Session II: “It Costs ” The Objective/Latin Interpretation of the Atonement “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by , 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 “ 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 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. (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 and ), 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 ’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). “How absurd it is,” writes Tertullian, “to leave the penance unperformed and yet expect forgiveness of sins” (cited in Aulen’s Christus Victor; p.81. Again, compare Matthew 5:17-20, 26!)

*** Now, the most serious problems with Anselm’s “Objective/Latin” view of the Atonement are theological, not logical. Most persistent is the question of justice vs. mercy and its consequence for our understanding the nature of God. The attempt to prove the necessity of satisfaction leads to the idea that mercy can be exercised only when the demands of justice have been fulfilled. But, if God has to be paid[-off] and has been paid, how is God merciful? … Why can’t God, the almighty, simply forgive? … Did not Jesus forgive before his death? (Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 23:34). Further, is it not cruel/unjust that anyone should demand innocent blood as a ransom or in any way be delighted with the sacrifice/death of the innocent? That God should find the death of the Son so acceptable that through it God should be reconciled to the world? One of my theological mentors from seminary days, Dr. Gerhard Forde “nails-it” this way: “Jesus dies for us not for God. There’s not just a little perversity in the tendency to say that the sacrifice was demanded by God to placate the divine wrath. We attempt to exonerate ourselves from the terrible nature of the deed by blaming it on God.” (Christian Dogmatics, eds. C. Braaten and R. Jenson, Vol. II:82. Cf. Forde’s Where God Meets Man, pp. 40-44)

So, the very attempt to construct a neat/tidy theory regarding our reconciliation to God leads to the exact opposite! It alienates us from God by creating a forbidding image of God. And yet, however severe the critiques might be of this interpretation, one of the important strengths of the “Objective/Latin” view is that it points-out the ethical seriousness of humanity’s guilt “before God” (coram Deo); that is, of our “being in bondage to sin and unable to save/ free ourselves” (to use the language of our liturgy). To draw upon the language of the eminent 20th century American theologian and ethicist, : the “Objective/Latin” theory ‘takes sin seriously’ (Nature and Destiny of Man I:16-18, 137-138, 140, 147-149, 178-207, and 208). Sin is a sickness unto death. But then again, one can see the slippery slope here of a merit badge system that can easily go awry; where the Gospel can become obscured by all the celestial hallways of bookkeeping. As the 20th century American author, Kurt Vonnegut would say, with tongue- in-cheek: “And somewhere in there was Christmas?” (Slaughterhouse-Five, p.71).

*** To pastorally ponder the rational of this “Objective/Latin” interpretation, one must say that the theological case rests on this: that Jesus is the best and final evidence that not even God can do more than die at the hands of those who reject the gift of salvation. On the level of human history, there is nothing “more” that could possibly demonstrate just how determined God is to win the trust of all his children of the world.

In sum: in this “Objective/Latin” interpretation the payment or satisfaction is treated as the essential element in the Atonement and is accomplished by the death of Christ. The payment is primarily the work of Christ’s human nature, but it gains increased meritorious value on account of the union of his humanity with the divine nature— which is then “given and shed for us.” (Recount Dr. Paulson’s comments on this matter from last week’s podcast. See also here, especially Book II, Chapter 7 in Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo? See also, Isaiah 5:6; Romans 4:25; Hebrews 9:260.) It’s worth noting how we can hear this theology operating in a couple of well-beloved hymns from the old Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal:

“Victim Divine, thy grace we claim/ While thus thy precious death we show; Once offered up, a spotless Lamb, In thy great temple here below; Thou didst for all mankind atone/ And standest now before the throne.

Thou standest in the holiest place/ As now for guilty sinners slain; Thy Blood of sprinkling speaks and prays/ All prevalent for helpless man; Thy Blood is still our ransom found/ And spreads salvation all around.

