What Man Took From God…

 

…he has no power to repay.

Cur Deus Homo: Why God Became Man, St. Anselm (also available online)

This is the second and final post covering the first half of Anselm’s work, in which he deals with the objections of the infidels.  Already in his first half of this half, he did, what seems to me, a thorough job on the question of why God became man (and why Jesus had to be God-man).  But he isn’t done.  I ended the previous post with the following:

Does even a perfect man (if such a thing were to exist) have sufficient honor to restore to God the honor stolen from God?  Can this theoretical perfect man have enough honor to restore the cumulative and ongoing honor taken by every rational creature that ever existed and will exist on earth?

One man?  Only man?  I think the question answers itself.

Anselm begins here, in chapter XII, with the question: would it have been proper for God to put away man’s sin solely by His compassion, and without any payment for the honor stolen from Him?

… if sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is subject to no law. … It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished.

This leaves the question: isn’t God completely free to do as He wills? 

… if sin be passed by unpunished, viz., that with God there will be no difference between the guilty and the not guilty; and this is unbecoming to God.

The answer is, or should be, clearly, no. 

Wherefore, if it be not fitting for God to do anything unjustly, or out of course, it does not belong to his liberty or compassion or will to let the sinner go unpunished who makes no return to God of what the sinner has defrauded him.

We should not interpret or understand things in a manner that calls into question God’s dignity.  Nor can God be frivolous in relation to His creation and the order in it:

Moreover, when it is said that what God wishes is just, and that what He does not wish is unjust, we must not understand that if God wished anything improper it would be just, simply because he wished it. For if God wishes to lie, we must not conclude that it is right to lie, but rather that he is not God.

Which comes back to the point raised by Duns Scotus (and addressed here), where he taught something akin to – though he would deny this – God being a capricious God.  For perspective, Scotus wrote about two centuries after Anselm. 

There are some things silly to attribute to or ask about God; there are some things which are…impossible for Him.  Would God lie?  This would not be God.

So, what is proper for God?  What would not be unbecoming of Him?  What would be just?  What has the sinner defrauded of Him that must be returned?  These are the questions asked, and per Anselm there is only one way God can answer these and not be improper for Him, or not make of Him a liar – hence not be God.

Having established that God must be just, that sin must be dealt with – that anything less would make God not God – Anselm returns to the question of the honor stolen from God which clearly must be repaid:

In the order of things, there is nothing less to be endured than that the creature should take away the honor due the Creator, and not restore what he has taken away.

As Boso replies, nothing is more plain than this.  Therefore, one cannot say that God should endure this injustice which is greater than any other possible injustice.  In such a case, to resolve this greatest injustice requires the most supreme justice – a justice which is impossible for any human to satisfy.

Therefore the honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow; otherwise, either God will not be just to himself, or he will be weak in respect to both parties; and this it is impious even to think of.

Returning to the theme developed even in the first part of this book: man does not posses sufficient honor such that a man’s sacrifice can restore the honor taken from God.  “…it is impious even to think of.”

Therefore, consider it settled that, without satisfaction, that is, without voluntary payment of the debt, God can neither pass by the sin unpunished, nor can the sinner attain that happiness, or happiness like that, which he had before he sinned; for man cannot in this way be restored, or become such as he was before he sinned. … that satisfaction should be proportionate to guilt.

The totality of the payment man can make to God for man’s sin, if such insufficient language can be employed, is nothing more than what is owed.  Boso offers a description of what is owed:

Repentance, a broken and contrite heart, self-denial, various bodily sufferings, pity in giving and forgiving, and obedience.

If there was ever such a thing as a sinless man, he still owes self-denial, pity in giving and forgiving, and obedience.  All men owe God these things, no matter their condition. Giving God these things in no way elevates a man to a position sufficient to restore to God the honor taken from Him – what is being given is what is in any case owed, nothing more. 

In other words, God is not now in man’s debt (to forgive the sins of humanity) because man has only given to God that which man owes to God.

Boso sums this up nicely:

If in justice I owe God myself and all my powers, even when I do not sin, I have nothing left to render to him for my sin.

In the context of considering this work in relation to those who consider themselves Christian yet still see Jesus as merely and only a man yet find his sacrifice as sufficient for salvation for all men, I would modify Boso’s words slightly:

If in justice Jesus owed to God himself and all his powers, even though he did not sin, he has nothing left to render to him for the sins of the rest of humanity.

Conclusion

For those who claim that Jesus was only a perfect, sinless man, he was giving to God nothing more than what he owed to God.  He could not give to God anything more, let alone anything sufficient for what all of humanity, throughout all time, owed to God.

On the cross, such a human Jesus did nothing more than pay for how he lived his life, based on the laws and customs of man.  Being sinless (as only a man, I know it isn’t possible, but many make the argument, even many who consider themselves Christian), he owed God nothing more than what he gave. 

For this reason, he had nothing more to offer to repay that stolen from God due to the sins of the rest of humanity.

Only the God-man could satisfy this stolen honor.