Reviewing “Why God Became Man” by Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm was a Benedictine monk, a philosopher, and a theologian. He served as the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109 AD. His work Cur Deus Homo, or Why God Became Man, covered Christian teachings of central importance: the incarnation, the sin of men, Christology, redemption by Christ, the doctrine of election etc. It answered the question why God had to become man for the salvation of the elects. The teaching was discussed through the dialogues between Anselm and Boso (one of Anselm’s students). There are two books for this work. While the first answered, with clear logic, how men sin, and why men’s sins are so great that they need Christ’s salvation, the second answered why it is Christ, with a perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature, who carried out the act of redemption of the human race.

In Book 1, Anselm and Boso started their conversations by defining which questions unbelievers have in general, including the irrationality of God descending into a woman’s womb, bearing the life of a man who suffered on earth, and being crucified on the cross. Then Anselm started explaining the necessity of all these for the redemption of the human race by a divine person. He first argued that it is the will of God that the death of a just man, Christ, happened. It is not that God is not omnipotent, as if Christ had to die out of obligation. He died voluntarily although His obedience did not demand it. A few verses were cited. (Phil. 2:8, Phil. 2:9, John 6:38, Rom. 8:32, and Matt. 26:39) Anselm wrote this in response to the Muslims (who believe God can forgive as He wishes), and the Jews (why the incarnation). This work is also believed to be a projection of hierarchical submission in the feudal society in the Middle Ages onto theology.

Then they spent an extended discussion regarding man’s sins and the recompense for them. Anselm defined that “to sin is nothing other than not to give God what is owed to him.” (page 283) And the debt which the human race ought to pay back to God is “all the will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God.” (page 283) Just as men who sinned took away what God deserves, they are “under an obligation to repay to God an honor which he has violently taken from him,” (page 283) which is satisfactory to God. Then can God simply cancel the debt, or forgive the sins, out of mercy alone? Anselm explained that it does not fit God to do that. Canceling sins without any punishments would make sinners and non-sinners before God. This would make sinfulness in a position of greater freedom than righteousness. However, it does not fit God who is righteous and just. (pages 284-285) Hence, there ought to be a punishment for sinners, even though God is willing to forgive the sinners.

Anselm and Boso then turned their discussion about the fallen angels. Some angels fell because of their sins. Fallen angels were unable to reconcile with God because God did not give them perseverance. They came to the conclusions that the places of these bad angels have to be filled up from the human race. They even concluded that the human elect will not be less than the number of fallen angels. Although it is not clear these teachings about angels have scriptural basis, Anselm spent a considerable amount of effort to explain the necessity of electing human elects into the places of bad angels, thus requiring redeeming some people. And as good angels do not sin, the elects who replace the bad angels should be sinless as well. Therefore, the elected men have to be saved for the recompense for sin. (pages 289-301) However, in my opinion, without the angelology, the whole framework of Anselm’s teaching does not fall apart because God is willing to save men to restore the original purpose of creation, which will be covered in Book 2.

To fill the places of fallen angels, or to simply put humans back to the original places, Anselm argued that they have to be sinless. Anselm told an analogy that a rich man holds a precious pearl, which is knocked out of his hand into the mud by some others. Although the man can pick it up, he wants the pearl to be perfectly clean, without dirts. (page 301) It is the case that men needs to be saved before God can restore them into the place. This is another explanation why God cannot simply forgive men out of mercy alone, because it does not fit His characters.

Knowing that the recompense is necessary, it is logical to figure out how much it takes for men to repay God for what they have owed. It is agreed that “the recompense should be proportional to the size of the sin.” (page 303) Moreover, unfortunately, in addition to our own being and all that we are capable of, there are things needed to recompense that we could not pay for because our sins are heavy: we sin as our actions contradict the will of God so seriously that the whole universe needs to perish. The sin started in the Garden, when man was created without sins. He was placed there as God’s deputy (Gen. 1:28-30) and was able to overcome the devil. However, he chose to commit sin, despite his greater strength and his immortality. As a result, he is weak and mortal. He is responsible for the sin committed, and “needs to conquer the devil through the difficulty of sin.” (page 308) From many perspectives, it is concluded that the human race is unable to restore to the state of pure righteousness.

Then, it is tempting to say, “a merciful God remits the debt of anyone who begs forgiveness on the ground that he is incapable of making repayment,” (page 311) but this kind of mercy contradicts God’s justice, as Anselm argued. However, given that God is willing to forgive men, it follows as a necessary consequence that mankind is saved by Christ, which is the main theme of Book 2.

