But this Man, after He had offered
one sacrifice for sins forever,
sat down at the right hand of God.
Letter to the Hebrews 10:12
In 1098, Anselm of Aosta96 wrote a little book in the form of a dialogue, “Cur Deus Homo” (Why a God Man), which was to change the history of Christian theology. The impact of this work was so extraordinary that today, in some form, almost 90% of Christians believe in a theory of salvation derived from the principles expressed in this text. Indeed, it gave rise to the theory of Satisfaction, accepted by the Catholic doctrine,97 and to the Penal Substitution theory, widely accepted in Protestant context.
The book was written by Anselm as a reaction to the concepts expressed by the Ransom theory, which, as previously discussed, had been the dominant doctrine throughout the Middle Ages, and marked the transition from Patristic theology (based on the supremacy of faith) to Scholastic theology (based on the primacy of reason),98 which was to have its greatest exponent in Thomas Aquinas99 and influenced the history of western thought. It is therefore worth paying close attention to this work by Anselm, which has had an unparalleled impact on Christian thought.
6.1. Satisfaction theory
In his elaboration, Anselm refused to accept the idea that God must pay a ransom to the evil one for the liberation of mankind, contesting the fact that the devil, although tormenting us, holds any rights over man, and expounded a conception based instead on the principles of offence, honour and satisfaction, typical of the medieval feudal era. In particular, he believed that man, by sinning, causes an offence to God because, by violating justice, he outrages his honour; this would require that something must be given in return, of equal or greater value than what has been damaged in order to repair the offence. Not to punish or demand compensation would be tantamount to accepting disorder and rebellion. Let us see an excerpt of the dialogue between Anselm and Boso, a fictitious character in the story, taken from Cur Deus Homo:
Anselm: If man or angel always rendered to God his due, he would never sin.
Boso: I cannot deny that.
Anselm: Therefore, to sin is nothing else than not to render to God his due.
Boso: What is the debt which we owe to God?
Anselm: Every wish of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God.
Boso: Nothing is truer.
Anselm: This is the debt which man and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin; […] this is the sole and complete debt of honor which we owe to God, and which God requires of us. […] He who does not render this honor which is due to God, robs God of his own and dishonours him; and this is sin. […] For as one who imperils another's safety does not enough by merely restoring his safety, without making some compensation for the anguish incurred; […] So then, everyone who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God.
Boso: Since we have determined to follow reason in all these things, I am unable to bring any objection against them, although you somewhat startle me.
Anselm: Let us return and consider whether it was proper for God to put away sins by compassion alone, without any payment of the honor taken from him.
Boso: I do not see why it is not proper.
Anselm: To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish; and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment; if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged.
Boso: What you say is reasonable.100
Man being in a state of sin and being unable to give to God anything that is not already due to him, only the man Jesus Christ who is without sin, can offer to God, on behalf of all men, adequate compensation for the damage suffered because of transgressions, and thus satisfy God’s honour for the offences received. It was not God the Father who condemned him to death or forced him to die, but it was Jesus who freely embraced death to save men.101 For having spontaneously offered such a great gift to God, he deserved to be rewarded; the reward that Jesus received for this gesture of supreme love, since he had no need of anything, is given as the forgiveness of sins, to all those who approach him in faith. The origin of the idea of the state of absolute incapacity of man, can probably be traced back to Augustine, who may therefore have inspired Anselm's theory, who inserted it into a form of justice administration congenial to his time.
This idea of justice closely followed the feudal customs of Anselm's time, for whom private and divine justice were one and the same. Anselm's proposal is unequivocally a faithful representation of mediaeval customs, to the extent that it cannot be distinguished from the common law in force at the time:
In feudal societies, crime was considered only in its individual context: it was an illegal action, an offence caused by one person to another. Consequently, medieval criminal justice was a private matter, not so much intended to punish as to maintain balanced social relations between parties of equal rank. Justice, that is, revolved around the concept of personal revenge. [...] Consequently, punishment continued to have also and above all the purpose of giving satisfaction to the offended [...] When the victim felt compensated for the damage suffered, and the offence had been denounced and avenged, he could have the proceedings discontinued. In fact, the most significant element of the procedure was that the injured party could make public the wrongs he had suffered and restore the prestige and honour he thought he had lost.102
However, despite this extraordinary similarity, Gustaf Aulén argued, in the aforementioned book Christus Victor, that in reality the Satisfaction theory found its raison d'être in the principle of “Supererogatory”.103 According to this idea, which spread widely in the medieval Church, each believer had to earn the forgiveness of sins by personal sacrifices (fasting, chastity, self-inflicted suffering, long prayers, etc.) that exceeded what was normally required. The merit gained from this “extra work” could, in addition to guaranteeing personal salvation, also be given to others precisely because it was “superabundant”. Anselm adapted the concept by attributing to Christ alone the possibility of earning “extra credit” with God through his passion by means of his own sacrifice, and then handing it over to believers to compensate for their sins. Against this cultural backdrop, the shameful sale of indulgences by the clergy was born, which a few centuries later led to the schism of the Church.
