HOW THE CROSS

DEFEATS THE POWERS

A Paper Submitted to

Dr. Alan Hawkins

Global Awakening Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

BTHE 5253: Systematic 2

By

Max Cornell

May 2021 1

Introduction

The crucifixion of is the fulcrum around which history turns. It is a profoundly mysterious event that forever altered the story of humanity. Despite how obvious that may seem to modern Christians, in the early days after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it was not at all clear that much had changed. Further, modern secularists have argued that Christ’s effect on history is centered around the devotion of his followers, not the crucifixion or resurrection.

Wright presses the issue when he asks poignantly, “Did anything actually happen on the cross that made a real difference in the world?”1 To use more technical language, “What, if any, are the objective aspects of the ?”

Various answers have been given at varying times, from the ransom theory to the satisfaction theory to the model.2 All models fall short of the full truth, but all bring helpful insights to the discussion.3 In his seminal work, Christus Victor, Gustaf Aulen surveys these various models and provides a nuanced version of what he calls the “classic view.” He seeks to recover the concept of the atonement as an objective victory over the demonic principalities and powers.4 In so doing, he restores what Greg Boyd calls the “warfare

1 N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2018), 46.

2 For a concise and lucid overview, see Randy Clark, Destined for the Cross: 16 Reasons Jesus Had to Die (Nashville, TN: Emanate Books, 2020), 51—53.

3 This paper will not evaluate the varying perspectives in comparison with one another. It simply grants the validity of the each and asserts that they can be constituted in fashions which are not mutually exclusive.

4 , Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003).

2 worldview” which was pervasive in ANE societies.5 Briefly, the idea is that humanity is held captive in some fashion to demonic agents and the atonement secures our liberty.6 Modern charismatics especially have embraced this understanding.7

If one grants that part of what Jesus accomplished through the atonement is a real objective victory within spacetime over the powers of darkness, there remains the pressing question of how precisely this victory was accomplished. Lack of clarity about this issue has resulted in sometimes eccentric perspectives wherein after the cross Jesus is either being tortured in Hell or, alternatively, doing violence to the devil in that same location. Further, understanding the mechanisms through which Jesus overcomes is essential if the believer is to participate Christ’s ongoing purpose to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).8

Jesus and Paul insist that the location of the victory is the cross (John 12:31-32; Col

2:15). Thus, an essential Christian mystery is, how is it, given the apparent humiliation and degradation that Christ experienced, that the cross is actually his exaltation and the devil’s open shame? While it is impossible to answer these questions exhaustively, this paper will

5 Gregory Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 9—17.

6 Randy Clark, Destined for the Cross, 54. This perspective is easier to maintain if one accepts the personal nature of demonic entities. However, it is not entirely necessary. Wright is somewhat nebulous on this issue, calling the powers “quasi-personal.” N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, 205. Conversely, Boyd insists the powers must be fully personal otherwise we cannot account for natural evil within a warfare worldview. He sees all evil, including natural evil, as a function of “evil wills.” Gregory A. Boyd, and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 290-292.

7 Space does not permit a detailed defense of the model itself. Aulen’s work is persuasive. This paper grants its general scriptural and historical grounding and seeks a nuanced understanding of how the model works.

8 All Scriptures are NASB unless otherwise noted. 3 contend that Jesus defeated the powers by inaugurating God’s eschatological kingdom, forgiving , and crucifying our idolatrous conceptions of God.

The Nature of the Problem

Before one can understand how Jesus’ death and resurrection liberates people from demonic captivity, it is necessary to describe the nature of that bondage. The New Testament says that Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4), that before Christ humans were part of the

“domain of darkness” (Col 1:13), and that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1

John 5:19).9 This is indeed a sorry state, but how did it happen? Why is it that the powers hold such sway over humankind? Clarity about that question will go a long way to illuminate how the cross rescues people. To find that clarity, one must consider the fall.