In Book 2, Anselm and Boso continued the conversation, but turned their focus on biblical theology. Anselm recalled the creation of man at the beginning that “the nature of rational beings was created by God righteous in order that, through rejoicing in him, it might be blessedly happy… It is rational… in order that it may distinguish between right and wrong, and between the greater good and the lesser good.” (page 315) And man was so perfect that “if he had not sinned, he would never die… If man is to be restored in perfection, he ought to be reconstituted as the sort of being he would have been if he had not sinned.” (page 316) For this, God has two options: completing what God has begun, and destroying the current sinful human race to raise a new one. However, it has to be the former because among His creation, there is nothing more precious than man. Therefore, a redemption of the human race is needed.

The next question becomes how this redemption is brought about, and why it has to be acted by someone who is God and man. Anselm argued that it has to be God because to pay back the property of God, it has to be God himself; and it has to be man, because it is man who ought to repay the debt that he owed. (page 320) This person has to be perfect God and perfect Man, with two distinct natures in one Person, unlike what the Nestorians or the Monophysites claimed. This God-man came from God who assumed a human nature from the race of Adam and from a virgin woman. This man belongs to the race of Adam, instead of a newly created sinless man, so that it is appropriate for this man to pay recompense for the race of Adam. And why it is from a virgin woman? Anselm raised two points: first, to show God’s competence, as He had not made a man from a woman without a man (but He did from a man and a woman together as in usual practice, from neither a man nor a woman as in Adam’s creation, and from a man without a woman as in Eve’s creation); and second, the cause of human’s first sin originated from a woman, so that it is appropriate that “the medicine of sin and the cause of salvation should be born of a woman.” (page 323)

Another question is why it has to be the Second Person of the Trinity to incarnate. Anselm pointed out that it is more appropriate for the Son to make supplication to the Father than other Persons. And the Son, as the Person of the Word, is the Person that the men had sinned most specifically against.

Then Anselm and Boso returned back to the question whether Christ died voluntarily. The discussion brought about the important idea that Christ, as a perfect man, is immortal, but capable of committing sin just like Adam. However, He maintained righteousness while “being capable of abandoning it.” (page 327) Anselm eloquently stated “all capability is consequent upon will.” (page 326) Christ was capable of not dying (because of His righteousness), but He chose to die. His volunteer to do this is undoubtable. He died out of His own free will. And it is of His own power that He died, and rose again, as he is omnipotent, an attribute of His divine nature.

Christ assumed a human nature from the race of Adam and a virgin, He shared our discomforts and other weaknesses. However, out of the weaknesses we have, He did not take ignorance because ignorance is “never useful, always detrimental.” (page 333) Being the God-man, even though He took up the human nature, He is still fully divine: He still possesses the identity of God.

The human race had to die because of our sins, as Anselm and Boso had already argued earlier. And now they argued how Christ’s death is sufficient to outweigh the magnitude of all sins of the human race, committed both in the past and the future. As the sins of the human race have been directed against the Son, it is the Son, who need to be paid in order to pay for the debt due to our sins. It is the death of the Word through whom the Universe was created that the created Universe can be restored. If it were not this man dying, the whole Universe would be cursed to perish. And it is worth noting that this same death destroyed the sins of those who put Christ to death, because, as Apostle Paul wrote, that if they knew it, they would not crucify their God. (1 Cor. 2:8) Their sins were committed out of ignorance.

It is worth noting that the God-man was produced sinless out of the sinful human race in order to restore the creation. This restoration of creation is more miraculous than the creation itself. (page 337) Boso mentioned that it is undoubtable that Adam and Eve had a connection with the act of redemption although the Bible is not clear about it, (page 340) but this statement cannot be easily discerned.

At this point, it has been proved that man’s sins are so great that man cannot repay it themselves, and God cannot forgive man without recompense due to its righteousness, but God is willing to restore the human race back to the originally perfect human nature by redemption, by becoming man, assuming human nature in the same race of Adam, and giving himself to God to pay recompense to God Himself for the sin of the human race. While it does not fit God to simply cancel our debts without any punishment, God shows His mercy by becoming man to save us. This way of redemption does not make mercy and just mutually exclusive, but come together as God’s attributes in harmony.

As God adopt the human nature of Adam to carry out the redemption, devil, the fallen angel, cannot be saved through this way because there is no angel-God that is like man-God to perform this. (page 354-355) Anselm concluded by saying that all these are scriptural based.

