There are two main places where St. Anslem's account of redemption is found. The first and most well-known is in his famous work Cur Deus Homo. But there is a second and shorter work on the atonement entitled A Meditation on Human Redemption.
St. Anslem is famous for supposedly having rejected the so-called Ransom Theory of the Church Fathers. This theory holds, we are often told, to the view that God and Satan entered into some kind of deal in which once God paid the sufficient amount the latter would hand humanity back to the former. Whether this is true or not, and to what extent St. Anslem himself would agree with this narrative, it is true that his A Meditation on Human Redemption acknowledges a strain within the ransom theory that isn't so much about God and the devil entering into some kind of deal, but rather the view that God tricked the devil into our redemption.
In A Meditation on Human Redemption, Anselm says the following:
"Why did you, O good Lord, gracious Redeemer, mighty Savior, why did You veil such strength with such lowliness? Was it in order to deceive the Devil, who by deceiving man thrust him forth from Paradise? Surely, Truth deceives no one; someone deceives himself if he does not know the truth, if he does not believe it. He deceives himself, seeing the truth, he hates it or despises it; thus, Truth deceives no one. Well, then, [did You conceal Your power] in order that the Devil might deceive himself? Surely, just as Truth deceives no one, so it does not intend that anyone deceive himself, (even though we do say that Truth intends this when Truth permits it to occur). For you did not assume a human nature in order to conceal what was known about You but in order to reveal what was unknown about You. You said that You were truly divine and truly human, and You demonstrated this fact through Your works. The hiddenness was unavoidable, not deliberate. The reason that the event occurred as it did was not in order to be hidden, but in order to be performed in the right way. [It happened in that way] not in order to deceive anyone, but in order to be done as was fitting. If this event is called concealed, then it is called so only because it is not revealed to everyone. Although Truth does not manifest itself to everyone, it does not withhold itself from anyone. Therefore, O Lord, in becoming incarnate it was not Your purpose to deceive anyone or to cause anyone to deceive himself. You remained in the truth in every respect so that You might do what had to be done in the way it had to be done. Hence, let anyone who has deceived himself regarding Your truth complain not about You but about the falsehood in himself." [1]
This, it seems to me, is a clear critique of the ransom theory of the atonement that has as one of its core premises the idea that the devil was tricked into murdering Jesus, of whom he had no rights, and thus was condemned by the flesh of Christ (that same flesh that was used to cloak Christ's true nature as the Son of God).
Anselm's rejection here concerns the notion that the devil was intentionally deceived by God. This would implicate God in a lie. Anselm's concern, then, is to protect the goodness of God's will: "Truth deceives no one," he says, again and again and again.
But is this the correct characterization of the Church Fathers in general, or any one of them in particular? We are told that it is and that St. Anselm takes direct aim at them. But he never mentions a particular Father, so how do we know he isn't merely critiquing a dominant but distorted view of the Ransom Theory? Second, if it is not, then what is the correct characterization of the Ransom Theory (RT) that the Fathers in fact articulated?
Fr. Nicholas Lombaro argues in The Father's Will that the theme of deception is not as central to RT as most think. It is, rather, the theme of provoking evil that takes central stage in the Father's understanding of the Cross. Lombardo explains:
"Throughout its many variations, the defining feature of the devil's ransom is not deception, not trickery, and not even the devil (its essential structure would hold together just as well if Christ's crucifixion were caused entirely by human agents), but God's deliberate provocation of evil. In each version, God intervenes in human history to call out evil and draw it to himself. Evil takes the bait and overreaches, and God reclaims humanity from the dominion of evil and death. In this way the redemption of humanity is brought about by God's deliberate provocation of evil. God turns evil against itself and it swallows its own tail. We are saved, in the words of Cyril of Jerusalem, 'by the very weapons the devil was using to defeat us.'" [2]
Thus, if we take Lombardo's point as certain, it would seem that Anselm's rejection above is really only a rejection of a feature of the ransom tradition that is not at all essential to it. In fact, Anselm is not articulating the Fathers' view at all, but perhaps a popular view common in his own day. So this narrative about St. Anselm opposing the Church Fathers' view of the atonement is not as sound as most may be tempted to believe.
The real problem that this narrative has become is that it has simply left caricature's of the RT in its wake, leaving many believing that the Church Fathers were simply all wrong when it came to their respective atonement theologies.
Lombardo's point is illustrated by Augustine's famous work on the atonement in On the Trinity. In book 13 (chapter 14), Augustines argues that the devil "found in Him [Jesus] nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him." The devil had knowledge that Jesus was without sin but killed him instead. As with all those familiar with the four Gospels, Jesus was innocent and still put to death. In short, Jesus was killed unjustly. That's a point that all agree on. But it was an important atonement-like point for Augustine, however, who believed that the devil murdered Jesus without having the right to kill Jesus, although he has that right over all others who have sinned. Augustine would later emphasize the role of Jesus' mortal nature in provoking or confounding the devil. The basis of the devil's conviction that he had the right to kill Jesus was that Jesus had a mortal nature that was itself subject to death. The devil was following the logical order or things: death entered the world because of sin, therefore, those who have a mortal nature are subject to sin and thus death.