Walton has shown that the language used in Genesis 1 strongly suggests that the author conceived of the creation as a kind of cosmic temple.10 Picking up on this theme, Wright suggests that humans are the images in the temple and that this position constitutes our

“covenant of vocation.”11 It is not simply that man is created to obey a set of rules. (That perspective “moralizes our anthropology.”12) Rather, man is God’s image-bearer, created to worship Him, and, through that relational intimacy, man must exercise wise governance over

9 KJV has “lieth in wickedness,” depersonalizing the nature of the bondage. Most translations have something like the above.

10 John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 77-82.

11 Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, 76. Wright contrasts this with the Westminster “works- contract” view, which he feels is reductionist.

12 Ibid., 147.

4

God’s creation.13 Unfortunately, man has failed, worshiping the creation rather than the creator (Rom 1:25). “The name for this [failure]” Wright summarizes, “is idolatry. The result is and finally death.”14 Why? Because idolatry “results in giving to the idols—'forces’ within the creation—a power over humans and the world that was rightfully that of genuine humans.”15 For Wright then, man is enslaved to demonic powers because he has failed to function properly within the temple-like structure of the universe. Sin is not simple moral infringement. It is the yielding of one’s authority to another power through worship.16 As a result, the entire cosmos/temple is out of joint and varying forms of evil have been loosed upon the world.

If Wright is correct, Genesis 3 should support his view. Can ’s sin be considered idolatry? Heiser shows that the serpent in Genesis 3 is a personal, divine being who was likely a member of God’s heavenly council.17 He comes to Eve and declares that God has lied to her, that she will not die if she eats the fruit, and that God’s motivation for lying is that he does not want humans to be like himself (Gen 3:4-5). The serpent mounts an assault on the character of God, bolstered by Eve’s self-interest. Tragically, she chooses to believe these lies,

13 Ibid., 76.

14 Ibid., 77.

15 Ibid., 86.

16 In Romans 6:16, Paul explains that yielding to sin or, by implication, obeying the devil, results in enslavement. Similarly, Jesus depicts all those who commit sin as enslaved to it (John 8:34).

17 Michael S. Heiser, Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 87-91.

5 acting apparently on a desire to exalt herself. Adam follows suit, and the result is they are expelled from the garden.18

Is this failure idolatry? Idolatry may be defined as the worship of a false image of God. In a telling example, Aaron fashioned a golden calf and then declared, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Ex 32:4). The people proceeded to worship it and offer it sacrifices. Aaron did not say that Baal or Ashtaroth led them out of Egypt. Instead, he created an image of God which was less than the truth and told people it was what God looked like. Similarly, the serpent constructed a picture of God in Eve’s heart. She believed this sinful picture which led to her rebellions actions because worship entails and empowers obedience.

Adam and Eve were idolators, not in the most literal sense, but because they believed demonically inspired lies about God, themselves, and the nature of the world. Boyd supports this perspective. He argues that the serpent attacked Adan and Eve’s “mental picture of God.”19

This assault worked because “we take on the image of the God we mentally envision.”20 They pictured a selfish God and thereby made a selfish choice. As a result of this choice, they were now under the penalty of sin, which is death, and under in the grip of the devil, who’s “domain is death.”21

18 The garden may be conceived of as the “holy of holies” within the temple concept because the divine presence dwelt there. Expulsion constitutes exile from the presence which is itself a kind of bondage.

19 Gregory A. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament's Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017), 20.

20 Ibid., 19

21 Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 91. Heiser draws this conclusion about the devil’s domain from the imagery of the curse that God places on the serpent.

6

Here then is a fairly straightforward understanding of how individuals can find themselves in the grip of demonic powers. They worship something other than the true God which leads to sin. In doing so, they yield themselves to forces within creation which control them.22 For example, many individuals have worshipped money. They compromise the image of God (not representing him well) in order to acquire it and end up being controlled by the very thing they sought to possess.23 There is more at stake, however. The Bible depicts entire nations in the grip of Satan, not just individuals (Is 14:16-17).24

Heiser has an interesting theory about how this large-scale captivity occurred. In his view, at Babel, humans were attempting build a kind of temple which would unite heaven and earth through their own efforts. It was a collective idolatry wherein man wanted to ascend into the heavens by his own hand. As a result, God confused their languages and disinherited the nations. Instead of serving God, the nations began worshipping other created divine beings, or elohim.25 Whether or not Heiser is correct in his assessment of how this occurred, the idea that

ANE nations all served nationalistic gods is well established.26 The point is that the kingdoms of the earth are serving idols, false gods, in the same way that individuals often do. Governments

22 Aulen shows that even among the earliest writers, there was debate about the nature of humanity’s bondage. On the one hand, Gregory of Nyssa thinks the devil acquired real rights over man through the fall. Others, like Gregory of Nazianzus, saw the devil as a usurper. The former view leads to the “ransom” theory wherein the devil must be paid off. Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor, 48—50.

