Blog

ABSTRACT: This was a paper I wrote a few of years ago under the title: ‘Evaluate Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory of Atonement’. It is an analysis of his famous book Why God Became Man. Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 until his death in 1109 and is one of the most important medieval thinkers and theologians next to Thomas Aquinas. The books importance is not just because of his explanation of the incarnation, but of his ‘theory’ of the atonement which laid the foundations for future Reformers to spell out penal substitutionary sacrifice. The genius of Anselm is to show how the question of the incarnation is answered in the atonement – the question of Jesus’ birth is answered at the cross. This if you like, is a critical analysis of his famous work.

INTRODUCTION

This essay will contend that although there are some significant weaknesses to Anselm’s ‘Satisfaction Theory’ of the atonement, these weaknesses can either be reworked or rejected and do not prevent the strength of Anselm’s work to be dismissed. This is because Anselm was happy to subject his work to a higher authority, which means the ‘satisfactory theory’ can be refined and rejected by Scripture. Furthermore, the theory of satisfaction itself is of extreme importance in the development of our understanding of the atonement. These are for three main reasons – its relationship to the incarnation; its relationship to the Trinity; and its relationship to sin.

Before looking at these three strengths, this essay will endeavour to do three things: outline a short summary of the theory, putting it in context; briefly argue because of this context we cannot reduce Anselm’s work down to one simple theory; identify the key weaknesses to the theory, and offer ways round them.

SUMMARY

Anselm’s ‘Satisfaction Theory’ is contained in his short book Why God Became Man. The book itself is split into two books – the first seeks to answer objections from unbelievers who reject the incarnation and the second book seeks to prove ‘by necessary reasons…that it is impossible for any man to be saved without’ Christ.[1] Any evaluation of the theory has to take this in to account, as Anselm did not intend to write a systematic theology of the atonement, but also helps us understand why its relation to the incarnation is one of the theory’s strengths. Anselm uses a conversation between his monk Boso as a means of writing the book,[2] and is driven by clear reasoning and logic, although he’s happy to be proved wrong by a higher authority. He writes:

I want everything I say to be taken on these terms: that if I say anything that a greater authority does not support, even though I seem to prove it by reason, it is not to be treated as more certain than is warranted.[3]

Anselm allowed his work to be weighed and tested, which means any evaluation of his theory can be legitimately reworked as it is evaluated in line with Scripture. Of course, we don’t need Anselm’s permission to refine his theory via Scripture, but his consent does indicate an element of ‘fluidity’ to the ‘satisfactory theory’; he may not have intended it to be static. So, although it’s not the final say on the atonement, even its weaknesses can be refined to help us understand his argument better.

The theory of satisfaction begins properly in Chapter XI when we get a definition of sin which is ‘not to render his due to God…every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…this is the debt which angels and men owe to God. No one who pays it sins; everyone who does not pay it sins’.[4] The nature of sin is to dishonour God and so mankind owes God ‘some kind of restitution…’ This is where sin and satisfaction are linked because ‘everyone who sins must repay to God the honour that he has taken away, and this is the satisfaction that every sinner ought to make to God’.[5]

Therefore, ‘either the honour that was taken away must be repaid or punishment must follow. Otherwise, God will either be unjust to himself or powerless to accomplish either’.[6] Or to put it another way, ‘every sin is necessarily followed either by satisfaction or by punishment’.[7]

After a digression about mankind making up the number of fallen angels they return ‘back to the point from which we digressed’ in Chapter XIX. And here we return to the fact that ‘man cannot be saved without satisfaction for sin’.[8] Anselm gives the most succinct summary of satisfaction when he states, ‘without satisfaction, that is, without the willing payment of man’s debt, God cannot remit sin unpunished’.[9] Satisfaction for sin is key to man’s salvation, and it happens when someone makes payment for man’s debt of dishonouring God. But the problem is, mankind cannot make it. Only the God-man, Jesus can.[10] And the reward he gives to humanity is reconciliation and forgiveness for any that come to him.[11] ‘For man could be reconciled only by a Man-God who could die’.[12]

Even a brief summary of his theory highlights it is set within the context of a book that seeks to answer specific questions and has limited goals. It is also helpful to realise ‘Anselm does not put all of his eggs in the basket of satisfaction’.[13] Jeremy Treat warns against simple reductionism and points out that:

