of reconciliation”:⁸¹

I am persuaded that no form of Christian teaching has any future before it except such as can keep steadily in view the reality of evil in the world, and go to meet the 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.⁸²

5.1. Christus Victor theory

Although the theory of the Christus Victor was presented only in 1930, in our study, we place it immediately after the theory of the Ransom, which we have seen in the previous chapter, since in fact the work of Aulén was a reinterpretation of the same authors of that theory, which had dominated Christian thought for almost a thousand years. He argued that the Ransom theory was misinterpreted, and that redemption should not be understood as a transaction in favour of the devil, but rather as the liberation of humanity from its chains and from the slavery of sin and death, through the triumphant victory of Christ; this is the concept that, according to Aulén, the Fathers of the Church had wanted to transmit to us.

The fundamental idea of the Christus Victor is that God in Christ, by freeing man from the enemies that hold him prisoner (which Aulén defined as the “tyrants”, that is, the devil, sin and death), reconciles the world with himself; the God who reconciles is himself reconciled:

This type of view may be described provisionally as the “dramatic.” 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, the “tyrants” under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself […] God is pictured as in Christ carrying through a victorious conflict against powers of evil which are hostile to His will. This constitute Atonement, because the drama is a cosmic drama, and the victory over the hostile powers brings to pass a new relation, a relation of reconciliation, between God and the world […] the triumph over the opposing powers is regarded as a reconciling of God Himself; He is reconciled by the very act in which He reconciles the world to Himself.⁸³

God is the reconciler because he is the one who initiates and accomplishes the work of salvation, but he is at the same time reconciled, because the bonds of the powers of evil and death from which he frees are what cause enmity with humanity. By freeing man from the power of the devil, God also frees him from his own condemning judgement and removes the veil of separation between him and man.

A further point that Aulén wishes to underline is that the Classic theory is a continuous work of God, that is, accomplished by the Father together with Christ, while in the case of the Latin theories the work would be discontinuous, that is, accomplished by the man Jesus and, so to speak, offered to God the Father on behalf of mankind. This discontinuity would create theological problems inherent the unity of the Trinity.

In his book, Aulén also went as far as to assert that the theory of salvation proposed by Luther, to whom is usually attributed the formulation of the Penal Substitution theory, was instead a re-edition of the Classic theory and that his ideas were completely misrepresented. In fact, we read in Luther's Commentary on the Letter to the Galatians:⁸⁴

These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever. In the same manner was death defeated. Death is emperor of the world. He strikes down kings, princes, all men. He has an idea to destroy all life. But Christ has immortal life, and life immortal gained the victory over death. Through Christ death has lost her sting. Christ is the Death of death. The curse of God waged a similar battle with the eternal mercy of God in Christ. The curse meant to condemn God's mercy. But it could not do it because the mercy of God is everlasting. The curse had to give way. If the mercy of God in Christ had lost out, God Himself would have lost out, which, of course, is impossible. [...] Sin, death, the wrath of God, hell, the devil, are mortified in Christ. Where Christ is near the powers of evil must keep their distance.⁸⁵

5.2. Criticism of the Christus Victor theory

It is undeniable that much of the language of the New Testament is marked by triumphalist tones and the “conquering” character of the work accomplished by Jesus: “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil”;⁸⁶ “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it [in the cross]”;⁸⁷ “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”⁸⁸ However, the enormous reception and favour found by this theory among the believers of many churches, have not spared it from many criticisms by theologians:

1. The Christus Victor model fails to identify the suffering and tragedy present both in the narrative of the Gospels and in human history. Colin Gunton argues that Aulén was too triumphalist and failed to consider the tragic elements of historical events. The prevalence of human affliction in every age raises questions about the nature of victory over evil.⁸⁹ “By denying the reality of suffering and death, the Christus Victor theory of the atonement defames all those who suffer and trivializes tragedy.”⁹⁰
2. Other scholars have pointed to the fact that Aulén referred to Irenaeus to support his theory. However, for Irenaeus, the incarnation of Christ, his humanity, was a central matter of the Recapitulation, whereas in the Christus Victor model it would seem to be an unnecessary fact. Gunton, again, accuses Aulén of being too “Monergistic”,⁹¹ by making salvation the work of God alone to the point of denying the full humanity of Jesus.
3. For McGrath, Aulén exaggerated his case and, although the idea of the Christus Victor was present in the patristic era, it was one of many theories. For McGrath, the only theory that can be considered as the “Classic” is redemption through union with Christ.⁹²
4. Aulén argued that Christ's victory was accomplished through the cross. However, Baker and Green believe that there is “little explanation in the theory of how the cross provided salvation.”⁹³
5. “What need had God to descend from heaven to overcome the devil?”⁹⁴ Is the devil so powerful that he compels God to incarnate?

5.3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Christus Victor theory certainly presents a captivating and compelling approach, however, it does not sufficiently explain the work of Jesus and places too much emphasis on the role of Satan, while men remain on the side-line, helpless spectators of this cosmic battle. Moreover, the life, works, preaching, miracles and teachings of Jesus have no relevance in this theory, whereby Jesus is seen and represented only as a victorious warrior. It is true that humanity needs liberation from the evil one, from sin, from death, etc., but this idea of Aulén does not sufficiently explain how this happened and clashes with the daily experience of every Christian where evil, suffering and sin would seem to be all but conquered. Let us therefore close with a very clear consideration by the theologian Leon Morris:

This view must be treated with some care else we will finish up by saying that God saves simply because he is strong, in other words, in the end might is right. This is an impossible conclusion for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. We are warned that this view, of itself, is not adequate. But combined with other views it must find a place in any finally satisfying theory. It is important that Christ has conquered.⁹⁵