[MJTM 9 (2007–2008) 3–30] THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH: ANSELM, ABELARD AND AQUINAS Larry Siekawitch Elim Bible Institute The doctrine of the atonement has gone through a gradual evolution from the days of Christ. Unlike other major doctrines (e.g. the Trinity, Person of Christ, etc.) the doctrine of the atone- ment was not the subject of any major controversy in the coun- cils of the Early Church. Thus there were no official declarations from the major ecumenical councils on the specifics of the doc- trine. As a result, as Quinn observes, “the history of theological reflection on [the doctrine of the atonement] is richly pluralistic.”1 Most Early Church thinkers held to some form of the ransom theory of the atonement. This theory emphasized the battle fought between God and Satan. Warfare, slavery, and freedom were the dominant themes. Adam and Eve fell into the bondage and control of Satan because of their sin. Their original sin was passed on to the rest of humanity, putting all human beings under the oppression of Satan and sin. Jesus died on the cross as a ransom payment to set humanity free from Satan. Augustine’s view is typical of this ransom emphasis: In this redemption, the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the devil was not enriched, but bound: that we might be loosened from his bonds, and that he might not with himself involve in the meshes of sins, and so deliver to the destruction of the second and eternal death, any one of those whom 1. Quinn, “Abelard on Atonement,” 283. 4 McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 9 Christ, free from all debt, had redeemed by pouring out His own blood unindebtedly.2 Many suggested that Jesus paid this ransom to the devil, who rightfully held mankind in captivity. Some even went so far as to suggest that God tricked the devil with Christ’s humanity, as a fisherman tricks a fish. Christ’s humanity was the bait Satan fell for, not realizing the hook of Christ’s divinity, which made it possible for humanity to be set free and impossible for Christ to stay dead. Pope Gregory the Great describes this idea around A.D. 600: Matching deceit with deceit, Christ frees man by tricking the devil into overstepping his authority. Christ becomes a “fishhook”: his humanity is the bait, his divinity the hook, and Leviathan [Satan] is snared. Because the devil is proud, he cannot understand Christ’s humility and so believes he tempts and kills a mere man. But in inflicting a sinless man with death, the devil loses his rights over man from his “excess of presumption.” Christ conquers the devil’s king- dom of sin, liberating captives from the devil’s tyranny. Order is reinstated when man returns to serve God, his true master.3 The ransom theory was the dominant theory of the Church until Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) wrote Cur Deus Homo. Anselm expounded the satisfaction theory of the atonement. This theory taught that Christ died on the cross as a substitute to satisfy God’s justice. Anselm appears to have single-handedly changed the focus of thinking about the atonement from the battle, slavery, and freedom motif to the legal image of justice. Throughout the Middle Ages after Anselm, the satisfaction theory became the prevailing theory with minor adjustments. After Anselm, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) promoted the exemplary theory of the atonement, in which Christ died as the supreme example of God’s love. The exemplary theory was im- mediately challenged and rejected as heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities. It appears that Anselm’s theory had become so entrenched in Roman Catholicism in such a short period of 2. Augustine, “On the Trinity,” 13.15.19. 3. As quoted in Olson, Story of Christian Theology, 323. SIEKAWITCH Doctrine of the Atonement 5 time that any challenges were deemed anathema. Thomas Aquinas (1227–1274) combined the theories represented above in a more comprehensive account of the atonement, but the satis- faction theory overshadowed the ransom theory and his inclusion of the exemplary theory appears to be in a severely truncated version. Anselm, Abelard and Aquinas have contributed greatly to the doctrine of the atonement. What were these contributions? Did their contemporaries (or future theologians) misunderstand them? How have these misunderstandings affected the history of the doctrine of the atonement? The thesis of this article is that we can see an evolution of belief rather than a rejection and sub- stitution of belief. This is important because the idea that each person rejected the previously held understanding of the doctrine of the cross in favor of his own theory led to the “single theory” mindset which has had serious ramifications to this day. Gustaf Aulen argues for the ransom theory, liberals demand the moral influence theory, and conservatives promote the penal substitu- tion theory as the only true understanding of what Christ did on the cross. However, if what we see is not a subtraction, but rather an evolution of the doctrine of the cross, we do not have to reject the competing theories unless they are unscriptural. If Anselm simply made minor corrections to the ransom theory, adding his satisfaction component to better understand the cross, and if Abelard maintained both the ransom theory and the satisfaction