T(r)oy's Marbles
how God atones (5th part)
"How does God reconcile the world to Himself?" That's the question under consideration. We've completed a fairly thorough review of the "classic" idea concerning this question. Now, let's look at another paradigm that finds its most complete expression in the theology of Anselm (ca. 1100): the "Latin" theory.
Go here to start this exploration at the first part.
Go here to read part two.
Go here to read part three.
Go here to read part 4.
And now, part 5.
The Latin theory
Let’s look now at the second major “type” of the atonement. This is what Aulen refers to as “the Latin theory” (because it has its origins primarily in the Latin/Roman Catholic branch of the church), but it is also known as the “satisfaction” theory, or the “substitutionary” theory of the atonement. Anselm in the late 11th century and at the beginning of the 12th century proposes this theory in his treatise “Cur Deus Homo?” To be sure, Anselm does not out-of-hand reject the classic idea, but rather seeks to explain further, to understand more, God’s means of atonement. Notice that Anselm starts at the same place Irenaeus started—-by asking, “Why did God become Man?”
To recap, Irenaeus’ answer to this question was as follows (paraphrasing): to win a victory over sin, death and the devil.
Anselm’s answer, on the other hand, takes a different tack. Anselm roots his idea in the language that a medieval mind would understand by employing the image of a lord’s relationship with his serf. As a serf, certain things are due the “lord”. If those dues are not “paid”, the lord’s wrath and punishment is incurred and owed. When the lord’s law is broken, a penalty must be assessed. It is only right and just and fair.
Now, here’s the dilemma: in our instance, the “lord” who has been offended is none other than “THE LORD” and therefore, the sin committed is infinite in nature. This puts us in a real predicament: how are humans, finite by nature, supposed to pay an infinite debt? It’s impossible. Well, that’s why “God became man.” See, God could pay the debt. God is able. But, Anselm explains, God couldn’t just out-of-hand pay the debt because it was mankind that owed it. By all rights, mankind should pay it.
See, it’s a question of “should’s” and “ought’s” and “could’s” and “can’t’s”. Mankind “should” or “ought to” pay the debt, but Makind “can’t” or “is not able to” pay the debt (because the debt is infinite, but Man is finite). On the other hand, God “could” pay the debt (because God is infinite), but, maintaining a sense of justice, God “shouldn’t” because God is not the one who incurred the debt in the first place. The debt should be paid by the person who incurred it.
So, in God becoming Man, Anselm says, the One who “could” pay the debt was united with the one who “should” pay the debt. Thus, the wrath of God was “satisfied” (that’s why this theory is sometimes called the “satisfaction” theory), because Jesus was our just yet merciful substitute (and so this theory is also called the “substitutionary” theory of the atonement; that is, Jesus was our substitute, He paid the debt of death instead of, or in place of, us).
Scripturally speaking, this way of looking at the atonement has its roots in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
First, we see in the Exodus a type of “substitutionary atonement.” A lamb’s life needed to be sacrificed in order for the Israelite’s lives to be spared. That’s substitution.
This Passover event was then revisited every year and woven into the weekly and daily fabric of Jewish life with the regular sacrifice of lambs, and doves, and bulls and goats. In all cases, the blood of an animal was spilled in place of the lives of us humans.
People often wonder: “Why such barbarity?” The Torah cites a very simple reason: because “the life is in the blood.” Leviticus 17:11 is one specific reference to this, but there are many others. Of particular interest, it should be noted there is even the idea of a “scapegoat” in Jewish custom. This can be found in Leviticus 16. The idea here is: one goat is slaughtered on behalf of the Jewish people, while the scapegoat (with the sins of Israel placed on its head) is sent out of the city to wander in the wilderness, in solitude, loneliness, separation, never to bring the sins of the nation back.
The goat, or, in this instance, the goats (plural) are substitutes for the nation.
Note that, in any case, blood must be spilt. Someone, or something, must give its life for the sake of the others. Anselm says this must be so because it is only just, right, and fair. The wrath of God must be satisfied.
That last phrase (“the wrath of God”) is certainly not popular, but is, indeed a necessary component of the Good News that God loved us so much He sent His Son to save us, and it is inherent in, and a necessary component of, the Latin theory of the atonement (and it is precisely because of this that many people find the Latin theory distasteful). But, the notion of God’s wrath is necessary to the Christian faith because the wrath of God defines the extent of God’s love for us. It is only in the light of God’s wrath that we come to appreciate the depth of His love.
The fact is: sin makes God sad. And, when God warns us and warns us and warns us over and over again of sin’s folly yet we persist in our sin, it does make God angry (just as a parent gets angry at their child eventually when the child persists in disobedience). But, it should be said, God’s anger never stops God from loving us (just as my occasional anger never stops me from loving my children). The Bible talks about this when it says that "...his anger lasts only for a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime..." (Psalm 30:5) Yes, God never stops loving us, even when He is angry with us.
So, the Latin theory views the death of Christ as a necessity in order to effect our atonement. Christ, the Lamb of God, takes away the sin of the world (cf. John 1). Jesus dies instead of us, as our substitute, and thus satisfies the wrath of God. Christ’s death is, in the final analysis, the key to our forgiveness in the Latin theory. As much as God loves us and would like to simply forgive us with a “royal decree” of some sort, God is bound by His justice to deal with sin fairly. There was no other way but that One Man give His life for the many.
So, it seems then that both the classic and the Latin ideas of the atonement necessitate the death of Christ. That is, the death of Christ is ultimately the event that delivers our forgiveness, and effects our reconciliation with God.
Tomorrow, we'll look very briefly at the final paradigm concerning the atonement (the "exemplar" model) and we'll conclude our discussion of this topic.
Until then, God bless.
teachings | Comments (0) | March 14, 2006