Anselm’s multifaceted view of sin called for a multifaceted atonement, which, beyond satisfying the honour of God, restored the goodness of all creation. In his Cur Deus Homo, Anselm speaks of the cross as Christ’s demonstration of love, recapitulation, and victory over evil – all before even mentioning satisfaction.[14]

Added to this, we can also see Christ’s example in the atonement,[15] which should make us think twice before pitting Anselm and Aberlard against each other.[16]

WEAKNESSES

With this in mind, we are now ready to evaluate the weaknesses in Anselm’s ‘satisfaction theory’. Three main areas will be discussed: the dichotomy between satisfaction and punishment; the concept of honour in a feudal society; and his discussion regarding mankind making up the fallen angels.

i: No “Penal” in Substitution…

One of the biggest weaknesses in the ‘satisfactory theory’ is how Anselm pits satisfaction and punishment against each other. Two explicit examples of this are found when we read:

‘Either the honour that was taken away must be repaid or punishment must follow’.[17]

‘Every sin is necessarily followed either by satisfaction or by punishment’.[18]

The assumption is that mankind is punished, but Jesus is not. Although Anselm is correct in asserting mankind deserves to be punished, this position weakens the concept of satisfaction. Anselm stresses it is the death of the sinless life of the God-man which is the payment that satisfies,[19] because he ‘paid for sinners what he did not owe for himself’.[20] The biblical data would agree with Anselm here – Jesus is our redemption,[21] is sinless,[22] and by his blood ransomed us.[23] We ‘were bought with a price’,[24] and Anselm is correct in stating Jesus died for us.[25] He gave ‘his life as a ransom for many’.[26] The question is, was the ‘price’ more than simply Jesus’ life?

Anselm does not deny Jesus suffered,[27] but through his method of using reason alone, he has created a false dichotomy. He has highlighted the need for a substitute, just not a penal substitute. However, satisfaction is more than just Jesus’ death, it also included propitiation where Jesus is punished for our sins by taking on himself the wrath of God that we deserve. The bible is clear about this.[28] Chester helpfully highlights the problem when he states, ‘Anselm does not focus on the wrath of God. Instead, Anselm presents satisfaction and punishments as alternatives. But the Bible presents the atonement as involving punishment’.[29]

If Anselm had used the higher authority of Scripture, then such a division would not have taken place. Anselm simply does not go further enough in his concept of satisfaction. So even though this is a major weakness, it is not an insurmountable one. Anselm was on to something when he talked about satisfaction, he just needed to develop it a little bit further. Aquinas continued the process, when he stated, ‘it is an appropriate mode of making satisfaction for another, when one subjects himself to the penalty which another has deserved’,[30] and the Reformed tradition refined it by stressing penal substitutionary atonement.[31] By using Scripture they were appealing to a higher authority, which surely Anselm would approve of.

The reason why this addition is necessary is because sin didn’t just need to be paid for through the death of the God-man, but punished too. For someone struggling with doubt and guilt, only knowing that Jesus made satisfaction through death and punishment, can they tangibly take hold of the truth that Jesus was forsaken by the Father at the cross. He experienced darkness and judgement for us. Such truths not only give us assurance in the face of sin, but demonstrate just how much God loves us; not just simply through the death of his Son, but by the punishment he took for us.

ii: What About Honour?

The second weakness is Anselm’s reliance on the feudal notion of honour. However, like the first, this weakness can be refined by Scripture and be used positively. As a man of his day, there does seem to be some reliance on the feudal notions of honour. This can be seen in his notion of making restitution for sin, and his idea that for honour to be satisfied you have to give more than what you simply stole.[32] Allison explains:

Anselm lived in a feudal system in which overlords provided protection for their serfs, who in turn provided food and services for their lords. In this feudal system, restitution of honour was a key concept. If a serf dishonoured his lord by stealing ten chickens, for example, the satisfactory solution to this problem was not merely restoration of what had been stolen – the chickens. Satisfaction demanded a payment that went beyond what was due, so the serf owed, say, fifteen chickens to his lord. Anselm picked up on this concept of satisfaction, and viewed the solution to human sin in the same light.[33]

However, despite this feudal emphasis, the reality of dishonouring God is real. In fact, Denney comes to Anselm’s defence when he states:

It is absurd to say that Anselm, or those to whom his thoughts appealed, conceived of God as a feudal baron, and not as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Anselm speaks of sin as robbing God of honour, it is his way of saying that when we sin we wrong a person, and an infinitely great person, not merely a law or a principle; and it is not very bold to say that no conception of sin which ignores this is adequate to the truth about sin as it is revealed in the Christian conscience.[34]