23 Jesus’ statements about not serving mammon appear to point to a personal demonic reality that stands behind money, but even if one denies that, the functional mechanisms of idolatry and bondage are preserved (Mt 6:24).

24 For a compelling case why this taunt of the King of Babylon also points to the demonic powers, see Heiser, Unseen Realm, 83—86.

25 Heiser, Unseen Realm, 110-115.

26 Boyd, God at War, 135-138. 7 are often structed in ways which perpetuate demonic ideologies through the worship of power.

This problem calls for a collective solution, not just an individualistic one.

Summing up the biblical and scholarly data, man’s plight can be stated as follows: 1)

Man believed demonically inspired lies. 2) This idolatry led him to commit sin which leads to death. 3) Sin enslaves to the kingdom of darkness. Thus, the powers take advantage of human idolatry and sin to manipulate us into furthering their agenda rather than God’s. As long as the idols and sin hold sway, hell is coming to earth rather than heaven. The cross reverses these three calamities.

The Clash of Two Kingdoms

A major theme of the New Testament is that Jesus is the Messiah, the second Moses, who has come to inaugurate God’s new kingdom on earth as in heaven. Matthew in particular is careful to draw out this motif, showing the parallels between Jesus and Moses, as well as

Jesus and Israel at large. This is an eschatological theme. Fee explains that, while not all first century Jews held to the same eschatology, conservative ones saw time as consisting of two ages: the present evil age and a future messianic kingdom of peace and prosperity. Surprisingly, the early church discovered these two ages do not proceed one immediately after the other.

Instead, Jesus launched the kingdom age in his life, death, and resurrection, and it is now running alongside the kingdoms of this world until his return.27 One of the main proofs that this had in fact occurred was the presence of the eschatological Spirit.28

27 Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 49-51.

28 Ibid., 53 8

This concept is ubiquitous in Jesus’ ministry. He saw his healings and exorcisms as a representation of a conflict between God’s kingdom and the kingdoms of darkness.29 Twelftree comments that Jesus believed that “those exorcisms which he performed—by or through the eschatological Spirit of God—meant that the Kingdom of God had come,” and that they “were themselves the kingdom of God in operation.”30 In other words, God’s rule looks like freedom from demonic captivity. Further, God’s strategy for delivering people is to create a new kingdom on planet Earth. He does not simply liberate his people from Egypt; he creates a new

Kingdom governed by different values into which he invites people.

It is this strategy that leads back to the central question, “How does the cross defeat the powers?” Part of the answer is that the cross is the means by which God’s new kingdom was launched. Wright explains, “The crucifixion was the shocking answer to the prayer that God’s kingdom would come on earth as in heaven.”31 How is this possible? Exodus provides the narrative frame that renders the story coherent. In order for Israel to be birthed, the tyrant

Pharaoh had to be dethroned, and God had to become king of his people. The Passover lamb allowed God’s people to be spared as judgement was poured out on Pharaoh. Similarly, Wright suggests that Jesus took “upon himself the full weight of evil, the concentrated calamity of the cosmos, so that its force would be annulled, and the new world would be born.”32 Jesus

29 See Luke 11:20, for example.

30 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 217-218.

31 Wright, Simply Jesus, 185.

32 Ibid., 176.

9 absorbed the cosmic evil into himself and on some level extinguished it through his death. In his resurrection, he is the “firstborn from among the dead” the first fruits of the new creation reality (Col 1:18). As a direct result of these events, Jesus is not just the first of the new human race, he is the King of all (Mt 28:18).

