Session II: “It Costs Jesus” The Objective/Latin Interpretation of the Atonement “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole. … And the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4-6; RSV. Emphasis added.) “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and [a bankrupt, sinful humanity], the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.” (I Timothy 2:5-6a; RSV. Emphasis added.) “Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I deliver [Jesus] to you?’ And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.” (Matthew 26:14-15; Cf. 27:9. RSV. Emphasis added.) Before we begin this second session on the three classic interpretations of the Atonement … of “faith seeking a deeper understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum), that is, faith seeking a deeper understanding of the question, “What was Jesus doing on the cross?” … I’d like to make a few preliminary comments. First of all, in the history of Christian thought, and here I lean most heavily upon the 20th century Swedish theologian, Gustav Aulen’s famous work, Christus Victor … there are three fundamental ways in which the Christian Church has interpreted the atoning work of Christ down through the centuries: 1) the Objective/Latin View; 2) the Subjective/Humanistic View; and 3) the Christus Victor/Classic View. Moreover, as we begin this brief historical analysis, we must always keep in mind that all three of these interpretations of the Atonement see themselves as being biblically based. And finally, even more critically, we must always remember that Christ did not die for an atonement theory; but rather, he died “for you.” That is to say, we are talking about a theology of the cross (i.e. personally, for you, an event) and not simply about the cross (i.e. propositionally, for the sake of some theory, or idea). In other words, these interpretations are not merely seeking to create a doctrine about atonement (although doctrines are important in the life of the church, seeking to keep us close to the authority of Holy Scripture and not leaving us to our own imaginative devices); rather, they are seeking to point us beyond themselves, as this particular interpretation or that, to the actual accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work, “once and for all” (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 10:10; I Peter 3:18), for you… through his cross and resurrection. And so now, to a first interpretation of Christ’s atoning work upon the cross, “for us and our salvation” (Nicene Creed) in light of St. Matthew’s passion narrative (Matt. 26:1–27:66; cf. John 18:1–19:42). “It Costs Christ”: The Objective/Latin Interpretation The first and perhaps “oldest” interpretation may be referred to as the “Objective” or “Latin” view of the Atonement. By “objective” here is meant that God is the object of Christ’s atoning work upon the cross and that humanity is reconciled through Christ’s “vicarious satisfaction” (hold onto this term) made to God’s justice. Indeed, as referenced in our first podcast in this series … this “Objective/Latin” interpretation is arguably the closest thing to a dogma of the Atonement, short of any major Councils or official creedal formulations—such as the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (i.e. Nicene Creed)—that we have in the West (see Gerhard Forde’s, “The Work of Christ” in Christian Dogmatics, II:19f). During the Patristic period (circa 100 - 451 A.D.) of the early Christian Church, this interpretation was never fully worked out. However, the early church father “Tertullian [155–220 A.D.], with his teaching about penance that centers around the satisfaction made by man for sin and the idea of merit, began to quarry stones for the future edifice of the Latin theory” (Gustav Aulen; Christus Victor; p. 38f). This interpretation can be well-illustrated in what recent film? One that really “cuts” to the graphic nature of Christ’s “vicarious satisfaction” that atones for the seriousness of human sin? Par excellence, I would argue that it’s the horrifying, torturous “blood and guts” portrayed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ in 2004. New Testament scholar, Martin Hengel goes into almost surgery-like precision of describing how horrifically gruesome was a death by crucifixion—in his monograph entitled, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). Some 700 years after Tertullian, this “quarry of stones” for what we now refer to as the “Objective/Latin” interpretation of the Atonement, was first put together in an amazing treatise, entitled Cur Deus Homo? (“Why the God-man?”), by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). It was then further refined through the years as the standard for all the great systems of medieval scholasticism and Protestant orthodoxy. And it has remained so for most of conservative Christianity. It’s what I grew-up with, and I’m sure for many of you. The demand for rational, juridical clarity was the highest theological priority for this kind of “scholastic” interpretation. (The “court of law” feeling that you can quickly sense in this interpretation, comes in part from the fact that Tertullian was, of all vocations … an attorney, in Rome.) And with it came the famous formulation, first coined by St. Augustine then later picked-up by St. Anselm (which I’ve already drawn-upon in my introductory comments): “faith must always seek deeper understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). *** According to this “Objective/Latin” view, the price that was paid or sacrifice made is not from “heaven to earth” (which is the “Christus Victor” or Classic View” that we’ll talk about in Session III); but rather, it’s a move “from below”—that is, from the earthly to the heavenly. For it is Christ as human, taking on our sin and flesh, who pays the price for justice that’s been broken by human sin to God. And so we might say, in this “Objective/Latin” view, it is Christ who makes the sacrifice as man to God; therefore, it “costs” Christ. Whereas, in the “Christus Victor” or “Classic” view, we’ll come to see that it “costs” God. (Again, hold onto this thought.) And so, it’s on the basis of a penitential-juridical system, reminiscent of a court-room scene, that this “Objective/ Latin” interpretation “grew up.” Its root idea is that Christ as “man” (the God-man) must make a sacrifice or payment to “satisfy” God’s justice. (In light of St. Matthew’s passion narrative, read the following passages: Matthew 26:2; 26:14-15; 26:45; 27:4; 27:19). And so, this highly rationalistic, Latin quid pro quo interpretation can be literally spelled-out in St. Anselm’s treatise that seeks to answer the question: “Why The God–man” or “Why Did God become man?” If one reads through the first seven chapters of Book II of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, the response is laid-out in a tightly knit syllogism as follows: P1. Only man ought to make satisfaction for sin, but cannot do so. P2. Only God can make the infinite satisfaction, but ought not because God is under no just obligation to do so. C. Therefore, only the God-Man (Christ) can and ought to pay the price and make satisfaction to God’s justice. So there you have it … The answer to the question, “Why THE God-man?” is answered by: “So that he might die for humanity’s sin.” (There are many New Testament images for this, such as “Christ died as a ransom [or sacrificial payment] for many.”See Matthew 20:28; cf. Mark 10:45; I Timothy 2:6). Although critical of this “Objective/Latin” interpretation to some degree … nine centuries after Anselm … the famous German theologian, Emil Brunner (in a trajectory that included other theological giants such as John Calvin and Karl Barth), laid down a major premise for this interpretation: “Law is the backbone [Das Gesetz ist das Ruckgrat] of the spiritual life” (Emil Brunner’s Der Mittler: zur Besinnung uber den Christusglauben, p.414). It’s important for us to note here, that it’s essential for Anselm’s theology that the Incarnation and Atonement are “discontinuous” or not organically connected, whereas in the “Christus Victor/Classic” view they are very much in a continuous, organic connection (Aulen, Christus Victor, pp. 86-92). We’ll learn why this is later. But for now, we must understand that although God is emphasized as the author, or initiator of the atoning sacrifice in Anselm’s atonement interpretation, God is not at once subject and object—one reason being that, well, we certainly don’t want to “taint the image of God’s perfection”? (Cf. Karl Barth’s concept of God as the totaliter aliter, or “totally other” in his Church Dogmatics III/3, pp.289-368.) Or to draw upon the comment of one of my young confirmands during my Chicago days: “Oh! God would never be caught dead in a world like ours!” And so, in this “Objective/Latin” interpretation, the cross and death of Jesus is an isolated event. Either “forgiveness,” argues Anselm (which would nullify God’s justice), or “satisfaction.” Satisfaction, you see, is the compensation that humanity must make for its fault/sin(s).