Though I think Denney understates the case, for the Father could be likened to a king and the analogy still holds – he is right when we see that sin has wronged ‘an infinitely great person’. Using Scripture to refine this notion, we can also see how honouring God is important. When Paul writes about fleeing sexual sin and knowing you are a temple of God he concludes, ‘for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body’.[35] Here Paul connects the price of the atonement with glorifying God. The word for glory can mean ‘to glorify, give praise, honour’,[36] and the NIV even translates ‘glorify’ as ‘honour’.[37] As subjects of God we should honour him. So although, Anselm might have been bound to a feudal system, we don’t need to bind his ‘satisfactory theory’ to the same system. By appealing to a ‘higher authority’, we can still appreciate the sense of truth Anselm conveys, whilst rejecting any feudal ties.

iii: A Whole Lot of Angels…

The third weakness, unlike the first two cannot be refined but must be rejected. Anselm spends a considerable amount of time discussing why God had to save mankind, and does so by suggesting it is necessary for God to do this so that mankind can make up the number of the fallen angels.[38] Influenced by Augustine,[39] this argument is not persuasive,[40] because it cannot be supported by Scripture and relies too much on abstract reasoning and a unconvincing theory. Bray summaries by saying, ‘this is a curious argument and led Anselm down the tortuous pathway of trying to decide whether the number of the saved was equal to the number of the fallen angels or greater’.[41] Chester is surely right in stating God saved us because he is gracious and merciful.[42] Which is what Scripture teaches us.[43] To give Anselm credit, he does ‘ascribe the whole to grace’,[44] and admits the angel talk as a digression,[45] but he does not stress grace enough and instead, due to his methodology, allows reason to take him beyond Scripture into bizarre speculation.

Regardless of this, by evaluating these weaknesses it is my opinion, given our appeal to Scripture, that we can rework his first two weaknesses to become more aligned with Scripture and can simply reject the last as going beyond Scripture. None of these weaknesses should stop us from viewing the ‘satisfactory theory’ as helpful and important.    

STRENGTHS

i: Incarnation & Missions

This becomes even clearer when we look at its strengths. The first is the theory’s relationship to the incarnation. This is obvious, given the title of the work and the question Anselm addresses. How else could the dilemma of man’s sin be solved? Anselm states, ‘no one but God can make this satisfaction…but no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction’ therefore, ‘while no one save God can make it and no one save man ought to make it, it is necessary for a God-Man to make it’.[46]

The genius of Anselm can be seen when he argues the logical necessity of Christ having to come as the God-man to save sinners.[47] Sin is too big a deal for mankind to solve it, but the debt of sin is mankind’s to pay. Therefore, the incarnation was essential for the atonement to work. Or as Denney puts it, ‘the rationale of the incarnation is in the atonement’.[48] This is a strength because it shows how completely hopeless mankind is without God’s intervention as God,[49] that Christ is the only way to salvation,[50] and reveals how the incarnation shapes the rest of salvation. Indeed, it reveals the heart of the gospel and the mission of the church because ‘the missio Dei [mission of God] institutes the missio ecclesiae [mission of the church]’.[51]

This has two implications for mission as a church – the first is that the mission has a purpose and a message – that God saves sinners by his work on the cross. The atonement gives us the heart of that message but is only made possible because Christ came as the first missionary to die for us in the incarnation.

The incarnation not only makes sense of Jesus’ mission, but shapes our own; as Jesus is sent, so are we.[52] If we are to be faithful in mission, we have to proclaim the message of Christ, and therefore we have to be willing to be sent, out of love, to preach the cross of Christ. Given the tendency in many churches to still imbibe a Christendom ‘come and see’ events-based mentality, this stresses a ‘go and tell’ missionary strategy which encourages us to walk out of our comfort zones. Just as Christ walked outside of heaven to come to the cross, we need to walk outside of our homes and church buildings in order to really be ‘missionary’.

The second implication is that mission will have a cost and should model Christ. To steal a phrase from the Manila Manifesto, ‘true mission should always be incarnational’.[53] This not only means the way we act matters, as Salter argues,[54] but that we should expect mission to be costly, we should expect to suffer, just as Christ suffered. We should have the same attitude and mindset of Christ in our mission.[55] If mission isn’t costly, perhaps it’s because it is not incarnational – we are not willing to pay the cost of comfort and time to proclaim the cross of Christ to sinners.