Wright stops somewhat short of fully describing how the crucifixion results specifically in Christ’s coronation. He merely insists that it does.33 One possible explanation that works within Wright’s own theology is that Jesus, acting as man’s representative, succeeded where the first Adam failed. The first Adam was offered a selfish shortcut to dominion. He took it, failing to properly image God, and became enslaved to the powers. Conversely, the last Adam, who was confronted with a similar temptation (Mt 4:9, Lk 23:39), did not yield. Instead, he made the selfless choice to die for all humanity, displaying the majestic character of God.

Consequently, he showed himself to be the rightful King and displaced the usurping powers. It is the self-sacrificing lamb who is worthy to rule (Rev 5:4-13).

Sin, the Powers, and the Cross

Christ inaugurated a new kingdom wherein the citizens would be free from demonic rule. It is not enough for the kingdom to exist, however. People have to be able to enter it. For that to occur, sin had to be forgiven.

Forgiveness of sin and deliverance from demonic bondage are closely linked in scripture.

In Col 2:14-15 Paul tells us that Jesus,

33 In John 12:23 Jesus seems to forecast this reality.

10

having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.34

While the link is not explicit, the logical flow of Paul’s argument is that Jesus has at once canceled humanity’s sin debt and made a mockery of the principalities and powers. The “legal indebtedness” is apparently the leverage the powers used to hold people prisoner. Satan is, after all the “accuser” (Rev 12:10). Because of sin, he appears to have had a legal right to oppress us, but the cross ends that. Beale explains: “The believer’s were forgiven through the weakness of the cross, which vanquished the devilish forces’ powerful grasp over their former unbelieving lives.”35 Craig concurs, “Our liberation from sin and death and hell and our victory over Satan . . . is achieved via a divine pardon procured as a result of Christ’s atoning death.”36 The cross removes the devil’s grounds of accusation, or his legal standing as it were.

Returning to the exodus story, the blood of the lamb causes the death angel to pass over the Israelites’ sin. In the next scene, the tyrant Pharaoh is defeated, and God’s people are released to a new freedom. Many years later, Jesus, the true lamb of God, enacts a New

Exodus through his own blood. Instead of defeating Pharaoh (or Caesar for that matter), Jesus

34 NIV. The NASB, along with other translations, muddies the waters by rendering the last phrase “having triumphed over them through Him.” Beale argues for the NIV’s translation while also concluding that the overall meaning is not largely impacted either way. G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 214.

35 Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 212.

36 William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020), 235. Craig sees penal substitution as the core atonement theory which stems from his belief that man’s sin is the primary problem. For him, the mechanism of Christus Victor is simply the pardon of God. If one agrees with Wright that the specific sin of idolatry is the man’s chief failure, a different locus for the atonement presents itself which will be discussed in the next section.

11 overcame the powers of darkness.37 The motifs run together, and multiple atonement models are in play. What is the connection? Hebrews 2:14-15 is helpful. It reads:

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Jesus bore in Himself the death consequences of sin. He died in our place (penal substitution).

As a result, he defeated the devil (Christus Victor) because the devil is the one who had the power of death.38 The implication is that the devil uses the fear of death to manipulate people and keep them captive. Once it is removed, humans are freed to serve God. No one makes this case more plainly that St. Athanasius, who argued that the proof death has been defeated is that Christ’s followers everywhere are unafraid of death and indeed run towards it with unaccountable courage.39 The early church faced terrible persecution from pagans, and yet they were not forced back into bondage to the idols because they no longer feared death.

Additionally, now that sins have been dealt with, people may freely enter the realm of

God’s dominion (kingdom) and receive the eschatological spirit. Whereas sins formerly estranged people from God (Is 59:2), they are now brought near by the blood of Jesus (Eph

2:13). Believers are a cleansed temple and are able to receive the indwelling Spirit of God (1 Cor

6:19). Consequently, they are able to state with Paul, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is

37 N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters (New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2018), 175.

38 Keeener says the author of Hebrews appears in part to be drawing on the Jewish literary tradition which connects the devil and death. The link is explicit in Wis 2:23-24, but it is also implicit in Gen 3. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 643.

