Below is a paper I (Susan) wrote, for a Medieval Theology class, on two 11th/12th century theologians’ different views of the Atonement. Both perspectives have been influential in forming the way we currently think about the meaning of the cross and yet have often been misunderstood. During Holy Week, as we ponder Jesus’ work on the cross, I thought I would post this as a reminder of the ancient path in which we walk and to encourage us to think about the cross in fresh and culturally translatable ways.
In this essay, based upon the reading of medieval theologians, Anselm of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo and Peter Abelard in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, we will consider two distinctive theories that elaborate the message of the “good news” of the gospel narrative. Specifically, we will seek to understand, through Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and Abelard’s theory of Divine Love, two unique answers to the question, “What did God do for us in Christ, and why did God do it in this way?” As we view Jesus’ work on the cross from two different perspectives, may we understand and experience more fully, how high, how broad and how deep is the love that God has for us in Christ Jesus. [1}
Anselm amplifies the title of his book, Why God Became Man (translated from the Latin, Cur Deus Homo) by posing this question, “For what reason or necessity did God become man and, as we believe and confess, by his death restore life to the world, when he could have done this through another person (angelic or human), or even by a sheer act of will” (101)? It is upon this question that the rest of his work ponders.
In Anselm’s telling of the gospel story, he affirms that our first parents were created rational and just so that they could enjoy God and be blessed by him eternally[2] (100,112). Because of who God is, Anselm asserts, “Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God” (119). This state of bliss was disrupted, however, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden by following Satan’s advice to eat the forbidden fruit. Now there is a problem and it is here, in Anselm’s definition of sin, how it is to be repaid, and what that repayment means, that he respectfully parts ways with the Ransom theory of Augustine and the Patristic Fathers (108--110). Anselm is uncomfortable with the idea that God could not use power over Satan because of notions of justice being on the side of Satan, or due to the so-called rights of Satan. He understands Satan to be unjust in his torment of humans regardless of the fact that human kind should justly be punished. For Anselm, both Satan and humans are created beings and both are thieves, having stolen from God what is rightly his, and as such neither are outside of God’s ownership or power. Out of necessity, God does not use power to cancel humanity’s debt choosing rather that the God-Man should willingly pay for the debt of sin.
This concept of necessity used by Anselm does not mean that God, by some external force or rule is coerced into acting or not acting in certain ways. “Rather every necessity and impossibility is subject to his will, while his will is subject to no necessity or impossibility (172). Nothing is impossible for God, but God always acts in accordance with his will and his will is in alignment with, and steadfastly true to, his unchangeable character. Thus it can be said that for Anselm to speak of necessity in relation to God is to speak of God’s self consistency. Therefore the necessity to act or not to act is in or on behalf of something else. “For example, when we say that it is necessary for God always to speak the truth, and necessary for him never to lie, we are simply saying that in him there is such great consistency in maintaining the truth, that of necessity nothing can have the power to make him either not speak the truth or lie” (173). If this logic is lost on the reader, ultimately, Anselm writes, “...God can do what human reason cannot comprehend” (175).
Anselm wants to keep the locus of attention on God’s honor and the necessity to defend it, by describing sin in this way: “One who does not render...honor to God takes away from God what belongs to him, and dishonors God, and to do this is to sin” (119). He then introduces the concept of satisfaction for sin by asserting that, “Either the honor that was taken away must be repaid or punishment must follow” (122). Divine justice demands appropriate restitution or punishment (as per the OT code, repayment consists of more than was originally taken). Sin cannot be overlooked, partially repaid, or merely forgiven for this would not uphold God’s honor. Additionally, it would not be fitting to elevate sinful humans to immortality (thereby replacing the fallen angels) to live side by side with the good angels who have not sinned without appropriate satisfaction being made to God.
Anselm makes a case here that humankind’s actions affect the divine order of things. The sin of humanity cannot be walled off or isolated and quietly forgiven while all of heaven is required to live by another code. God’s honor is not merely about his reputation but about his eternally consistent character and ways. Humans took away from God what he had planned to make out of human nature and repayment must be made so that God’s eternal purposes may be accomplished. While Anselm’s concept of honor is rooted in the social code of the feudal society of his day, it would seem that in other honor/shamed based societies (such as traditional West African society) that these concepts might be readily grasped and culturally appropriate even today.
Anselm believes that God does not owe the devil but rather man owes God. Who is eligible to pay the huge debt of honor owing to God by humanity past and present? Is a human eligible for this task? As Anselm puts it, “a sinner cannot justify a sinner” (118). And what of the angels--are they able to satisfy divine justice on behalf of humankind? No, insists Anselm, it would not be fitting for a good angel -- or even a sinless human (were God to create one) to make satisfaction, as this would make humankind the servant of someone other than God. God’s eternal purpose in creating humans was that they would love and serve him, not the angels or any created being!