theory, but also made his unique contribution of moral influence, then we see an evolution of the doctrine rather than an adver- sarial competition. If these men are seen as enriching the doctrine rather than taking away from it, the modern liberal view, Aulen’s Christus Victor, and any other single-theory posi- tion would be seen as truncating rather than liberating the theological enterprise. The evolution of the doctrine may not always yield good fruit, but if the concept of a multidimensional understanding of the doctrine of the cross can be found in the Bible, we will benefit from it by rejecting any single theory as being exclusive in favor of a rich, multifaceted understanding of the cross. An examination of Anselm, Abelard and Aquinas will 6 McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 9 help us to see if this evolutionary understanding of the doctrine of the atonement is true. Anselm Anselm of Canterbury was the first of the great scholastic doctors. He is famous for his ontological argument for the exist- ence of God. His greatest influence on Christianity comes from his satisfaction theory explained in his book Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). In this treatise, he revised the ransom theory and added the idea of satisfaction in a formula based on the feudal system of his day. Anselm has been criticized for throwing out the ransom theory completely,4 adding the illogical and immoral view of satisfaction,5 and, with his feudal per- spective of honor, relying more on contemporary life and logic than the Bible.6 Are these accusations legitimate? Anselm did not throw out the ransom theory; he simply revised it. He agreed that humankind had sold itself into the slav- ery of the devil.7 He believed that people are rescued from the enemy through Christ’s death. He even embraced Christ’s death as a ransom payment for people’s sins. But he did not agree with the elaborate illustrations of the ransom theory such as that of Augustine who saw the atonement as a mousetrap set to catch the devil.8 God did not owe the devil anything, because both the devil and humans belong to God. It was right for humans to be tormented by the devil, but it was not right for the devil to do it. God used the devil to punish people in their sin, but the devil had no rights over them. “For he [Satan] did not do it [punish people] by God’s orders, but only with the permission of God’s 4. Aulen, Christus Victor, 84–92; McDonald, Atonement, 175. McDonald states, “The only agreement between Abelard and Anselm is that both are equally strong in repudiation of the ransom theory.” 5. Rashdall, Idea of Atonement, 360. 6. See Anselm, Why God Became Man, 44. 7. Anselm used Scripture very sparsely, but from the content of his work, it is evident that he relied on several passages for his revised ransom theory including 1 John 5:18; Col 1:13–14; 2:15 and Matt 20:28. 8. Sykes, Sacrifice and Redemption, 130. SIEKAWITCH Doctrine of the Atonement 7 incomprehensible wisdom, which orders even evil things for good.”9 The ransom is not paid to the devil; it is paid to God.10 The ransom did overcome the devil and by this defeat, brought honor to God.11 Colossians 2:15 brings out this defeat of the demonic forces and honor given to God, achieved through the cross: “When he had disarmed the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through him.” Anselm’s greatest contribution to the doctrine of the atonement and his chief emphasis in Cur Deus Homo was the idea of satisfaction. All of humanity owes God absolute obedi- ence to his will. When people sin they dishonor God and so they must either be punished or give satisfaction for dishonoring God. Anything a person does is already owed to God and so that per- son is not able to pay the satisfaction due God. Anselm also said, “It is not enough for someone who violates another’s honor to restore the honor, unless he makes some kind of restitution that will please him who was dishonored, according to the extent of the injury and dishonor.”12 He says that the payment for the sins of the world would have to be “something greater than every- thing that exists, except God.”13 The only possible satisfaction is God himself. But, “No one ought to make it except man; other- wise man does not make satisfaction.”14 Only God can make the satisfaction and only humans should make the satisfaction, so Anselm shows the necessity of the God-man. Christ’s death is so good it is “more loveable than sins are hateful,”15 and so is suf- ficient “for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more.”16 It would not be right for God to simply express mercy to the sinner without demanding satisfaction, because this would detract from his justice. With Christ’s death on the cross God’s justice is 9. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 108. 10. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 181. 11. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 161. 12. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 119. 13. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 150. 14. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 151. 15. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 164. 16. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 176. 