Among those who followed in Anselm's footsteps was Thomas Aquinas who, in the 13th century, marked the history of Christianity by laying the foundations of the theological and philosophical pillars of the Catholic Church. For Anselm, the satisfaction of God's honour could come either through adequate satisfaction or through the punishment of the sinner; Jesus offered sufficient satisfaction so God would not need to punish sinners. According to Thomas, on the other hand, the satisfaction realised by Christ would take effect in the collective dimension (expiation of mankind's original sin), but would not exempt man from punishment, and from providing satisfaction on an individual level:
Each individual must seek the remedies that make for his own salvation. The death of Christ is a universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man was a universal cause of damnation. But there is need of a special application to each individual for the individual to share in the effect of a universal cause.104
This idea is part of the strand of Supererogatory, according to which man is called upon to atone for his sins through his own penitential works, and will give rise, among other things, to extremist movements known as Flagellants.105 Therefore, the salvation that for Anselm was obtained through faith in Christ, according to Thomas is also obtained through individual works:
When then man by grace has obtained pardon for his sin and has been restored to the state of grace, he still remains bound by God's justice to some punishment for his sin. If of his own, he exacts this punishment of himself, he is thereby said to “make satisfaction” to God, inasmuch as by punishing himself for his sin he fulfils with labour and pain the order instituted of heaven, which order he had transgressed by sinning and following his own will.106
6.2. Criticism of the Satisfaction theory
Despite the success of Satisfaction theory and the enormous impact it has had on the history of Christian thought, there are countless criticisms from theologians:
God appears in the CDH [Cur Deus Homo] as a stem and unbending feudal lord whose “honor” at all costs must be defended. Full satisfaction must be paid to His “honor.” As a result, such basic NT [New Testament] concepts as grace, love, mercy, and so on, could not find full expression in such a context of thought. Then, too, Anselm' s theory stood in opposition to the NT emphasis on the oneness of God's working in Jesus the Christ. Anselm, like those before him, and like many after him, saw God and Christ as two different “persons”, one dying in obedience and love to satisfy the other's honor, justice, or law. Paul's sweeping assertion that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself' had been here turned into a coldly legal and transactional arrangement involving distinctions between God and Christ that the NT does not uphold.107
There are many objections to Anselm and his theory of salvation, especially from the supporters of “peace theology”:108
Supporters of the Satisfaction theory, argue that God's justice and honour, which cannot be ignored, are, in Anselm's conception, included in mercy and love; the aim of Jesus' work, according to Anselm, is in fact the restoration of mankind and not the punishment of sin:
The nature of God in CDH is loving and just, both at once, or put otherwise, the nature of God' s justice includes mercy. It is a justice that is ultimately defined by the restoration of creation, rather than by sin being punished.114
6.3. Conclusion
The merit of Anselm and his revolutionary work, Cur Deus Homo, lies in his insight into the seriousness of sin (his famous phrase to poor Boso: “You have not yet understood how serious sin is!”)115 and the consequent need for the restoration of humanity, which had been completely ignored by the Ransom theory, placing God's justice at the centre of his plan. The theory of Satisfaction considered naive by many theologians and subject, sometimes unjustly, to merciless criticism, is in fact an attempt to reconcile God's mercy with the thirst for justice in the heart of every man. It would be difficult for anyone in any legal system to accept that those who commit crimes can go unpunished.116 Although the solution proposed by Anselm, therefore, seeks this difficult compromise, it does not resolve the dilemma because, in fact, the attempt only half succeeds; man is redeemed, but Jesus who was innocent, took upon himself the burden of sin and sinners remained blissfully unpunished even though forgiven.
In conclusion, the limitations of this theory are obvious, and its presuppositions are obsolete because they are linked to outdated legal concepts, which moreover do not reflect the unitary work of the Trinity in Christ represented in the New Testament; God is not divided in himself and does not need to be reconciled or satisfied. Moreover, the forgiveness of sins is an important issue in the process of salvation, but it is not the whole story; rather, a radical change in man is needed, and this introduces us to the next theory of salvation called “Moral Influence”.