The Cross is the climax of the Gospel. It is a deep, reverberating shift in history–both for human history and the history of all creation. What happens on the Cross cannot–must not–be reduced down to a single theory.

One of my biggest beefs with some Christians is that they “boil down” Christianity to just the Cross…and then boil down the Cross to a combination of the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement (the idea that Jesus received the punishment we deserved) and the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement (the idea that God’s honor or sense of justice demanded some sort of payment for sin). Thankfully, not all conservative evangelical protestants put all their eggs in that conceptual basket. But the over-emphasis troubles me. The biblical narrative is simply richer than that.

We need to have a robust understanding of the Gospel that includes the Incarnation and Easter and Pentecost as essential components in our understanding of the Gospel. And within the grand narrative of the Gospel, we must have a textured, multi-faceted view of the Atonement. If we can accomplish that much as evangelicals, then I wouldn’t be so concerned about including the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement as it is currently understood among most evangelicals.

Nevertheless, I do have problems with the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement (and its oft-accompanying Satisfaction theory). For those that place this view front and center, the most important truth about Christianity is that the God-man Jesus came as the perfect sacrifice to take our place in receiving God’s punitive wrath.

I disagree. I don’t think the most important thing about the Cross is that it saves us from God. I think the most important thing about the Cross is that it saves us from ourselves. In this, I basically agree with N.T. Wright, that the best starting point is the Christus Victor view of the Atonement. This view basically says that the work of Christ is, first and foremost, a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.

There is a lot going for this view. It gives the other parts of the Gospel a valuable role. The Incarnation isn’t simply a preamble to the cross, it is now God, in Jesus, embracing the human condition in order to ultimately liberate it. And Easter becomes a triumph rather than simply Divine proof that Jesus was a pleasing sacrifice. Indeed, even Pentecost is seen as an important part of the Gospel in that through the Spirit the victory of God becomes a tangible reality as the Church is transformed into a just society.

If we make our way to the Cross through the teachings of Jesus first, we would be tempted to see the Cross as not simply an appeasement to God for our sins (which I think is an overly simplified reading of Old Testament sacrifice language), but the Ultimate Turning of the Cheek. In other words, Jesus takes upon himself the brokenness, sinfulness and wretchedness of humankind upon the Cross. Even more so, Jesus takes upon himself the corruption of all of Creation itself, including the full assault of every demonic, dark, force. On the Cross, Jesus defeats sin (Romans 6:6), death, Satan, and the Fallen Powers (Col 2:15). And on the Cross, old divisions are executed (Eph 2:15, Col 1:20). And thus the Cross is the death of the old creation, and opens the way for the birthing of the new.

I’m not satisfied with the assumptions behind the penal view–the main assumption being that the Big Problem which the Cross addresses is God’s wrath. It is God’s wrath that is the problem, and the solution is to have Jesus become the perfect substitutionary object of God’s wrath. In this view, God is taking out his anger on God.

Instead, the Christus Victor model starts with the assumption that the Big Problem is fallen-ness, corruption, sin, and evil. And here the solution is to have God, in Jesus, embracing the dark places of creation in order to transform it. In this view, God is embracing his creation and, in effect, sowing the seeds for the redemption of the Universe.

But Mark, you might ask, what do we do with verses like these?

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:9-11)

These passages (and some others in the Pauline Canon in particular) certainly suggest that the Atonement is a punishment laid upon Christ to spare us from God’s wrath. And, for sake of argument, I were to take the standard satisfaction/penal view of the atonement from these verses (and the few others like it), I would still maintain that this shouldn’t be the dominant lens through which we understand the Atonement.

I’m not sure it is either helpful or accurate to equate God’s wrath with some sort of burning emotional anger. God isn’t deeply pissed off here, in my opinion. He isn’t Zeus–throwing lightning from Olympus at those who draw his ire.

When I look at Romans 1, I see God’s wrath being equated with a “giving over.” And so, the wrath being poured out upon Christ isn’t God’s hot anger. Instead, it seems to me, that God is allowing the full weight of human sin and corruption to come to Jesus. Jesus is taking upon himself our sin, our death, our shame. He is our substitution. And, in a sense, he is receiving our punishment. But that punishment isn’t the wrath of God in a punitive, angry, my-honor-must-be-satisfied sense. No. The punishment Christ receives is the full consequences of a sinful humanity.

And so, in summary, I believe that the Cross is first, and foremost, a Triumph over those ills which plague creation. Jesus isn’t simply our substitution in some legal sense–as which he receives the angry Justice of our God. No, he is instead the very God who comes to us, takes upon himself the full scope of our humanity. In Jesus, God embraces brokenness, sin, death, demonic oppression, and shame in full, and triumphs. And it is therefore, through the transformative work of God in Jesus that we can know God.

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.