This is the major strength of Anselm – connecting the atonement with the incarnation so satisfaction is achieved through the ‘sent’. For this reason, I think Anselm’s theory has enormous value for missiology and our concept of mission.

ii: Atonement & Trinity

The second strength is the theory’s relationship to the Trinity, and the Father in particular. Before Anselm, the prevailing theory was that Jesus bought us as a ransom from Satan. Though it had some critics, this was championed by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great and even Augustine.[56] Anselm destroyed this notion by showing it was incompatible with God’s justice and power,[57] and that sin was a debt to God, not Satan.[58]

Although some like Peter Lombard still stressed the Satan ransom theory,[59] we cannot underappreciate how important Anselm’s work was in history. He put the Trinity at the heart of the cross again.[60] Anselm writes, ‘the fact is that the Son, with Father and the Holy Spirit, had determined to show the loftiness of his omnipotence by no other means than death’.[61] This was a joint operation between Father and Son. It was willed by them so that the Father did not compel the Son, but Jesus willingly went in obedience to justice and the Father.[62]

The persuasiveness and detail of Anselm’s argument and the necessity of the incarnation might have been a good tutor for Steve Chalke, and help mitigate his error of seeing penal substitution as ‘cosmic child abuse’.[63] For ‘he himself readily endured death in order to save men’, he was not compelled by his Father but ‘freely underwent death’.[64] Thus, ‘Anselm emphasises that the “God-man” goes to his death in full knowledge of what he is doing’.[65] Christ freely chose to die for us. Knowing the cross is Trinitarian in shape helps us to praise God the Three-in-One for our redemption, and not simply see it as a lone act by Jesus. We can sing to the praise of God’s Trinitarian glory![66]

iii: The Atonement & Sin

The last major strength of Anselm’s theory is how seriously he treats sin. Sin is failing to render God his due and completely destroys our relationship with God.[67] The genius of this argument is that since we owe God everything, there’s nothing we can repay him with that isn’t already his.[68] Indeed, Anselm stresses a weightiness to sin that shows just how gravely we offend God.[69] This is important because it not only harmonises with Scripture,[70] but also shows us the gravity of sin. In fact, by Jesus going to the cross, we see how seriously God treats it.

Denney shows just how radical Anselm was in his day when he states, ‘in his time men thought they could make satisfaction for it themselves, without too much trouble; they even thought that in some cases they could hire others to make satisfaction for them’.[71] Anselm was saying to his contemporaries you cannot take sin lightly. Mankind is totally incapable of saving themselves, no matter how hard you try. Similarly, we could also say to our contemporaries, don’t take sin lightly. This is certainly the case for non-Christians, who have made ‘six of the seven deadly sins…medical conditions – and pride is a virtue’.[72]

But knowing the seriousness of sin should motivate Christians not to treat it lightly too. When we’re tempted by lust, when we’re lured by wealth, when we give in to rebellion, we’re treating sin lightly. We’re not seeing it as ‘weighty’ but as small. If this is the case then in our sanctification we might not try and kill it,[73] because we don’t see it as a threat. By realising the weightiness of sin, we might take seriously the weightiness of his glory and therefore honour him.

Likewise, Anselm’s emphasis on the totality of human sin should remind us, no matter how hard we try, we cannot save ourselves. We need a substitutionary saviour who will take our place. Therefore, we should stop trying to pay for our sins – we can’t earn our salvation – instead we need to look to the object of our salvation and trust in Him.[74]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, by evaluating this theory we have seen how important it is for our understanding of the atonement. The strengths of this theory are seen in its relation to the incarnation and the missional implications that implies; to the Father and how Trinitarian his model is, thus crushing the Satan ransom theory; and to the seriousness of sin, showing us that Jesus is our only way to salvation because we cannot save ourselves.

Even considering some of the weaknesses, we can see how using Scripture as ‘a higher authority’ helps us refine or reject the less persuasive arguments. By doing this we see ‘satisfaction through substitution’,[75] when the Son willingly pays the penalty which includes punishment for our sins. The Reformers saw this and could further build the important doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement because of this earlier work. And despite the feudal notions of honour, refining the theory by Scripture, we can really appreciate what it means to dishonour God and steal his glory as creatures who want to play at being god. Therefore, because of these reasons it is my opinion that ‘the satisfactory theory’ is of vital importance to any discussion concerning the history and theology of atonement.

