Anselm, Calvin,  and Jesus

                There are two great traditions that have influenced Christendom concerning the meaning of the death of Jesus, This is an unusual situation since most people die without any implications of the meaning of their deaths. Anselm has given a theory that has become the accepted view in the Roman Catholic tradition. John Calvin has given us a theory of the
meaning of  the death of Jesus which has permeated Protestantism, Neither of these theories relate very much to the words of Jesus himself.

I. Anselm
                Anselm's view of the death of Jesus is an attempt to give a reasonable explanation of his death without appealing to Scripture. In his preface he indicates “as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by plain reasoning and fact that human nature was ordained for this
purpose, viz., that every man should enjoy a happy immortality, both in body and in soul, and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled; but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, and unless all things were to take place which we hold
with regard to Christ." (Cur Deus Homo? (p, 177-178) Because of this direction Anselm constructs a theory that has little revelence to the Words of Jesus.

                Anselm stresses the importance of the honor of God and that all beings including angels should give obedience. He has a major emphasis on the number of people to be saved  would be the number of angels who sinned in rebellion against God.

                The honor due to God, if given, keeps man from sin. If the honor is not given, as it was not in rebellion, then man sins. God cannot simply forgive for that would wipe out the distinctions between the guilty and the not guilty, and "this is unbecoming to God." p. 203)

Because man has neglected to honor God completely, Anselm notes, "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. " (p. 207) If man does not repay the honor, then God takes it in the form of punishment. The predicament that man is in is expressed in Anselm's words, "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." (p. 224-225)

                Rather than the motive of agape, Anselm argues that God must finish what he began or he would be a failure. "Therefore is it necessary for him to perfect in human nature what he has begun. But this as we have already said, cannot be accomplished save by a complete expiation of
sin, which no sinner can effect for himself" (p.242) Because of the helplessness of man, only God can render to God the satisfaction required by God.

                Thus we have a debt owed by man and he cannot pay it. Only God can pay it, but he  does not owe it. The solution is the Incarnation in which the God-man takes to himself human nature and pays the debt. He wrote: "For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay,
and man will not do it, because he cannot, Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should be perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement_" (p. 246)

                Perhaps one only need to ask the question why could not the perfect obedience of Christ be sufficient to give the honor required to God. Why a death? Anselm declares that "Now, nothing can be more severe or difficult for man to do for God's honor, than to suffer death
voluntarily when not bound by obligation, and man cannot give himself to God in any way more truly than by surrendering himself to death for God's honor." (p. 258)

                This is a beautiful piece of theology and it has been a major influence in the Catholic tradition. However, it has little to do with the words of Jesus concerning his own death. It says a lot about Anselm’s own time and the feudalistic society.

II. Calvin

                Let us begin by recalling some of the view of Calvin in his Institutes. Probably no better sentence will serve as a beginning than this one; "Our acquittal is in this--that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God (Isa.53:12)
We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance, which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us." (Institutes, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1957 (trans. by H.
Beveridge)).p.439.
               
                Calvin views God from the standpoint of anger with man the sinner and "until freed from guilt, being always liable to the wrath and curse of God, who, as he is a just judge, cannot permit his law to be violated with impunity, but is armed with vengeance." (ibid. p. 434)
Because of man's sin and the judgement due him, "Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself; and bore what by the just judgement of God was impending over sinners, with his own blood expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by his expiation satisfied and duly
propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, by this tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them," (ibid,)
                The death of Jesus was important in Calvin's view. "Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporal death. In order to interpose between us and God 's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with
the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death."

                Much of the direction of Calvin's theory comes from the themes in Isa 53. In fact he quotes this passage 7 times in the one chapter. Calvin points out that "he was bruised for our iniquities," that he "bore our infirmities," and these expressions point up that he undertook and
"paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him," (p_443)

                Calvin does quote in the context of his exposition other passages of Scripture which are presumed affirmations of his penal theory. For example, Romans 5:8 declares that God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Therefore
he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards us, we were the workers of iniquity" (p.436-37)

                The idea of God expressed in Calvin seems demanding and harsh. This grows out of the idea of the holiness of God in which God has moral absolutes that must be obeyed by humans or they must be dealt with in the penalty related to their sin. Strangely enough, the words
of Jesus are not mentioned in regard to the meaning of the death of Jesus, but they are quoted by Calvin in a different context. In a chapter contrasting the old and new covenants he refers to the last supper in which there comes about a new and eternal covenant "consecrated and
established in the blood of Christ. Hence, the Savior, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament in his blood, intimating, that the covenant of God was truly realized, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood.: (p, 392) Calvin
even quotes the passage of Jeremiah (31:31-34) in which God is going to make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a covenant unlike that he made with their fathers, a new covenant (because they broke the old) in which God would forgive their sins, and
put his law in their hearts and minds.