With Jesus, however, this is precisely not the case, since, although he had a mortal nature, he did not sin! That was the mistake the devil made: he assumed Jesus was technically under the reign of sin and death. By taking on a mortal nature — by identifying with sinners — he "tricked" the devil, as it were. This is how Augustine would have read a passage like 2 Corinthians 5:21: "God made him to be sin who knew no sin." In fact, Paul lays out the logic of Augustine's atonement theology: God made Jesus to be sin by giving him a mortal nature but he did not sin. The fact that Paul puts it like this is to clarify what was still obscure to Satan prior to the moment of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Yes, Jesus had a mortal nature, but he never sinned.
The provocation of evil on Jesus' part was not merely a deceptive tactic, something inevitably pressed upon us by the use of various metaphors that the Fathers liked to us (Augustine's mousetrap or Gregory's fishhook).
Was the devil truly ignorant? power hungry? or just couldn't resist the opportunity to kill Jesus even though he knew it would destroy him? These questions have left many theologians with giggles, dismissing and almost laughing at the absurd claim that the devil was duped or truly ignorant. But, perhaps, there is some kind of fitting ignorance that accords with the particular vice that the devil was prone to make: pride. The devil refused to acknowledge that God's greatness is demonstrated in loving service.
Nevertheless, behind the notion of "trickery" or "deception" is the very foundational claim that the patristics seem to be getting at here: the devil is, at some level, ignorant as to what exactly is going on with Jesus of Nazareth. And here is the point. That ignorance on the part of the devil is part of the logic of the Incarnation and the means of our redemption. Is it possible to see the patristic use of deception as really a kind of self-deception on the part of the devil? Some exegete have made precisely this case, as does Augustine himself.
For example, Gregory Boyd makes the following case:
"God did, in a sense, deceive Satan and the powers [just as] Jesus was, in a sense, 'bait.' But there was nothing duplicitous or unjust in God's behavior. To the contrary, God was simply acting in an outrageously loving way, knowing all the while that his actions could not be understood by the powers whose evil blinds them to love. Like an infinitely wise military strategist, God knew how to get his enemies to use their self-inflicted blindness against themselves and thus use their self-chosen evil to his advantage." [3]
There are passages from the New Testament that seem to support the idea that the devil was ignorant of Jesus' true identity. My sense is that Boyd is tracking with the Fathers of the Church a kind of self-inflicted blindness on the the part of the devil and the world, in which they had become truly ignorant to the truth of love, of self-emptying humility. They were unaware of the camouflage of love.
If it is the case that the devil was without knowledge when he took Jesus' life, then this, it seems to me, has a fascinating parallelism with the Tree of Knowledge that Satan tempted our first parents to take from. They wanted knowledge and got it. For Satan, now the roles are exactly reversed: here is Satan, the one without knowledge, grasping and taking and striking at that which hangs from the Tree to gain it. Satan takes the life of Jesus and gains the knowledge of Christ's divinity. The roles are reversed.
And because he grasped at it, the rights over the earth that had been transferred to him have now been given over to Jesus! This line of argumentation has all the flavor of fittingness.
Let's return to St. Anselm's concern.
It seems Anselm is right to be concerned with the idea that God intentionally deceived the devil. But Anselm, in a way, provides his own solution to this problem, does he not? Isn't it the case, he says, that most people during Jesus' day and ours are ignorant of the Truth? Thus, Anselm understands as coherent the idea that although God intends to deceive no one the theologian still needs to provide an account as to why people are in fact deceived. What is Anselm's solution?
Anselm suggests that people deceive themselves! But this is precisely the argument some Fathers make. Satan, using Anselm's own solution above, deceives himself and murders Jesus under his own shadows of darkness. This would seem like a fitting response on the part of those who favor the devil's ransom tradition. And it's Anselm who provided it.
We will continue our reflection on St. Anselm's meditations on human redemption in a second part, but for now we've seen in his opening remarks two things.
First, St. Anselm is concerned that painting the picture of God deceiving the devil is odd and concerning.
Second, but Anslem recognizes that some people are in fact deceived.
Third, Anselm gets God off the hook, however, by blaming man for his own blindness.
Fourth, thus Anselm has provided at least one way in which the devil could himself be said to have been tricked into killing Jesus such that God is not morally at fault.
A final thought. One should note that those who hold to the theory that the Father punished the Son as if the latter were a guilty criminal will have a hard time objecting to the ransom theory on this point. In this version of the Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) theory, the Father "tricks" and "deceives" Himself into thinking that Jesus is a guilty sinner, when in reality he is not. The Father "pretends" that Jesus is a sinner, or "reckons" His Son to be a sinner, when in reality Jesus is not. To consider something to be the case when in reality it is not and one knows it is not is the definition of self-deception. But in the Fathers' view, the devil is the one who is self-deceived by his own pride and desire for power.
We'll continue in the coming weeks with a further analysis of St. Anselm's A Meditation on Human Redemption.
[1] Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury. United Kingdom: Hymns Ancient & Modern Limited, 1974, 138.
[2] Lombardo,, Nicholas E.. The Father's Will: Christ's Crucifixion and the Goodness of God. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford, 2013.
[3] Boyd, Gregory. "Christus Victor View," in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. United Kingdom: InterVarsity Press, 2009. 37
Comments