---

---

[1] Why God Became Man by Anselm in Eugene R. Fairweather (ed.) A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham (The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 100.

[2] Ibid., pp. 101-102.

[3] Ibid., p. 103. He repeats this sentiment again, p. 132.

[4] Ibid., p. 119.

[5] Ibid., p. 119.

[6] Ibid., p. 122.

[7] Ibid., p. 124.

[8] Ibid., p. 134.

[9] Ibid., p. 135.

[10] Ibid., p. 176.

[11] Ibid., pp. 180-181.

[12] Ibid., p. 182.

[13] Quote by Gunton, Actuality of Atonement, p. 93. Quoted in Jeremy R. Treat, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology, (Zondervan, 2014), p. 179.

[14] Treat, The Crucified King, p. 179.

[15] Why God Became Man, p. 161; p. 177.

[16] See: Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Apollos, 2014), p. 452.

[17] Why God Became Man, p. 122.

[18] Ibid., p. 124.

[19] Ibid., p. 165.

[20] Ibid., p. 177.

[21] 1 Corinthians 1:30. All bible references are in the ESV unless stated otherwise.

[22] 2 Corinthians 5:21.

[23] 1 Peter 1:18-19.

[24] 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23.

[25] Romans 5:8; 5:10.

[26] Mark 10:45

[27] Why God Became Man, p. 175.

[28] Galatians 3:13; Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; Mark 15:34.

[29] Tim Chester, Delighting in the Trinity (The Good Book Company, 2005; Revised edition: 2010), p. 144.

[30] Quoted in James Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (Paternoster Press, 1998), p. 88.

[31] Chester, Delighting in the Trinity, p. 144 and Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Zondervan, 2011), kindle location 11919.

[32] Why God Became Man, p. 119.

[33] Allison, Historical Theology, kindle location 11847.

[34] Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 67.

[35] 1 Corinthians 6:20.

[36] See www.stepbible.org – https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|reference=1Cor.6&options=VHNUG Accessed 30/3/20.

[37] 1 Corinthians 6:20, NIV 2011.

[38] See Why God Became Man, pp. 125-134.

[39] Allison, Historical Theology, kindle location 11866.

[40] Chester, Delighting in the Trinity, p. 143.

[41] Bray, God’s Spoken Word, footnote 46 on p. 448.

[42] Chester, Delighting in the Trinity, p. 143.

[43] Ephesians 2:4-9; 1 John 4:10; John 3:16.

[44] Why God Became Man, p. 150.

[45] Ibid., p. 134.

[46] Ibid., p. 151.

[47] Ibid., p. 144.

[48] Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 65.

[49] Why God Became Man, p. 141.

[50] Ibid., pp. 151-152.

[51] Quote by David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, p. 379. Quoted in Martin C. Salter, Mission in Action: A Biblical Description of Missional Ethics (Apollos, 2019), p. 2.

[52] Salter, Mission in Action, p. 2.

[53] The Manila Manifesto in 1989, quoted in Salter, Mission in Action, p. 3.

[54] Salter, Mission in Action.

[55] Philippians 2:5-8.

[56] Bray, God Has Spoken, pp. 440-442.

[57] Why God Became Man, p. 108.

[58] Ibid., p. 119.

[59] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, (IVP, 1989), p. 114.

[60] Following the ways of Irenaeus for example – see Bray, God Has Spoken, p. 437.

[61] Why God Became Man, p. 113.

[62] Ibid., pp 111-113.

[63] Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Zondervan, 2003), p. 182. See also Chester, Delighting in the Trinity, pp. 151-153.

[64] Why God Became Man, p. 111 and p. 113.

[65] Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ (Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2017), p. 162.

[66] Ephesians 1:3-14.

[67] Why God Became Man, p. 119.

[68] Ibid., p. 137.

[69] Ibid., pp. 138-139.

[70] For example, Romans 3:10-18; 3:23.

[71] Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 73.

[72] Quote by Richard Topping in D. A Carson ‘But That’s Just Your Interpretation!’ Themelios Vol 44, Issue 3. https://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/but-thats-just-your-interpretation/ Accessed 30/3/2020.

[73] Romans 8:13.

[74] See Timothy Keller, Galatians For You, (Good Book Company, 2013), p. 19.

[75] Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 111.