                In spite of referring to these great passages, Calvin develops his penal theory that refers more to a sacrificial system than the New Covenant. Even then the sacrificial system is misused since it was given by God for the spiritual education and development of Israel in their worship of God. It was not a propitiation in its origination.

                There are a number of questions that have come up thru the centuries about these two major theories.

                One question concerns the issue of substitution. How is it possible for one person to suffering in another's place in moral issues? Someone else can pay my legal debts, but no one else can pay my moral debts.

                Some Reformed theologians defend the substitution by saying that "the transfer of penal debt is well nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men. But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions
named were met. There was no injustice of any kind." (Berkhof p. 376)

                Even the Scripture passages quoted as supporting the substitution idea do not really support the theory. Consider the following references used:

                John 1:29 ..._ Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world .... " We admit that Jesus is the Lamb of God, but taking away sin is can be done without a penal theory as required by Calvin and Anselm.

                2 Corinthians, 5:21, "F or our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. " Does this really mean any more than the righteous one lived among men under the conditions of the sinful world?

The theory of Calvin and Anselm has nothing to say about the previous two verses which are important. Verse 19 states ' '... God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." If our trespasses have not been counted against us, what does this do to the requirement of a penalty being paid?

                Gal 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written "cursed be every one who hangs on a tree_" There appears to be a vicarious element here until you think about the passage and its context. Because Christ was nailed to
"a tree" he is regarded as cursed hence the quote from the Old Testament. Being redeemed from the curse of the Law has already been explained in 21:20 where Paul declared that his union with Christ brought him death to the law and life in the Spirit and Paul now lives by faith in the
Son of God." The stress is on faith in Christ, not the fulfillment of the law and a penalty.

                Heb. 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." This would appear to be vicarious in nature, but the context points toward the new covenant which was instituted by Christ by his death. Chapter 8 quotes extensively from Jeremiah and the promised new covenant that would come and the forgiveness of sin associated with it. There is the contrast in chapter 9 of the first and second covenants and that Christ is the mediator of a new covenant
(9:15) and it was ratified with his own blood. The passage continues to say that he sacrificed himself to put away sin, which is related to the new covenant's beginning. The writer continues in chapter 10 to speak of the new covenant's promise that "I will remember their sins and their
misdeeds no more." and then concludes, "where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." It would seem that if God forgives, no penal offering is required.

                I Peter 2:24. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, By his wounds you have been healed." Are we driven to conclude a penal theory out of this passage? Our sins needed a solution. They could be paid for in the
penalty theory, or they could still be a burden and at the same time be forgiven. The New Covenant of Jesus is a proclamation of forgiveness to those who have faith and commitment.
Goodspeed's translation has it like this: "He carried the burden of our sins in his own body on the tree, in order that we might die to sin and live for uprightness."( p.22O)

                It seems possible to conclude that the passages quoted do not compel us to adopt a penal theory of the death of Jesus. Instead, the context of the passages suggest that the issue of fulfilling the requirements of the law are rejected. Perhaps it is time to look anew at the meaning
of the death of Jesus, particularly, in light of his own words.

                Both Anselm and Calvin presume the righteousness of God as a standard and the standard must be met in terms of punishing sinners. Martin Luther's experience was at first with the idea of the righteousness of God as a standard which he could not attain. He hated God for
such a high standard. Later in his study of Romans he found that the righteousness of God was a gilt bestowed in faith. This revolutionary concept transformed his life and heart. He wrote later in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church some words that have been overlooked in Reformed theology.
                "Behold, O sinful and condemned man, out of the pure and unmerited love with which I love you, and by the will of the Father of mercies ..__ apart from any merit or desire of yours, I promise you in these words the forgiveness of all your sins and life everlasting. And that you may be absolutely certain of this irrevocable promise of mine, I shall give my body and pour out my blood, confirming this promise by my very death, and leaving you my body and blood as a sign and memorial of this same promise." (The Three Treatises, p. 158)

III. JESUS

                Certainly the most important words about the meaning of the death of Jesus come from the founder himself Three of the Gospels record the words, and they are alluded to in the Gospel of John. Paul recaps the words in I Corinthians.

               On the night in which he was betrayed, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said: "Take, eat, this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the new
covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

                Probably the best way to make sense out of these profound words of Jesus is to remember how the first covenant was made with Abraham. The story in Genesis speaks of animals that were slain, cut into half and "when the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking
pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram." (15:17) This covenant was renewed in Israel on some occasions.

                The nature of the covenant was that it was a suzerainty covenant. It was given by God. Abram was the receiver of the covenant. His hope, his future, his confidence was based in the covenant that God gave, and Abram did nothing to gain or win the covenant. A New Covenant was foretold in the prophets.

                Jeremiah wrote, "Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke,
though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each
man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ' Know the Lord,‘ for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. " (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

                The Christian era claims that the New Covenant was given. The prophets had foretold a new covenant that God would give in his own time. Jesus as the Incarnate Son gives the covenant and his blood, or his life, is the seal of  the Covenant. Unlike the old covenant made with the blood of animals the new covenant is ratified by the blood of the eternal Son of God incarnate in Jesus, the Christ, and is an everlasting covenant, like the first covenant, this one was given, not gained by man or his substitute.

