The Slavery of Death (Part 2: Satisfaction Theories)

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.