T(r)oy's Marbles

The classic idea
First, the classic idea. To get at this idea more completely, I’d like to take “a step back” from your question and pose it another way. You wondered (and I am now, admittedly, putting it “crudely” for sake of clarity, so please don’t be taken aback): “Why couldn’t God have just ‘snapped His fingers’ and said, ‘You’re forgiven’? I mean, He has it in His power to forgive, doesn’t He? Why do Christians say Jesus had to die to deliver God’s forgiveness?” Fair enough. Good observation. And here’s another...

Why, then did God have to become Man at all? I mean, if God could do whatever He wanted, if He could simply pronounce our forgiveness “from on high”, as it were, why did He bother moving into the earth’s slums and ghettos? Why did He have to trouble himself with putting on mortality, when He could have, thank-you-very-much, remained robed in majesty? In other words (and now we are putting the question more “classically”): “Why did God even become Man in the first place?” The specific Latin phrase that has been used--at least from the middle of the second century--to get at this idea is “Cur Deus Homo?” (literally, “Why did God become Man?”). A Christian of the second century named Irenaeus put the question this way: “Ut quid enim descendebat?” (literally, “For what purpose did Christ come down from heaven?”). Aulen says that the answer to this question will be “the key” to understanding the classic idea of the atonement. (Aulen, 18)

The ancient church was primarily concerned with Christ’s humanity and viewed the death of Jesus in the light of the humanity of Jesus. That is to say, a significant piece of our atonement was accomplished simply in Jesus’ birth (also referred to as the incarnation). Our early church fathers explained it this way:

Augustine: “God was made man, so that by following a man, which you can do, you may arrive at God, which you could not do.”

Athanasius: “For as the Lord became man by putting on the body, so we men are deified by the Word…”

Irenaeus: “…we could not otherwise attain to incorruption and immortality except we had been united with incorruption and immortality.”

Commenting on this, Aulen paraphrases Irenaeus with these words: “Christ became man that we might be made divine.” Aulen goes on to note of the “classic idea” that it is, then, “a theology primarily of the Incarnation…” (Aulen, 18)

With that as a foundation, let’s now dig deeper into the classic idea of the atonement.

Irenaeus (whom we shall now look to as our chief representative of the “classic” idea) poses the “Cur Deus Homo?” question again and answers it this way: “That He might destroy sin, overcome death, and give life to man.”

Keeping that in mind, let’s add another of Irenaeus’ quotes. He explains in another passage how we are “given life” with these words: “Man had been created by God that he might have life. If now, having lost life, and having been harmed by the serpent, he were not to return to life, but were to be wholly abandoned to death, then God would have been defeated, and the malice of the serpent would have overcome God’s will. But since God is both invincible and magnanimous, he showed His magnanimity in correcting man, and in proving all men, as we have said; but through the Second Man He bound the strong one, and spoiled his goods, and annihilated death, bringing life to man who had become subject to death. For Adam had become the devil’s possession, and the devil held him under his power, by having wrongfully practiced deceit upon him, and by the offer of immortality made him subject to death. For by promising that they should be as gods, which did not lie in his power, he worked death in them. Wherefore he who had taken man captive was himself taken captive by God, and man who had been taken captive was set free from the bondage of condemnation.” (emphasis added)

Aulen has an excellent, more intelligible, summary of that last quote. He says: “The main idea is clear. The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” (Aulen, 20; emphasis added.)

Now, keep that in mind: the ancient way of thinking regarding how God reconciled humanity to Himself (that is, the classic idea of the atonement) contains primarily the idea that God wins a victory over the devil. In doing as such, mankind is set free from our bondage to the adverse powers. Having been set free from our bondage to the adverse powers, we are now free to love and serve our Maker. Thus, we are reconciled to God. Our atonement is complete.

Do you see how different this is than the idea that our reconciliation is primarily effected through Jesus’ death on the cross, thus granting our forgiveness?

I'll let you think about that for a day, and then tomorrow we'll dig a little deeper into the classic idea, discussing where the death of Christ comes into play within that paradigm.

Until then, God bless.