The first theories I will consider can be classified as “satisfaction theories.” Very broadly, these theories paint a picture of some sort of divine transaction between humankind and God, with Christ’s death playing an important role. First I will examine ∙the Anselmian formula, followed by ∙the Penal Substitution formula. Although they share the satisfaction element, wherein God is the party that is owed something and humankind is the party that owes something, it is important to keep each theory distinct–a practice that is not always carried out in the current discussion.
Anselmian
Satisfaction
Perhaps the first great theologian to
develop a satisfaction theory was St. Anselm of Canterbury. His theory is
presented in the work Cur Deus Homo, completed in 1098 C.E. Anselm found the then-dominant ransom theory of
atonement
to be insufficient given his view of God.[2]
The basic
formula of Anselm’s satisfaction theory is as follows: Every being in the
universe owes a debt of honor to God, the perfect and Supreme Being. Failing to
give God his due honor results in a sin of infinite magnitude, due to the
infiniteness of the being sinned against. Of course, the human race failed to give
God his due honor; Adam and Eve brought shame to the entire race through the
fall. Any good we do does not lift us out of our shamefulness, as that goodness
was already owed to God in the first place. We must somehow go above and beyond
to repay this debt of honor. God cannot simply forgive us; as the Supreme Being
he must be perfectly just, and to leave the cosmic scales of justice unbalanced
would be inconceivable. That’s where Jesus comes in. As both God and man, Jesus
was able to go above and beyond the dutiful requirement to give God honor, and
through his obedience–even to death on a cross–he lifted the entire human species
out of its shameful condition. Thus, Jesus satisfied God’s need for honor, and
through his death and resurrection, the entire human family receives the
benefits of his action.
Anselm’s
formulation is not surprising, given his historical context. His cosmic view of
God and humanity are informed by the feudalistic society he lived in: God as
the lord and humanity as the serfs, bound in a social contract whose currency
was honor and shame. The role of Christ and his death is the restoration and
renewing of the social obligations that were apparent in Anselm’s day. However,
this dependence on a specific spatiotemporal social structure makes Anselm’s
theory suspect, or at least unwieldy, as this way of thinking is not intuitive to us today–making
misunderstanding all too likely. Additionally, the theory may be so wrapped up
in the social structures of the day that it is rendered vulnerable to missing some
important element of the atonement.
Penal
Substitution
The dominant theory of atonement in
America today is the penal substitution theory. It is the “gospel message” most
often used in lay evangelism, it is championed by the Reformed tradition, and it
has become a doctrine of huge importance in the Neo-Calvinist movement.[3] Hints
of penal substitution first emerge in Augustine and Anselm, but the theory only
reached fruition in the reformation period. John Calvin and Martin Luther were
prominent in the development of the theory as it is understood today, introducing
a personal element to atonement that had not really enjoyed such prominence in the past.
The paradigm of penal substitution is as
follows: God is the just judge presiding over all of creation who cannot bear
to be in the presence of sin. When the laws of creation are violated, the guilty
party must be apprehended and punished in order to balance the cosmic scales of
justice. No human being is able to keep the law, though, and thus we are all
under condemnation. Though God is wrathful towards sin and can leave no sin
unpunished, he is also loving. So he sent his only son to bear punishment and
death in our stead, as an innocent substitute for us. Through faith in Christ,
Christ’s death and resurrection allows us to stand before God, blameless and
innocent. God’s wrath was poured out on Christ, so it would not have to be
poured out on us. Thus, Jesus
satisfies God’s need for just punishment, rather than his need for honor.
Calvin
assembles his Biblical case from passages throughout the canon, but perhaps the
key passage is Isaiah 53. Calvin said, “This is our acquittal: the guilt that
held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of
God.”[4]
While Anselmian satisfaction was based
on the medieval notion of honor and shame, penal substitution is based on the
notion of a lawful system. The new paradigm operates under the interplay
between innocence, guilt, and punishment. This paradigm is more easily
understood in a Western democracy like America, where a legal system based on
law, guilt, and punishment are normative. However, this theory also has some
glaring flaws, which will be addressed in the next post.
[2] Any familiarity with his Monologion or Proslogion should make this anything but surprising. Remember,
Anselm was the man who formulated the original ontological argument for the
existence of God.
[3] A rapidly growing movement among
young Protestants characterized by folks like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, etc.
[4]
From Book II of John Calvin’s Institutes.
