All too often in theology, different concepts or aspects of an idea are pitted against one another, as if they could not be mutually compatible. One area that this is prone to occur is when discussing the atonement. The English word ‘atonement’ derives comes from the phrase, ‘At-One-Ment,’ with reference to reconciling parties that were formerly at odds.1
Hence, within Christian theology, atonement is about how Christ has restored the relationship between God and humanity, and the effects that this has had for every area of reality. Already, with such a construal, we can see that there are aspects of atonement which could receive particular emphasis, without entailing any insignificance to other aspects.
Competing Theories or Complementary Aspects?
However, in recent years, there has been a growing movement which has sought to pit one aspect of the atonement against another. This is typically framed as placing one theory of atonement against a competing theory. Nowhere has this movement been more prevalent than in the growing attempt to pit Christus Victor against penal substitution.
When set up as competing theories of the atonement, the framing of a choice of one or the other seems natural and necessary. Yet, when approached from the angle of considering complementary aspects of the atonement, the rejection of one in favor of the other is no longer required.
Of course, it is critical to understand that there are definitely times to structure theological debates in ‘either/or’ terms. Christ either is, or is not, fully human and fully divine. Jesus either is, or is not, coming back again. Jesus Christ either is, or is not, the only way to God. The point of this article is not to water-down the importance of making clear theological distinctions. Rather, it is to demonstrate how there are many areas of theology that are complementary rather than competitive.
Within various Christian traditions, there has been difficulty upholding an appropriate balance that gives attention to the Bible’s entire teaching on a subject. Some, rightly recognizing the importance of a given aspect, can fall into the error of making that aspect the only one, even if it is the most important one. Others, rightly recognizing that many doctrines have many angels, can make the opposite error of advocating that no aspect holds supremacy. Theologian and pastor, Jeremy Treat, puts it like this:
The history of Christian theology demonstrates the difficulty of upholding the breadth of the ‘whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27) and giving special attention to the particulars that are ‘of first importance’ (1 Cor 15:3). Unfortunately, one often comes at the expense of the other, resulting in either reductionism (particularity without breadth) or relativism (breadth without particularity).2
With our theology, we must be diligent to avoid both errors. While giving appropriate attention to the entirety of Scripture’s teaching, we must also pay heed to the proper order of importance.
Christus Victor and Penal Substitution Defined
With these reminders, when thinking through the atonement, it is important to understand what the two major aspects of Christus Victor and penal substitution address. Beginning with Christus Victor, this part of atonement is primarily focused on the effects of what Christ accomplished. It places a particular emphasis on his defeat over Satan and the implications for the world. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), who has been cast out of the heavenly court where he used to be able to accuse the people of God (Luke 10:17-20; Rev. 12:9).3
When we think about the atonement, how often do we think of the defeat of the devil? Christus Victor reminds us of the victory of the Lamb and the crushing of the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). It calls us to carry on the war against the already defeated, but still dangerous, enemy (Rom. 16:20; I Peter 5:8), as we are used as agents and ambassadors to further the spread of the kingdom of God until it is fully consummated.
Penal substitution is focused on the means of this victory. How did Jesus conquer Satan? He did it through the cross, which paid the penalty for sin, reconciled sinners to God, and ushered them into the kingdom of God.
Prior to the coming of Christ, we were bound to Satan, sin, and death. If Christ had merely won victory against all his enemies—and we were still in our sins—we ourselves would be doomed. Again, as Treat says, “If our sins have not been dealt with, the coming of God’s kingdom is not good news. Christ’s victory over Satan, demons, and death is a glorious accomplishment, but if our sins have not been atoned for, we remain under God’s wrath and outside the kingdom.”4
What we needed was not only victory, but also shalom (peace with God). Before the cross, we were dead in our trespasses and sins… and “without hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:1, 12). How were we to find that peace? What means would be necessary? For, “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22).
Surely, there must be blood. Surely, the wages of sin being death (Romans 6:33), there must be death. And thus, “while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). “The just for the unjust” (I Peter 3:18). “[God] made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” (II Cor. 5:21). Indeed, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). This is the how of atonement. Christ bears the penalty for sinners, suffering in their place, and setting them free from the bondage of Satan, sin, and death.
As Treat summaries:
The basic point is that penal substitution and Christus Victor are doing different things in the explanation of the cross. Penal substitution explains the means of victory—or how Christ’s suffering disarms Satan—and is usually depicted in cultic and/or forensic terms. Christus Victor explains the effect of Christ’s accomplishment on Satan and his dominion over sinners. These two aspects of the atonement need not compete, for they are explanations of different (yet inseparable) aspects of Christ’s work.5
Christus Victor Through Penal Substitution
What should be clear at this point is that there is no need to pit Christus Victor against penal substitution. Nor ought we to simply acknowledge them both, but treat them as if they had no relation to each other. Rather, we should see that Christus Victor is accomplished through penal substitution. Our understanding of the atonement is lacking its necessary breadth if we neglect either of these aspects, or, if we fail to understand the way in which they relate. One more time, Treat states it well:
The atoning work of Christ is grand and glorious; its accomplishment is as wide-reaching as the sin to which it provides a remedy. The various images presented in Scripture, along with nearly two thousand years of the church’s reflection on their significance, make clear that one can never exhaust the fullness of this many-splendored work. Anything less than an expansive account of the atonement falls short of Scripture’s presentation of the glory of God in the cross of Christ.6
We rightly glory in all that Christ has accomplished through his victory on the cross. We rightly rejoice at the abating of God’s wrath through Jesus’s substitutionary death. We rightly celebrate the defeat of Satan and the conquering of the Lamb over all his enemies. What God has joined together, let no man separate. What Christ has accomplished, let no man fail to appreciate.
Notes
- Jeremy R. Treat, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology ( Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 45
- Ibid. 185
- Ibid. 189, 211
- Ibid. 225
- Ibid. 208
- Ibid. 185
Photo by David Bumgardner on Unsplash
Further Reading
Moore Thinking 
Leave a comment