Reconciliation through Jesus Christ? A theological question in context Introduction How is Jesus Christ the cause of reconciliation between God and human beings? Although different scriptural passages point at this relation between Jesus and reconciliation, these passages do not offer systematic treatises that answer this question. For that reason, theologians have always been trying to find an answer to this question. Through the ages of Christianity this has led to a range of different and even contrasting answers, while at the same time the Scripture was the common source for these answers. In theology, the discipline that studies the whole field of Christianity, the answers have been divided into three 'models of reconciliation'. These models are 'the victory model', the satisfaction model' and 'the transformation model'.1 Every model expresses the dominant answer at a certain time and can be connected with a prominent theologian at that particular time. How is it possible that different and even contrasting models have emerged at different times while they all used the Scripture as their source? In order to answer this question the following two steps will be taken. First, the character of the Scripture, as the main source that inspired all theologians, will be taken into consideration. Second, the different models will be examined by considering the context in which they emerged, by describing their basic outline and by looking at the supporting scriptural passages. Based on these findings, in the concluding paragraph an answer will be formulated to the question how it is possible that different models of reconciliation emerged. The Scripture Every model of reconciliation is based on the Scripture. Not only does the Scripture provide the first account on Jesus's life, but it also shows something of the life in the first communities. Because of the difference between these two subjects, the New Testament could be divided into two parts: the four gospels that describe Christ's life on earth and the epistles that were written to the first communities. All four gospels were written by different authors who recounted the importance of the life and death of Jesus Christ in their own way. 2 Theologians therefore speak of 'multiple attestation' in relation to the gospels, which means that the authors of the gospels attested the importance of Jesus life by using different language and by emphasizing different elements.3 The epistles in the New Testament were written by the apostle Paul to address problems and conflicts in the first church communities. Accordingly, these epistles have an occasional character, discussing only the topics which were relevant in certain situations.4 These characteristics point at the diverse and occasional character of the New Testament. Consequently, it is not a coherent treatise on Jesus's life and his meaning for us. As van den Brink and van der Kooi state, the character of the Scripture is more like a 'reservoir' of possibilities that can be used for describing theological subjects.5 When theologians considered the subject of reconciliation, they were inspired by certain scriptural passages to relate Jesus Christ to our reconciliation. However, simply restating these passages was not enough to make reconciliation comprehensible. This could only be accomplished by interpreting and explaining these passages by using suitable terms and images.6 All three models express a different way in which theologians tried to make reconciliation comprehensible. The victory model In the earliest days of Christianity the theologian Irenaeus (c.130-c.200) designed the 'victory model' in order to make reconciliation comprehensible in his context.7 A context characterized by a strong dualistic worldview, which means that people believed in the existence of good and evil powers and their fight against each other with the dominion over human beings at stake.8 Against this background Irenaeus described reconciliation as Christ's victory over the evil powers. Inspiration for this model came from John's gospel where Christ says that the "prince of this world [the devil] will be cast out".9 And from Paul's letter to the Colossians where Paul states that "having made stripped the principalities and the powers, he [Christ ] made show of them openly, triumphing over them in it".10 The basis of this model is that human beings were once created in fellowship with their creator. However, by disobedience to God's commandments human beings sinned and lost their fellowship with God. By sinning and being separated from God as the life-giver, human beings became subject to sin and death and moreover to the lord of sin and death, the devil.11 In order to take away the enmity between Himself and human beings God sent his own Son as a ransom which is paid to the devil for human beings.12 In Christ's death and resurrection the evil powers were defeated and the devil lost his power over mankind which has led to an everlasting harmonious relation between God and the world.13 From this short description it becomes clear that the context of the victory model has had a great influence on this model. In the first place, the idea that God and the devil stand in an opposite position with the dominion over human beings at stake is in line with the dualistic worldview. Further influences from the dualistic worldview are the realistic terms and images that are used to describe the fight between God and the devil. Although the scriptural passages support this model, Irenaeus elaborated this scriptural theme by using terms and images from the dualistic worldview. This makes it clear that it was his context that influenced Irenaeus to design the 'victory model'. The satisfaction model In the Middle Ages it was Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109) who explained reconciliation with his 'satisfaction model'. Typical for the Middle Ages is the penitential system with a strong relation between guilt and punishment or satisfaction.14 Another characteristic feature is the feudal medieval society with its fixed order in which everyone had its rights and duties.15 In this order God occupied the highest place and the whole of mankind was subject to Him. The inspiration for the 'satisfaction model' came from John's gospel where Jesus says that "[o]ne who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won't see life, but the wrath of God remains on Him".16 Another inspiring scriptural passage for Anselm was the letter to the Galatians where Paul states that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law".17 The basic idea of the satisfaction model is that human beings were created by God to honour Him by obeying his commandments.18 Human beings, however, were disobedient to the commandments and did not fulfill their duties. This violation of the fixed order made human beings guilty before God.19 God's perfect righteousness demanded satisfaction of this violation from the side of human beings, which, because of the sinfulness of human beings, could only take the form of a death sentence.20 Jesus Christ broke this impasse by fulfilling all the duties and by voluntary undergoing the death sentence for all human beings.21 This death sentence of one sinless person, Jesus Christ, fulfilled God's demand for satisfaction from human beings and made human beings righteous before God.22 That is how reconciliation between God and human beings has been accomplished. In his 'satisfaction