Theories of Atonement — Satisfaction (Anselm)

Did Jesus pay Satan a hefty ransom for humanity’s redemption? Is the devil a spiritual ransomware terrorist who hijacks humanity, forcing us into calamitous situations from which we have no control?

Was Jesus a scapegoat? A victim of a Jewish lynch mob?

Whenever we read the word atonement in a hymnal or discuss it around Easter, we have a shared understanding of the term. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines atonement in four ways:

1. Reparation for offense or injury.

2. The reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ

3. Christian science: exemplifying of human ones with God

4. Obsolete: reconciliation

The beautiful nature of the atonement is in its ramification, namely, that we have the luxury of being reconciled to God. This pleasure affords us a bridge on which to connect with God. Almost as if there initially lay a chasm, a void of hopelessness between us and the Divine, and Christ’s efficacious work on the cross not only built this bridge of reconciliation but also carried us across it.

Atonement is a great thing. It’s a marvelous thing.

But which theory about Christ’s work on the cross is the right one?

Stephen D. Morrison lists seven of the most well-known theories surrounding the atonement and I will quote his explanations of each one.

He states the seven theories are: the moral influence theory, the ransom theory, Christus Victor theory, the satisfaction theory, the penal substitution theory, the governmental theory, and the scapegoat theory.

The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm of Canterbury)

Point 1

“In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.”

Point 2

“This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan.”

Point 3

“Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays back God in His death on the cross to God.”

Thoughts on the Satisfaction Theory

So, as Stephen explains, this theory was promoted as a reaction to the Ransom Theory. Now, the Ransom Theory is only doctrinally destructive if we presume Christ died to pay the devil his money. That can’t possibly be true because Christ never owed the devil a single dime. St. Anselm, a genius for his time, a highly quotable individual who made some impressive ontological arguments for the existence of God, for his time, pushes back against the Ransom Theory with the Satisfaction Theory.

Instead of a ransom being paid to the devil, here, instead, something is paid to God the Father.

The injustice aspect of this theory is irrevocably true.

“For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.” Paul reminds the church in Rome.

And it is true. Without a doubt, we are all guilty of injustice against the Divine.

Our direct existence in a fallen world is an injustice to a Holy God.

The late great R. C. Sproul explains the ramifications of sin as injustice in his book, The Holiness of God.

“Sin is cosmic treason. Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself. Have you ever considered the deeper implications of the slightest sin, of the most minute peccadillo? What are we saying to our Creator when we disobey Him at the slightest point? We are saying no to the righteousness of God. We are saying, ‘God, Your law is not good. My judgement is better than Yours. Your authority does not apply to me. I am above and beyond Your jurisdiction. I have the right to do what I want to do, not what You command me to do.’”

We’re a mutinous bunch of transgressors who fail, time and again, to live up to God’s holy standards. This lacking, according to Anselm, was made up for on the cross.

There was not a more perfect individual who could stand in our stead and supplicate for our redemption than Jesus.

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” Paul informs the young Timothy, pastor of the church in Ephesus.

He lived the perfect life of complete obedience. The life we could not live. He practiced the Law like no one else could. He sympathized with sinners the way no one else dared. He taught the Law in its purest form — better than any erudite teacher of the Law ever could, ever had.

And, as if gathering every possible act of good, living the most perfect possible life, Christ went to the cross to imbue to us, in God the Father’s sight, the most perfect life ever.

Transferring to us that which we lacked and what we could never attain: the perfect life.

“You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.” Said apostle John in his first epistle.

“For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” Said the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Said Paul in his first epistle to the church in Corinth.

Christ is time and again seen as the perfect example who satisfies in us that which we lacked before God.

I believe that what is ultimately paid to God is a perfect life. God requires of all of us, perfection. Anything short of this is an absolute failure since anything else would mean we have sinned and by fault, fall short of God’s perfect glory.

So Anselm purports that Christ satisfied this lack in us by offering Himself in our stead to the Father.

It’s a beautiful rendition of the atonement and I will take it over the Ransom Theory any day.

But I do believe it misses the entirety of the atonement. It does focus heavily on a romanticized view of Christ’s work, namely, His perfect life and selfless sacrifice. But it remains incomplete.

It is a biblically sound theory but one I don’t entirely agree with, not because it is doctrinally wrong but because I don’t quite understand all of it. Not yet, at least.

What is beautiful, however, is that in this theory, God is in the business of restitution and reparation. He is Righteous, Just, and Loving. He Rights the wrongs. He Justifies. And He loves.

He makes up for what we lack.

Jesus loves us so much He went out of His way to Satiate the injustice in us with His just life.

Featured Image Alicia Quan.

Originally published at http://olivettheory.com on November 4, 2021.