8 McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 9 satisfied, as Rom 3:26 says, “so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Some have said that Anselm’s satisfaction theory is illogical because he says it is necessary in the sense that it is the only way humanity could be forgiven.17 But if it is necessary, how could God be free? Later Aquinas and others would state that God could have saved humans another way if he had chosen to. Anselm answered this question. Christ was under no compulsion to die for humanity—he was perfectly free. “But because (as has been said) the world could not be saved in any other way, he stead-fastly determined to suffer death rather than leave the world unsaved.”18 Anselm is correct. There is no need to conjecture other possible ways for salvation. The Bible gives no indication that any other way was possible, and in fact says in Heb 9:22, “Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Others have argued that the satisfaction theory “is based on an analogy with Germanic law and is colored by a feudal notion of honor that is not worthy of God.”19 Colleran captures Anselm’s idea of honor well: This theory is built on the definition of sin as the refusal to render to God what is due to Him. What is due Him is honor, given by sub- jection of one’s will to God’s Will. A creature who sins refuses God His due, detracts from His honor and insults Him. There arises an obligation to restore the honor and to undo the insult, and that is satisfaction.20 First, of all it must be asked, “Is there something wrong with making doctrine contemporary as long as it fits the categories of Scripture? Honor was something the people in eleventh century feudal England could relate to. The use of the idea of honor seemed to help them understand the atonement better. Second, the accusation that honor is not biblical must be challenged. 17. Oxenham, Catholic Doctrine, 173. He says, “But the statement of a necessity for the Incarnation is obviously inconsistent with making it also a free exhibition of love.” 18. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 117. 19. Cited in Hannah, “Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement,” 339. 20. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 44. SIEKAWITCH Doctrine of the Atonement 9 Revelation 5:13 says, “And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.’” All of God’s creation is called to give him honor and glory. Isaiah 43:7 says that the reason God created human beings was for his glory (see also 1 Pet 2:9). God’s creation gives him glory and honor by praising him (Heb 13:15), loving him (Mark 12:28–33) and obeying him (Rom 12:2). Sin dishonors God (Rom 3:23) and demands punishment (Rom 6:23). Christ became men and women’s substitute (a con- cept seen more clearly in Aquinas and pre-figured in the Old Testament sacrifices). So the argument that Anselm is too dependent on the culture of his day rather than the Bible is inaccurate. It is true that Anselm uses very little Scripture and seems to be overly focused on the rational side of the atonement. How- ever, this was his stated purpose: “For you prove that God was necessarily made man, in such a way that . . . you would satisfy not only Jews, but even pagans, by reason alone.”21 And Anselm is not afraid to resort to mystery rather than forcing rational arguments where they do not fit: “Who, then, will dare even to imagine that human understanding is able to discern how wisely, how wonderfully, such an unsearchable deed [the incarnation] was done?”22 Anselm’s satisfaction theory was not fully satisfactory. The penal substitution of the reformers was not fully developed in Anselm. The doctrine of atonement was still in progress. The biggest deficiency in Anselm’s theory of atonement was in his application; this shortage would plague theologians until Martin Luther. Anselm believed the benefits of the atonement only fully satisfied past sins. Once a Christian received the forgiveness provided for through the cross, he maintained his forgiveness for subsequent sins if he was “willing to make due satisfaction and 21. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 183. 22. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 167. 10 McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 9 then amend [his] conduct.”23 The idea of a person making his or her own satisfaction through penance would be more fully devel- oped in Aquinas, but even here hints of Pelagian influence can be seen. Anselm did not emphasize penance and at times seemed to contradict the idea of penance. He asked the fictitious Boso: “Tell me, then, what will you pay to God for your sin?” Boso replied with the standard understanding of works righteousness: “Repentance, a contrite and humble heart, fastings and all sorts of bodily labors, mercy in giving and forgiving, and obedience.” But Anselm pointed out that people already owe these things to God and therefore they cannot be payment for one’s debt of sin.24 He then explained the concept of satisfaction in the cross. How does this reply coincide with what Anselm said later about penance after baptism? Anselm was an original thinker but he was also a man of his times. There was a double sense of satis- faction, which only became more elaborate and entrenched in scholastic theology until the Reformers rescued the application of the doctrine of the atonement from the clutches of penance. Abelard Peter Abelard was a unique figure in the twelfth century. More is known of Abelard’s personal life than of any other figure in the Middle Ages because he wrote an autobiography (unusual for that time). He fell in love with a teenaged girl, Heloise, whom he tutored. She became pregnant, so they were married privately for the sake of the legitimacy of the child. Heloise’s uncle hired some men to castrate Abelard. He left humiliated and became a monk, while Heloise became a nun. They wrote love letters to each other throughout their lives. Her poems are still published today and considered “classics of medieval love poetry.”25 This excursion into the love life of Abelard might seem to be a digres- sion, until one understands his doctrine of the atonement, which exalts God’s love over his need for satisfaction. 23. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 167. 24. Anselm, Why God Became Man, 136. 25. Olson, Story of Christian Theology, 326. SIEKAWITCH Doctrine of the Atonement 11 Olson and others have accused Abelard’s view of the atonement of being subjective and a rejection of Anselm’s satis- faction theory.26 It supposedly implies a denial of original sin.27 Richard Swineburne claims, “Abelard’s exemplary theory of the atonement, that Christ’s life and death work to remove our sins by inspiring us to do penance and good acts, contains no object- tive transaction.”28 Both conservatives and liberals pit Abelard against Anselm. William G. T. Shedd stated, “To the theory of Anselm . . . stands in the very sharpest contrast the theory of Abelard.”29 Bernard of Clairvaux sent a letter to Pope Innocent III seeking Abelard’s condemnation. He claimed that Abelard’s view of the atonement made Christ’s death a mere example of his love; its Pelagian tendencies denied original sin and “rendered Christ’s atoning work unnecessary for our salvation.”30 These accusa- tions imply that Abelard taught that it is possible for people to make themselves worthy of salvation on their own. Pope Inno- cent III agreed with a synod of bishops in Paris who condemned Abelard and so issued an edict against him. Abelard went to appear before the Pope in hope of clearing himself of the con- demnation, but he died en route. Was Abelard guilty of these charges? Was his view of the atonement purely subjective? Did he completely reject the ransom theory and satisfaction theory of the atonement? A thorough look at his commentary on Rom 3:19–27, where his most extensive writing on the doctrine of the atonement is found, will answer these questions. 26. Gustafson, “Princell and the Waldenstromian View,” 206, says, “Peter Abelard . . . reacted to this objective view [Anselmian] and, in contrast, proposed a subjective view of the atonement, emphasizing man’s response to Christ.” 27. Dilling, “Atonement and Human Sacrifice,” 31, accuses Abelard of holding a “Pelagian view of sin” which generated a theory “that enables man to help himself.” 28. As quoted in Quinn, “Abelard on Atonement,” 282. 29. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, 2:154. He also said, “Abelard denies the doctrine of satisfaction” (2:155); Suggit, “Freedom to Be,” 31–37. 30. Quinn, “Abelard on Atonement,” 293. 12 McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 9 Abelard began with scrupulous commentary on the passage in Romans. He showed how this text was written to refute the Jews who trusted in the law and external observances for their salva- tion. The law justifies no one. The law reveals sin and renders everyone completely without excuse. But Christ became a human being and suffered, demonstrating perfect love. Later Abelard would elaborate on this exemplary idea, but it is impor- tant to notice what he said immediately following his quotation of John 15:13. John 15:13 does commend a “moral theory” of the atonement, saying, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” But Abelard then com- mented, “So we, through his grace, are joined to him as closely as to our neighbor by an indissoluble bond of affection . . . A righteousness, I say, imparted to all the faithful in the higher part of their being.”31 Abelard seems to be advocating a union with Christ that takes place due to an impartation of righteousness. If this is what Abelard is referring to, then his view of the atone- ment must be seen as objective, rather than subjective. Atone- ment is something Christ accomplishes in the believer by his death. Alister McGrath concurs that the exemplary quality of Christ’s death is merely a secondary consequence of redemption in Abelard’s thought. He rejects Rashdall and others who have turned Abelard’s theory into a subjective, moral theory alone. He states: Abailard is an exemplarist if, and only if, it can be shown that he understands Christ to be our example, through whose imitation we are redeemed—whereas it is clear that he understands Christ to be our example in the sense that, because we are redeemed by him, we now wish to imitate him.32 It appears that Abelard borrowed from the idea of mystical union in the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement and combined it with the western satisfaction theory in an objective theory of the atonement. His theory cannot be accused of being 31. Abelard, “Exposition of Romans,” 278. 32. McGrath, “Moral Theory,” 209. Evangelicals also have wrongly accused Abelard of being entirely subjective. See Walters, “Atonement in Medieval Theology,” 245.