Anselm's first thesis can be summarized as the human predicament. God created man 'so that he might be blessed' (II. 1). In order to be blessed by enjoyment of God demands perfect, voluntary submission of the will to God. But mankind in its entirety is guilty of disobedience, i.e. not submitting perfectly to God's will. An offering greater than the act of disobedience must satisfy the debt or a punishment fitting the sin must be enacted (hell), in which God is honored; there can be no free forgiveness. No man can offer God anything more than the obedience already due, so there is no human means to redeem himself. Therefore the whole of humankind must forfeit the blessedness for which it was created, and be punished by being deprived of enjoyment of God.

The second thesis of Anselm presents the solution for the human predicament. According to the first thesis God's purpose in creating man has been frustrated. So a means of redemption must exist because God's purpose cannot be frustrated. But the offering necessary for redemption ought to be made by man. Since man has nothing to offer, man cannot make it. Satisfaction for dishonoring God must repair the breach between man and God, and also the damage to the whole social order. So the sinner must reconcile the whole universe, accomplishing a new creation (I.23). Nothing is greater than the entire Creation except God. Therefore only God can make this offering and since only God can, and only man ought to make this offering, it must be made by a God-Man. Therefore a God-Man is necessary; therefore the Incarnation is necessary. The argument seems to be that God's plan should not be frustrated. But this frustrates God's plan unless He saves us by His own action. But this does not make God bound to save us; rather He does this by his own goodness, by necessity of his unchanging honor (II.5).

This typical summary, while the propositions are correct but is open to distortion. This summary has taken out all the nuances and ambiguities of Anselm's text. When these nuances are taken away, theologians can distort Anselm in any way the mind can go with it. (Hart, pp. 337)

It is somewhat striking how radical Anselm was for his time while at the same time being in continuity with the early church. Anselm challenges the sacramental and penitential system as remedying the guilt of sin. The practice of penance taught satisfaction but had not contemplated the weight of sin. Mere penance cannot take away sin (CDH 1:11), because if sin is an infinite offense to God, and the abundance of the gift of Christ alone can remit guilt, then penance can be done only within Christ, or in other words, penance is an act of humility of what is already redeemed.

I have heard criticism of Anselm for his supposed feudal language, making God out to be no more than a feudal lord arrogantly concerned for his own honor. But it does not seem to be true. For Anselm God's concern is not about his honor, because nothing can take or add to his honor (after all nothing is greater) that is outside of God. God is concerned with "the order and the beauty of the universe" and his creatures (CDH 1:15). Anselm is dealing with the philosophical question of whether the universe is just at all. But with man's philosophy (certainly all Classical philosophy available to Anselm), the law which made the universe just, was the 'law of retribution.' What comes around goes around.

Anselm claims that there is a higher satisfaction, a way of righting the creation 'than which there can be no greater.' The higher satisfaction is God's righteousness itself, which is fulfilled in Christ's obedience. Obedience is the cause of Jesus death, and this obedience results from the Incarnation itself..

Cur Deus Homo has been criticized for its lack of treatment of the resurrection. But Anselm is writing post-resurrection, which means it is taken for granted that the resurrection seals the whole process. Anselm does not understand the cross to be an economic exchange, but actually speaks against any sort of penal substitution. Jesus' death does not purchase our salvation; it is his obedience that brings God's blessing…his obedience even unto death. ". . . [B]y his obedience in maintaining justice-he gave an example to men, to teach them not to turn away from the justice they owe to God on account of any trials which they experience . . .But he would not have given this example at all if, by using his own power, he had turned away from the death brought on him for such a cause." (CDH 2:18)

Under the chapter heading (written by Anselm himself) "The Great Reason Why Human Salvation Follows From His Death" Anselm shows that it is not the God-Man's death that secures salvation, but salvation follows from it. It is his obedience unto death which secures salvation: To whom would it be more fitting for him to assign the fruit and recompense of his death than to those for whose salvation (as truthful reasoning has taught us) he made himself man, to whom (as we have said), by dying he gave an example of dying for the sake of justice? For they will be imitators in vain if they do not share in his merit." (CDH 2:19)

Furthermore, the God-man's death cannot be punishment, because Anselm makes satisfaction and punishment an either/or distinction: "And these two things are not only unfitting, but consequently impossible; so that satisfaction or punishment must needs follow every sin." (CDH 1:15). The solution to the human plight is not centered in death but in the intrinsic value of the God-man. His life is so great (none can be thought higher), that when in giving his life to God in obedience (obedience unto death), there is no sin that is able to excced the value of this gift. (CDH, 2:14).

The language used by Anselm is that available to him, but he does a remarkable job of countering the currents of his day. He works within patristic thought and not in contrast to it as such statement as this show: "Man being made holy was placed in paradise, as it were in the place of God, between God and the devil, to conquer the devil by not yielding to his temptation, and so to vindicate the honor of God and put the devil to shame . . ." (CDH 1:22). With such a statements like these one must not rush to a later penal theory of atonement and place it upon Anselm.

With Athanasius and classical Greek theology the reason for the Incarnation develops out of man's (or Adam's) violation of the commandment God gave to him. As a result of this action, death secured domination of mankind so that death could not be escaped. But for death to have rule over mankind was "at once monstrous and unseemly" (On the Incarnation, 6:2, pp 10.)

This is the predicament challenging God. He could not abandon man in death and corruption, "because this would be unseemly and unworthy of God's goodness" (ibid., 6:10, pp.10). But, conversely, God would appear to be liar if he simply removed death and corruption from man. Requiring repentance from men for their transgression would not keep God from appearing to be a liar (ibid., 7:1, pp. 11) and would not remove death and corruption anyhow (ibid., 7:3, pp. 11). God's solution was for the Word of God "which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought" to become man and having become man, to die the death of all men (ibid., 8, pp 20-21). The more I reread Anselm, the more I find little differences between him and Athanasius, conversely the more variance I find with later penal atonement theories with their exclusive focus on penalty.

1. Hart, David Bentley. 'A Gift Exceeding Every Debt: An Eastern Orthodox Appreciation of Anselm's Cu Deus Homo', Pro Ecclesia, Vol. VII, No. 3, pp. 333-348.
_________________
Andrew Baker currently works with the mentally disabled in New York City. He is a Mennonite and is active in his local congregation. He has a BA in theology from Wheaton College and is currently considering seminary studies.