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 Theology 2 By Max Cornell May 2021 1 Introduction The crucifixion of Jesus 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 atonement?” Various answers have been given at varying times, from the ransom theory to the satisfaction theory to the penal substitution 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 Gustaf Aulén, 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 evil 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, Satan 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 sin, 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 slavery 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 Adam and Eve’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.