39 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2011), 77.

12 freedom!” (2 Cor 3:17). There is freedom from sin, certainly, but also from the demonic powers which use sins to enslave.

Crucifying the Idols

The cross generates God’s new Kingdom on earth as in heaven. It provides freedom from sin and death, but one issue remains—idolatry. How does the cross overcome the idols?

Specifically, how does the cross deal with devilish deceptions that lead to failure of worship?

Boyd’s magisterial work The Crucifixion of the Warrior God is quite insightful even if one does not accept all the conclusions. His central thesis is that the cross is meant to form the interpretive lens through which we understand God and the Scripture. He calls this the

“cruciform hermeneutic.”40 The idea is that the cross serves as the full and final revelation of

God; and therefore, it must color how everything else in Scripture is read. He contends that

Biblical portraits of God that fall short of the image of God revealed in the crucified Christ must be understood as “accommodations” to the authors’ fallen and culturally conditioned perspectives.41 Evaluating the entirety of Boyd’s argument is beyond the scope of this paper. It really is two arguments. The first is the centrality of the cross as the full revelation of God, the second has to do with interpreting Scripture through that lens. The first is the focus here.

Boyd shows effectively that love is the very essence of who God is and that “the depth of love one has for a beloved can be measured by the sacrifice the lover is willing to make for

40 Boyd, Crucifixion vol 1, 141—171.

41 Ibid., 417-462.

13 the beloved.” Therefore, the cross must be considered the highest revelation of God’s nature because in it “God went to the furthest extreme possible out of love for a race of people who could not have deserved it less . . . God entered into the nightmare of becoming his own antithesis out of love for us.”42 The cross functions in all the ways previously described, but also as a self-revelatory act that militates against idolatrous conceptions of God. In short, it serves as the “permanent crucifixion of the warrior God.”43 Hence, Jesus likens his death to bronze serpent, which had to be destroyed because it became an idol (2 Kings 18:4, John 3:14).

The cross not only reveals God, but it also reveals the devil. Returning to Colossians

2:14-15, it is clear that Paul believes the cross is the devil’s undoing. He sees tremendous irony in how this occurred. Whereas the cross appears to be Jesus’ shame, it is actually the devil’s.

Jesus was naked on the cross, but the powers’ apparent “stripping of Jesus was, ironically, their own stripping.”44 The picture is of a Roman victory parade, wherein their conquered enemies were marched about naked in a display of public humiliation which “typically [ended] in their death.”45 Paul insists this occurred on the cross, not afterwards. How can that be? How can

Jesus’ humiliation be seen as the powers’ own?

The answer hearkens back to the frequently attacked notion that God “tricked” the devil. The earliest proponents of the “ransom view” thought that God gave Jesus to the powers

42 Ibid., 154.

43 Ibid., 552. He means specifically that the cross destroys the image in human hearts of God as an ANE warrior deity. Evaluating whether or not he is correct that specific OT images constitute idolatrous conceptions of God is not the present subject.

44 Beale, Colossians and Philemon., 213.

45 Ibid., 213.

14 of darkness as a ransom which they gladly accepted. To their horror, they discovered they were incapable of keeping Jesus because he possessed the power of an indestructible life.46 This deceptive tactic is frequently seen as beneath God. Modern scholars have presented better versions. Heiser simply suggests that God was deliberately vague in the OT prophesies so the demonic realm would not understand God’s full messianic strategy.47 Boyd is more helpful, concluding that the issue is not really that God tricked the devil. Rather, it is that the devil, being fully evil, is incapable of understanding God’s self-sacrificial nature. Darkness cannot comprehend light (John 1:5). The powers “could not fathom the possibility that the Son of God had become a human out of love for this fallen race of rebels. They only knew that if the Son had, for whatever reason, become mortal . . . he could be killed.”48

Here then, is the heart of the matter. Jesus allowed this “great anti-creation power . . . to do its worst to him.”49 He was brutalized and disfigured, such that he was unrecognizable.