We need not now go up to heaven/ To bring the long-sought Savior down; Thou art to all already given/ Thou dost e’en now thy banquet crown; To every faithful appear/ And show thy real presence here. Amen.” (Hymn #274) (Hymn #274)

Or again, from the old Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, that’s often sung during the Season of Lent: “There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin; He only could unlock the gate of heaven, and let us in.” (Hymn #77

Note from the companion worksheet for this Session II, that the fifth verse of this very same hymn, begins to draw upon a very different Atonement interpretation. Stay tuned for next week.

*** And so finally, as you heard Dr. Paulson and I point out toward the very beginning of the podcast for the Introduction to this series (link), a critical existential question in our study of the Doctrine of the Atonement is this: “How does Christ’s work on the cross, now some 2000 years ago, affect us today? How does the benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection become shared or transmitted to our lives?” Quite frankly, St. Anselm and the “Objective/ Latin” interpretation does not address this matter. However, there were others in the wake of this tradition, during the succeeding centuries, who have given us at least three basic words or themes that help us in responding today: 1) Participation; 2) Representation; and 3) Substitution. Without going into the names of various theologians, or referencing a ton of books for further reading, let’s just briefly look at each of these three words or themes that address this question: “So how are we as Christian people, as Easter people, connected with Christ’s atoning work upon the cross?” Participation. Through faith, believers participate in the life of Jesus Christ. They are, to use St. Paul’s favorite prepositional phrase: “in Christ.” We are enfolded by Christ from our baptism (Romans 6:3-5)—and reassured of this claiming promise by Christ’s “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 10:16)—a divine promise we share in Christ’s risen life. (We must point out here, again as mentioned in the podcast, that the resurrection really never comes into play in this interpretation.) And so, as a result of Christ’s “satisfying” work upon the cross we come to know and “share in Christ’s benefits” (Philipp Melanchthon) that has been won by Christ’s death on the cross, by his perfect obedience.

Representation. Christ is the covenant representative of humanity. Through faith, we come to stand within the covenant between God and all his people (cf. Genesis 12:1-3)—“from all the ends of earth.” All that Christ has sacrificed and won for us is available to us, on account of this ongoing covenant. Christ, by his perfect obedience and innocent blood shed upon the cross, re-presents his covenant people, winning or making atoning benefits for us as our re-presentative.

Substitution. Christ is here understood to be our substitute. We ought to have been crucified, on account of our grievous sins; but Christ is crucified in our place. Christ’s stands/hangs in our place, taking our guilt and shame upon himself, in order that his righteousness—won by his perfect obedience on the cross—might become ours. All three of these words come together wondrously in Christ’s sacramental word for us: “This is my body, given for you. This is my blood, shed for you. This do now, in your eating and drinking, reminding you of my promise to always be with you” (cf. Matthew 26: 20-29; 28:20b). Resources drawn upon:

The Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version. (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1973).

Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement.Trans. A.G. Herbert. Foreward to the Paperback Edition by Jaroslav Pelikan. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1969).

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. III/3 in 14 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-1977).

Bruner, Emil. Der Mittler: zur Besinnung uber den Christusglauben. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1932), p.144. If you are interested in reading this citation in English, see The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith. Trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947), p.458.

Forde, Gerhard. “The Work of Christ” in Christian Dogmatics. 2 vols., ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1984).

Ibid. Where God Meets Man: Luther’s Down-To-Earth Approach To The Gospel.(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972).

Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Trans. John Bowden. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

Ibid., Crucifixion: In The Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.Trans. John Bowden. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).

McGrath, Alister. Studies in Doctrine. ( Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1997).

Moltmann, Jurgen. God In Creation. Trans. Margaret Kohl. (San Franciso: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985).

Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation. Two Volumes in One edition. (New York: Charles Scibner’s Sons, 1949).

Tillich, Paul. The History of Christian Thought. Ed. Carl E. Braaten. (New York: Simon and Schuster Touchstone Book, 1968. Especially pp.165-167, 265.)

Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhousehouse-Five. A Laurel Book. (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1969).

John R. Christopherson, Ph.D. Senior Pastor First Lutheran Church; Sioux Falls, SD