Derek Flood has written an interesting and compelling article about how the understanding of the Cross has changed from "Christus Victor" to "Vicarious Atonement" over the centuries.

Vicarious Atonement is the idea that Jesus' death on the cross was required by God as payment as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world. This view of God as a blood-thirsty judge who can only be satisfied by a perfect blood sacrifice is a strong contrast to the understanding I have of God as being the essence of Love. This idea was developed around 1000 CE as an alternative to Christus Victor.

Christus Victor is the idea that Jesus showed us how to live lives based on love, and that lives so lived would be able to overcome evil in the world, even beyond death. Christus Victor was seen as too emotional and not rational enough, so the more rational, less emotional legalism of Vicarious Atonement was developed as an explanation for how Jesus' death worked to reconcile us with God, by "paying our fine" so to speak.

It really is a wonderful write up. My thanks to Fred Anderson at Ecunet for the link.