Only a perfect life offered without sin can cancel the cumulative sin of humankind over the millennia. Only a human should atone for the sin of other humans but only God can. Thus only a God-Man is eligible and capable to make satisfaction by which humans can be saved and human nature realigned with the divine purpose. (150). Jesus, the God-Man, made willing payment on behalf of all humanity. In so doing divine justice and divine mercy are brought together in the perfect God and the perfect man and atonement was made once and for all: “His death has such power that its effect reaches even to those who lived in another place or at another time” (168). God is always true to God’s character and God’s eternal purposes. Because of this, it is now possible for humanity to achieve the state of eternal blessedness that they were created by God to enjoy and this is indeed good news!
Peter Abelard also acknowledges the problem of human sin by way of referencing Romans 3:23, but he has a completely different view of both the severity of the problem and the reason for the remedy. Abelard does not elaborate on the meaning of sin in such a way as to indicate exactly what sin is or to assign it a particularly grave weight. He does say that, “...as a matter of obligation” humanity needs to glorify the Lord (278). One could extrapolate from this then that sin is either a lack of glorifying the Lord or the opposite of glorifying the Lord. Abelard keeps his focus on what humankind needs (love) more than on the specific problem or dire necessity that would cause God to leave heaven and unite himself with man and die a horrific death on the cross. Further, when referencing justice/righteousness and even occasionally God’s grace in the text, he indicates that what Paul really meant to say was love (279).
According to Abelard our redemption through Christ produces a “deeper affection” for God, which in turn frees us from bondage to sin and “wins for us the true liberty of sons of God so that we may do all things out of love rather than fear...” (284). By inference then, the problem of humankind, according to Abelard, is that we do not know how to love God or at least not in the appropriate fashion or measure. Abelard strongly disagrees with both St. Augustine and the Ransom theory and with Anselm’s Satisfaction theory. In Abelard’s telling of the story the cross shows God’s love, but there is not an objective effect such as a ransom paid to the devil or repayment of debt to God.
What was the purpose of what Christ did for Abelard? By clothing himself in human flesh, and coming to live among us, Jesus taught us in word and deed, and through his death, about love. In this way, Jesus has “bound us” to himself in a way that we could never have understood or experienced if he had not lived and died among us (283). In a way one gets the sense that the incarnation was the highpoint for Abelard as opposed to the cross, in terms of salvation. This amazing demonstration of love for humankind inspires an equally loving response and motivation and thus ability in humans to be more like the God they see revealed in Jesus Christ.
Clearly Abelard is more comfortable talking about God’s love than God’s justice. While there is no way to know for sure, one could speculate that Abelard’s theology is intimately connected with his personal story. Abelard experienced much pain and trauma in his life. Consider the illicit love affair with his student, Heloise which, once discovered, resulted in the loss of relationship and estrangement from both lover and their child. This affair culminated in a violent castration by a band of thugs hired by her uncle and was followed by loss of reputation and career opportunity in the Church hierarchy. All of this must have impacted Abelard in a profound and lasting way. One can muse that these tragic events affected the ways in which he thought about and understood sin, forgiveness, and the love of God for those that fall far short of God’s standards. Those that know they have been forgiven much can experience a depth of love and gratitude not known to those that are unaware of exactly how much they need Jesus. We know that God promises to be close to the brokenhearted in ways that must be tangible to the individual. It is possible that in the darkest nights of his soul, Abelard received such comfort, such grace and such love from his Lord, that God’s love filled his vision to the exclusion of God’s justice, righteousness and holiness.
The “Good News” according to Abelard is that Jesus by his life and death broke in to the prison of human sin. By demonstrating another way to live and by both loving and inspiring love, Jesus gives humankind hope and freedom through his own dear life. By faith in Jesus humans can now, “do all things out of love rather than fear (284).
In a survey of these two theologians, we have seen that both firmly reject the Ransom theory of Augustine and the Church Fathers. The essence of Anselm’s concern is the upholding of God’s honor and the eternal consistency of his character so that he
describes the work of Christ as payment of a debt directly to God. This in turn allows God’s eternal purpose--to bless human kind forever--to go forward. Abelard, on the hand, did not appreciate this view, perhaps because he did not see the impetus in Anselm’s theory that would help humans to live in ways that God wants. As a consequence he defines Jesus’ work on the cross as pure love rather than a debt paid to God or a ransom being owed to the Devil. Ultimately, we need Anselm, Abelard and Augustine at the table, for in each of their views lies an aspect of what God did for us in Christ Jesus.
Endnotes
[1} This phrase is a cross between a portion of Ephesians 3:18 and a 15th century hymn attributed to Thomas a Kempis, “O Love How Deep.”
[2] “...blessedness is a condition of sufficiency in which nothing is lacking” (142-143).
Source:
Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (“Why God Became Man”), pp. 100-183 in Eugene Fairweather, ed., A Scholastic Miscellany.
Peter Abelard, “Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (3:19-26),” pp.276-284 in Eugene Fairweather, ed., A Scholastic Miscellany.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