                In contrast, Calvin emphasizes that propitiation is necessary for man's sin to be forgiven. This is to impose the words of Isaiah on the words of Jesus. If we are to think in terms of propitiation we do violence to the idea of the covenant and the nature of its being "given," Propitiation means that God must be appeased before there can be forgiveness.
Propitiation would have to precede the giving of the new covenant.

                One of the controversial passages relates to Romans 3:21-27 For example, one of the defenders of Calvinism was Charles Hodge. He insisted on a penal view of the death of Jesus. He declared that there are two great truths revealed in scripture: 1) "that God cannot pardon sin
without  satisfaction to his justice, and 2) that he cannot have fellowship with the unholy." (Vol. III, p.492) Hodge insisted that justice is necessary and demands the punishment of sin. If sin be pardoned it can be pardoned in consistency with the divine justice only on the ground of a forensic penal satisfaction. Therefore the Apostle says (Rom. 3:25) that God sent forth Christ as a propitiation through faith in his blood, in order that God might be just in justifying the ungodly."
p.488) »
                This passage hardly supports the view expressed by Hodge and Calvin. It begins with the "righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." It would seem that the moral law insisted upon by Calvin and his followers has been sidestepped and this passage goes on to speak of sinners being "justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption (   ‘ιλαστιον = hilastrerion  ) which is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins, it was to prove at the same time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3: 21-27) If his grace is a gift, then it is not something that needed payment. If he forgives sins, that is not something that needs payment.

                If Paul had been committed to the satisfaction of moral law as Calvin and Anselm proposed then it would seem Paul would have written something like this: "The righteousness of God has been met and the law has been observed in the death of Jesus for the sins of mankind. But it doesn't. Rather, the righteousness of God is expressed apart from the law. If there is grace, there is no need for satisfaction. If the death of Christ is a payment, then it is not a gift. If the death of Christ is a payment, there is no forgiveness.

                The word hilastrerion has been the issue. It can be translated as expiation or propitation. Calvin and others have opted for propitiation in which the death of Jesus gains something for sinners, while the word expiation can mean that the death of Jesus declares something for the sinner. The word can refer to "mercy-seat" or the place of mercy in Christ,
so that God's grace and righteousness has been manifested and a place where one can come in faith and commitment and find forgiveness and God's Holy Spirit. Christ is the mercy seat where sinners may find forgiveness which is a gift of God because of faith as commitment.

                Much depends upon the meaning of the Greek word  ‘ιλαστιον.   The Interpreter's Bible notes "Dodd has rendered a significant service in establishing the fact that in the LXX the word rarely if ever occurs in the former of these senses (i.e., as a means of propitiating God, of
changing a supposed hostility to favor), and that it is constantly employed in the second sense; "a means of expiation, " if man is the agent; "a means of forgiveness," if God is the agent_" (Journal of Theological Studies, XXXII (1931, 352-60." Calvin has taken the first meaning of
propitiation rather than the second one which declares a way of forgiveness.

                The meaning of the death of Jesus is declared by Himself to be that of establishing the new covenant with his life and death. The book of Hebrews builds on these passages. The prophet Jeremiah is quoted extensively concerning the coming new covenant. That promised
covenant was that God will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more. " The writer of Hebrews then says, "where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin_" (10:18) Thus the death of Jesus declares a covenant of forgiveness, it does not win forgiveness
that was impossible without a penalty being paid.

                Is it possible to revise our understanding of the phrases in the New Testament from a sacrificial context to a covenantal context. This event of  the last supper could be summed in the simple phrase "the blood." I John 1:7 would reflect upon the blood (the covenantal promise of
Jesus) that we would have forgiveness of our sins. There is also the covenant "if" you will acknowledge your sins. Hebrews 10:19 gives us confidence to enter the presence of God "by the blood of Jesus." Is this not the privilege of the new covenant in his death? If we spurn him
we profane "the blood of the covenant" his life and his essence.

                If however the covenant is a guarantee of forgiveness, then the grace of God has been manifested.

                Jesus taught us to forgive even 7 x 70. We are to forgive graciously because God forgives graciously. Jesus did not indicate that no forgiveness was possible before he paid the penalty for man's sin. The Lord‘s prayer incorporates forgiveness because God has forgiven.

                If we adopt the view that Christ's death is the foundation of a new covenant, we give meaning to the book we call "the New Testament," we give real meaning to the words of Jesus, and we can give new understanding to the Lord‘s Supper which continues to testify to a New
Covenant for us. The New covenant also gives real meaning to the idea of forgiveness. Real forgiveness as expressed in God's act apart from the Law is forgiveness without a price. (This can relate to the idea of last will and testament, joint heirs, fellow heirs, etc.)