The violence and subjugation of the cross originated not in God’s heart, but in the heart of people and the powers themselves. Understood in this way, Paul’s statement in Colossians makes perfect sense. Jesus was unclothed on the cross. The full beauty of His love and grace was on display as he bore the sin and judgement of the world. At the same time, the powers who put him there overstepped themselves and revealed their depravity. They showed themselves to be base, horrific, self-interested shadows of the real God. In stripping Jesus, they

46 Clark, Destined for the Cross, 52.

47 Heiser, Unseen Realm, 240—248.

48 Boyd, Crucifixion vol 2, 802.

49 Wright, Simply Jesus, 188.

15 made a mockery of themselves. Seen through the eyes of faith, the cross reveals a beautiful

God and a hideous devil.

Wright frequently laments that the Gospels have long been neglected as sources for atonement theology.50 Bailey recognizes this problem as well and uses the story of Jesus at

Simon the Pharisee’s house as an example of how the gospels should inform our understanding of the cross (Luke 7:36-50).51 The three main characters are Jesus, the sinful woman, and

Simon. Simon invites Jesus over and publicly shames him by failing to show the customary hospitality. The woman tries to correct this shame by washing Jesus’ feet and anointing him.

She draws the eyes and judgement of the crowd (including Simon) because she is a sinner.

Jesus defends her actions to Simon, which is a “costly demonstration of unexpected love” that in Bailey’s mind prefigures the cross.52 Jesus’ action of entering into solidarity with a human and suffering on her behalf functions on two levels—it reveals his goodness and love, and it reveals the evil and prejudice in Simon’s heart. Simon invited Jesus over to shame him, not anticipating that Christ’s loving nature would result instead in his exaltation in the eyes of people and Simon’s own diminution. Though Bailey does not draw this connection, it is easy to see Simon as a stand in for the accuser. Satan pushed Jesus to the cross—a means of conferring opprobrium—unaware of the calamitous consequences. On the cross, Jesus entered into full solidarity with human sin and suffering, revealing the glory of the Father. Satan,

50 For example, Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, 171.

51 Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 239-260.

52 Ibid., 257. 16 overplaying his hand, revealed his baseness and folly. His public humiliation occurred precisely on the cross, as Paul specifies, not later.

Ideological Ontology

Given the above, it is clear that Satan’s initial means oppressing people is deception. It is worth considering further how pernicious ideologies lead to bondage and how truth leads to freedom (John 8:32).

One of the more fascinating statements in the Scripture concerning this issue is found in

2 Corinthians 4:4: “In whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

Satan has in some manner blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot understand the gospel and cannot really see who God is.

Paul makes this statement apparently in response to the accusation that his gospel was cryptic and difficult to understand.53 He says that if his message is hard to understand, it is only because people are unbelieving and there is demonic interference. There are two variables: the people themselves, and the “god of this world.” The Western mind immediately wants to ask, “How much blame is to be placed on each variable?”

Part of the problem with this question is that it is a false dichotomy that would not have existed in Paul’s mind or the minds of his readers. To ancient minds, “nothing happened independent of deity. The gods did not ‘intervene’ because that would assume that there was a

53 Ralph P. Martin, Word Biblical Commentary - Volume 40: 2 Corinthians (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), 78.

17 world of events outside of them that they could step in and out of.”54 In other words, the idea of trying to discern whether some event or idea possess a wholly “natural” or “supernatural” provenance is incoherent in their worldview. Heaven and earth interlock and have constant intercourse such that determining exhaustively whether an idea (for example) comes entirely from God, the devil, or people, is impossible.

When Paul says that the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, the implication is that the people who are resisting him possess ideologies that are generated through exchanges with demonic entities. Demons traffic in ideas and concepts as much as they do in more obvious sins. People consent and participate through their agreement. Later in the letter, Paul writes that spiritual warfare consists of “destroying arguments and all arrogance raised against the knowledge of God, and . . . taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). These “arguments” almost seem to possess a life their own in the way that they are “raised against the knowledge of God.” Paul is commenting on his earlier assertion. The god of this world opposes the gospel and makes it seem obscure by teaching people to embrace ways of thinking that are foreign to the knowledge of God. Thus, the means by which Satan blinds people en masse is through false ideologies which appear to possess a kind of spiritual substance.

