by suffering the wrath of the Father for past sins. Aulén takes exception to this model, arguing that the incarnation (and also the resurrection) becomes a legal exercise, a piece of a theological equation based on law theories. Aulén goes on to argue that Christus Victor reverses this view by uniting Jesus and His Father during the Crucifixion in a subversive condemnation of the unjust powers of darkness. This is followed by the natural emphasis of Christus Victor: the Father's vindication of Jesus in his victorious and bodily resurrection. Advocates of the satisfaction view do not agree with Aulén's characterization, arguing that the satisfaction model does not, in fact, create opposition between the Father and the Son (there has been less disagreement on the "legal continuity" or emphasis of satisfaction atonement, although J.I. Packer has notably argued for a version of satisfaction theory with less legal emphasis). In their view, the "divine opposition" is only apparent since the Father desires reconciliation with mankind and Jesus willingly offers himself as a penal substitute. By contrast, Christus Victor depicts Christ's sacrifice, not as a legal offering to God in order to placate his justice, but as the decisive moment in a war against the powers of darkness; the law included. Writings of the Church Fathers Aulén points to the writings of Paul and the Church Fathers as examples of early Christianity's view of the Law as an enemy which must be defeated in order for mankind's salvation to be secured. He seeks to demonstrate that the penance systems of satisfaction theory and penal substitution place an undue emphasis on man's obligation to offer payment to God and on God's obligation to Law. Instead by suffering a death that, before the Law, meant an accursed status, Christ, instead of satisfying an obligation, overthrew the power of the Law, since its condemnation of a perfect man was unjust. Furthermore, death, sin, and the Devil (personalized forces in Christus Victor), are overthrown since Jesus' subsequent resurrection breaks the dominion they once held over human life. Since the resurrection is a mark of the Father's favor despite the Law's curse on crucified men, the atonement, far from reinforcing the Law, deprives and subverts the Law of its ability to condemn. Thus God the Father and God the Son are not set at odds by the cross with the first in the role of Judge and the