model' Anselm used some typical medieval features to explain reconciliation. First, the fixed order in society and creation forms the basis for this model. Moreover, the violation of this order is the reason why reconciliation was necessary in the first place. Next to that, the penitential system had its influence on this model with God's perfect righteousness that must be satisfied. The possibility of someone who is punished for others further points at the strong relationship between guilt and punishment, because guilt is regarded as an isolated item that could be removed by the acts of others. The scriptural passages point at the wrath of God and the curse on human beings from which they are released by Jesus Christ. The 'satisfaction model' elaborates this scriptural theme by using typical medieval features. It is therefore plausible that it was again the context that led to the emergence of this model, providing terms and images that were suitable for Anselm to explain reconciliation in this way. The transformation model The transformation model was designed in the Middle Ages in opposition to the 'satisfaction model', but it never gained much influence then.23 It was during the Enlightenment and the nineteenth century that the 'transformation model' replaced the 'satisfaction model' as the dominant explanation of reconciliation.24 The Enlightenment had some typical features. As the theologian G. Aulén states, "it was an axiom of the enlightenment that God's attitude to the world must (...) be one of benevolence and goodwill".25 Furthermore, the human being became the central orientation point, which gave rise to anthropocentrism and moralism.26 The transformation model remained dominant in the nineteenth century with Albert Ritschl (1822-1889) as its advocate.27 An added characteristic of the nineteenth century was the Romantic ideal of living in harmony with the whole world.28 The scriptural passage that inspired this model was the letter to the Corinthians where Paul writes "[w]e beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled with God".29 The core of the 'transformation model' is that Christ was a teacher and example of God's sacrificial love for others.30 In encounter with this love people were changed and started to act in a lovely way towards God and each other because their hearts were filled with love.31 Christ's death was only a 'a seal' upon his life or a crime committed by the Jews.32 In the Enlightenment theologians stressed the humanity of the 'transformation model' with sin only as a state of imperfectness of human beings.33 Consequently, satisfaction for sins is no longer necessary but it is man's turn to God that brings reconciliation. 34 Ritschl focussed on the faithfulness of human beings that resulted in a new relationship towards God. This relationship effects a new relationship to the world as well, which Aulén characterizes by "self-realisation and mastery of the world".35 In the 'transformation model' reconciliation has not been accomplished once and for all, but needs to be accomplished by each and everyone individually. The transformation model stands in opposition to the satisfaction model. It is not Christ's death that is the basis of reconciliation; rather, it is the attitude of human beings that accomplishes reconciliation. This model especially aligns with the context of the enlightenment and the nineteenth century. In the first place the idea that satisfaction is not necessary and the sacrificial love of Christ reflect the view that God has a positive attitude towards the world. Second, the anthropocentrism is evident from the idea that it is the turn of human beings towards God that brings reconciliation. Finally the relationship towards the world as one of 'self-realisation' and 'mastery' of the world reflects the ideal of human beings in harmony with the world. With the scriptural passage only as a weak foundation for this model, it was clear that the 'transformation model' was much influenced by the context of the Enlightenment and the nineteenth century. Conclusion Every model of reconciliation is clearly influenced by its context. Because of the diverse and occasional character of the Scripture, restating scriptural passages has never been enough to explain reconciliation. Theologians had to find suitable terms and images that aligned their context to explain reconciliation. While the Scripture has the character of a reservoir, different models could be supported by scriptural passages. The conclusion may be drawn that the emergence of different models from the same source is possible, because every model aligns with its context to explain reconciliation and the source provides the possibilities for supporting different models. Theologians today should not choose one of these models to explain reconciliation. On the contrary, these models are additions to the reservoir from which theologians today have all the possibilities to formulate a new answer that aligns our context. List of references * Aulén, G., Christus Victor. An historical study of the three main types of atonement, London 1931 * Beek, A. van de, Jesus Kyrios. Christology as Heart of Theology¸ Supplies in Reformed Theology supplements vol. 1, Zoetermeer 2002 * Berkhof, H., Christelijk geloof, Kampen, 20079 * Brink, G. van den & Kooi, C. van der, Christelijke dogmatiek. Een inleiding¸ Zoetermeer 2012 * Ehrman, B.D., The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford 2008 * Zwiep, A.W., Tussen tekst en lezer I. Een historische inleiding in de bijbelse hermeneutiek, Amsterdam 2010 1 G. van den Brink & C. van der Kooi, Christelijke dogmatiek. Een inleiding¸ Zoetermeer 2012, 413 2 B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford 2008, 72 3 A van de Beek, Jesus Kyrios. Christology as Heart of Theology¸ Supplies in Reformed Theology supplements vol. 1, Zoetermeer 2002, 117 4 The New Testament, 2008, 296-297 5 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 407 6 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 406 7 G. Aulén, Christus Victor. An historical study of the three main types of atonement, London 1931, 143 8 H. Berkhof, Christelijk geloof, Kampen, 20079, 197-198; Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 414 9 John 12:31. All Biblical passages in this essay are quoted from the World English Bible, 2002 10 Colossians 2:15 11 Christus Victor, 1931, 25-26 12 Christus Victor, 1931, 24, 28 13 Christus Victor, 1931, 32 14 Christus Victor, 1931, 92 15 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 421 16 John 3:36 17 Galatians 3:13 18 Jesus Kyrios, 2002 204 19 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 421 20 Jesus Kyrios, 2002 206; a 86; Christus Victor, 1931, 86; Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 421 21 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 421 22 Christus Victor, 1931, 90; Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 421 23 Jesus Kyrios, 2002 210 24 Christus Victor, 1931, 97; 134 25 Christus Victor, 1931, 135 26 Zwiep, A.W., Tussen tekst en lezer I. Een historische inleiding in de bijbelse hermeneutiek, Amsterdam 2010, 337; Christus Victor, 1931, 135 27 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 426 28 Christus Victor, 1931, 135 29 2 Corinthians 5:20 30 Christus Victor, 1931, 96 31 Christelijke dogmatiek, 2012, 425 32 Christus Victor, 1931, 134 33 Christus Victor, 1931, 134 34 Christus Victor, 1931, 135 35 Christus Victor, 1931, 138