This perspective is immediately intelligible in light of the broader context of the letter.

The Corinthians were a wealthier community than most of Paul’s churches. They were also fascinated by rhetoric and impressive communicators. Their difficulty with Paul had “to do with style. . . [They] were wanting leaders whose speaking abilities would command social respect.

54 Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 18. 18

They found Paul disappointing.”55 Paul manages to see past the personal offense this caused to a deeper issue. He saw that the Corinthians had an understanding of power and status that was antithetical to the cross. The cross is “a radical redefinition of power.”56 Whereas the

Corinthians defined power in terms of wealth and social standing, the cross reveals the power of God in weakness. Von Balthasar explains beautifully that “the powerlessness of the incarnate and crucified one [is] the shining forth of God's omnipotence.”57 The Corinthians struggled to embrace this definition of power and its messenger who lived a cruciform life. Their struggle was rooted in their prior, demonically inspired conceptions of what it means to be powerful.

Boyd asserts that the cross crucifies demonic conceptions of God. If for God, omnipotence is best expressed through self-sacrifice and weakness, then the cross also crucifies false notions of power. The Corinthians who did accept Paul and his gospel did so by “turning to the Lord” (2 Cor 3:16). That phrase means more than allowing the cross to fully inform our heart level image of God, power, and reality, but it certainly includes that.

Applications

This nuanced Christus Victor perspective provides several pastoral applications. First, in keeping with the understanding that Jesus inaugurated a new Kingdom, Fee exhorts Christian leaders to help “believers recapture the New Testament church’s understanding of itself as an

55 N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 2018) 249.

56 Ibid., 274.

57 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, trans. Aidan Nichols (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2005), 32.

19 eschatological community of faith.”58 He means, among other things, that the church must view itself as a forecast of the future resurrection reality. The church is a microcosm of what will eventually happen when the heavens and earth are fully renewed. Thus, we must understand that deliverance from demonic bondage does not merely entail a private spiritual experience. If people are to be truly free, they must be brought into healthy relationship with the “eschatological community of faith” (i.e. the church). Many people struggle with ongoing bondage, not because they have poor theology or a lack of spiritual experiences, but because they are not connected relationally to other Christians.

Secondly, forgiveness of sins and victory over the powers are inextricable linked.

Therefore, people must first of all receive the atoning work of Jesus and be born again.

Additionally, once they have received Christ’s forgiveness, they must forgive themselves and others. Many individuals suffer horrific torment despite being part of God’s family because they are unable to forgive themselves or someone else.

Finally, believers must draw their image of God entirely from Christ and him crucified (1

Cor 2:2). Anything less is a false image which will release various destructive forces into our lives. Oppressed persons frequently possess deeply held convictions about God, themselves, or the world which are foreign to the cross.

Conclusion

Doubtless much more can be said about Christ’s victory over the demonic powers. It is an objective, mysterious, central feature of which must not be cast aside in

58 Fee, Paul the Spirit, and the People of God, 49. 20 favor of more materialistic readings of Scripture. Jesus believed in demons. He believed he was inaugurating a Kingdom which would result in their dominion being broken. Probing the mechanisms behind these realities is a worthy endeavor, but it must never supplant simple faith in the reality itself. Regardless of the precise method of Christ’s victory, it is clear that he is the preeminent Lord of the universe, who only must be worshipped. If people worship him, instead of themselves, they restore the cosmic temple to its proper order and release the glory of God into the world.

21

Bibliography

Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Translated by John Behr. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2011.

Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Mysterium Paschale. Translated by Aidan Nichols. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2005.

Beale, G. K. Colossians and Philemon (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019.

Boyd, Gregory A. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

———. The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament's Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross. 2. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017.

———. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997.

Clark, Randy. Destined for the Cross: 16 Reasons Jesus Had to Die. Nashville, TN: Emanate Books, 2020.

Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.

Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Heiser, Michael S. Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Martin, Ralph P. Word Biblical Commentary - Volume 40: 2 Corinthians. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. 22

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Wright, N. T. Paul: A Biography. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 2018.

———. Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2018.

———. The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2018.