Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement

By Gustaf Aulen

I was going through my shelf the other day and came across a 1969 edition and recalled a conversation I had with the folks at Wipf and Stock a few years ago about reprinting it and lo, there it was on amazon.com! Very cool guys. Why more folks don't read this book surprises me, since it was seminal in modifying my views on the atonement from an American Lutheran to a more Eastern Orthodox position. I have spoken with so many grad students in Christian theology who are ignorant of the various historical interpretations of the atonement.

So why does this book matter? Aulén challenges the status quo answer to the question: Why did Jesus have to die and what effect does the resurrection have? Raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod), I was taught a very Anselmian version of God's rationale for the events of our salvation which the author of this book takes to task (or at least demonstrates to be a more modern and less patristic development). It went like this: We sinned in Adam, are guilty for his sin, and the offense to God's justice demands His wrath be taken out against us. Jesus takes the wrath of God upon himself, so when the Father sees me He really sees me through Jesus-colored glasses and doesn't take His anger out on me. Of course there is a biblical basis to some of this, but not to the exclusive extent that this theory holds over most of Protestant theology (although, as the author points out, Luther himself had a more nuanced version in his theology with the "blessed exchange" of the natures in Christ and, by that virtue, our own in Christ). Such a model focuses heavily upon the death of Christ, and personally I can remark that often the incarnation and resurrection are taught as an afterthought. Such is the result of the 'wrathful Father' model.

Aulén begins his work by stating the problem of the atonement and its possible answers, tracing the history and role that the Anselmian, Latin version has played, commonly known as the substitutionary theory or satisfaction theory: Jesus takes my place under the wrath of God. Then Irenaeus is used as the example of the earlier and more universal theory of the early church and New Testament: Christ tramples down sin, death and the power of the devil by his incarnation, death and resurrection. This is the classic model of recapitulation in Christ. Then the Middle Ages are examined with the roles of Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory the 'Big One' and Anslem, among other notables. Here the classic idea is beginning to wane and almost disappear under the weight of the Latin model. Although Luther moves markedly to the classical model, he still employs terms and sometimes the meaning of the Latin model, which has been further solidified in his tradition. The author concludes with an analysis of post-Luther developments and posits that a return to the original model is a needed corrective to have a more biblical soteriology. A very comprehensive and packed slim volume indeed!

Other books of interest may include How Are We Saved?: The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition by Kallistos Ware, Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian by Jordan Bajis, and for a Lutheran reappropriation of the classical idea, Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, edited by Braaten and Jenson. Lastly, perhaps the best book on the topic, although dated to 1927, is Grensted's A Short History Of The Doctrine Of The Atonement (1920). In fact, I would probably buy Grensted's work before Christus Victor for a more complex and in-depth study. They compliment one another perfectly.

I would find it most interesting to look at this whole question through liturgical theology, since how we understand the sacrifice of Christ, along with his taking on and renewing our nature, is intimately bound to the Eucharist and Baptism (think of the Mass as Sacrifice, Recapitulation, partakers of divinity etc); For Christianity is primarily a doxological religion. Lex orandi lex credendi is true, even if we pretend it isn't. How we pray really does inform what we believe. Moreover, it is not only the words that are said or sung, but how they are said or sung that matter. (But that is going to be taken up in other reviews!) Such a study would refocus our attention upon the necessity, nature and role of the sacraments/mysteries. PhD/ThD thesis anyone?

May we all be one.