Continue reading “Reviewing “Why God Became Man” by Anselm of Canterbury”

God and Man: the Whole Christian Account from Four of the Psalms

In the long weekend of Memorial Day 2016, it was so exciting to have Dr. Todd Beall to be the speaker of the retreat of Chinese Bible Church of College Park (CBCCP). It was held in Messiah College. He gave four sermons and two workshops. Dr. Beall graduated from Princeton University with a B. A. in English Literature, a Th.M. in Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a Ph.D. in New Testament from The Catholic University of America.

In his four sermons, Dr. Beall gave a whole Christian account on the relationship between God and man. The first sermon was on Psalm 8, talking about God’s design on man. The created Universe is magnificent and great, (Ps. 8:3-4), but man, as a bearer of God’s image, (Gen. 1:26-27)  is the crown of creation, who is given the dominion over the Universe. (Ps. 8:5-8, Gen 1:28). Dr. Beall pointed out that while the Fall distorted our image of God, but it was not totally lost, and we still have the dominion over it, although the task is much more difficult. (Heb. 2:6-8, 1 Cor. 15:25, 27) Of course, the majesty of God is presented at the beginning and the end of this psalm, as in inclusio.

His second sermon was on Psalm 19. This sermon is basically the doctrine of Scripture, or bibliology. The poet praised about the general revelation, i.e., His revelation in the Universe that demonstrates His glory to everyone. (Ps. 19:1-6) The God here is El, the transcendent God. Then it comes with the special revelation, which is His revelation in His Word that demands our joyful obedience. (Ps. 19:7-11) The God here is YHWH, the tetragrammaton, the covenantal God who relates personally with man. Dr. Beall spent a lot of time talking about the pattern in verses 7-9: a noun clause, an adjective, and a verb in the three patterns. Finally, His Word demands our contrition, and our obedience. (Ps. 19:12-14) It is the application. The most important thing in this psalm is that he delighted in God’s Word. “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.” (Ps. 19:12-14)

The transcendence and immanence of God implies a lot about the relationship between God and man. In his third sermon on Psalm 139, Dr. Beall elaborated about His omniscience, particular that He knows everything about us; (Ps. 139:1-6) and about His omnipresence, particularly that He can find us everywhere.  (c.f. Jonah) With these incommunicable attributes, the poet said that God made us wondrously for His purpose. (Ps. 139:13-18) Dr. Beall further elaborated it, by arguing that this is the basis for pro-life, no-suicide, no-euthanasia, and the meaning of life. The last section of this Psalm, (Ps. 139:19-24) as Dr. Beall pointed out, has been mistreated and neglected by commentators and theologians. The poet’s hatred against his enemies did not make him urging God to destroy them, but asking God to search his heart, and to deal with his enemies in God’s way. Dr. Beall summarized this as “God will be with me when I align myself with His purpose and submit to His will.”

Man ought to have a complete and simple trust on God given His attributes and His relationship with us. The fourth sermon is on Psalm 131, one of the psalms of ascents. (Pss. 120-134) As a psalm of only three verses, its message is rich in about our having lasting peace. First, we must not be prideful. (Ps. 131:1a) The poet, King David, was great, but he was humble as he realized he was sinful. Pride seeds from our heart, but flows external in appearance. That is why church elders cannot be recent converts. (1 Tim. 3:6) People of this age, including the members of CBCCP, are so educated that they tend to value intellect. Some people worship human intellect. However, it must be noted that intellect is part of the image of God, but the brightest minds in our world who taught in top-tier universities possess a wrong presupposition. Job, after hopelessly discussing with his friends, was questioned by God about God’s incomprehensibility. (Job 42:3) Second, we must not be presumptuous. (Ps. 131:1b) Third, we must simply trust in the God, (Ps. 131:2) by reading His Word, talking to God in prayers, obeying it, and urging everyone to do the same. Finally, we must put the hope in the Lord. (Ps. 131:3)

Dr. Beall gave two workshops as well. The first was titled “Principles from Proverbs on the Tongue.” He pointed out proverbs are of the genre of poetry, and a book with general truths, and a topical approach to study it will be helpful. The second workshop was titled “What the Bible Says about Creation.” From a school of classical dispensationalism, he supported the view of creation in Genesis 1-2 to be read in a literal way, in contrast to other ways such as day-age theory, gap theory, or the currently dominant framework view. (c.f. PCA Creation Study Report) Continue reading “God and Man: the Whole Christian Account from Four of the Psalms”