God an the Cross (I could not think of a better Title)

God and the Cross:
An Examination of Paul’s Theology of the Cross in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.

Christ has wrought salvation for mankind by atoning for the sins of man. The term atonement refers to the satisfaction of all legal or relational requirements necessary in order to reconcile two individuals to one another. It is here at the finished work of Christ that Soteriology asks the question, “How has Christ saved man?” Paul’s explanation is one of surface simplicity and unfathomable depth converging on the cross. Athanasius and Anselm offer two helpful explanations of the cross by expositing two facets of the Cross shown by Paul in his writings. First, Athanasius masterfully explores the necessity and nature of Christ’s victory over sin and death, by which He sets the captive souls free from the power of the devil. Second, Anselm proceeds further and explains the cross in terms of Christ’s unwavering obedience, through which He receives abundant merit in order to repay the debt of humanity owed to God. However, neither explain in any satisfactory way what Paul means when he states, “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,”[1] or when he refers to Christ on the cross as being “a curse” on behalf of man.[2]

In the past, theologians have committed themselves to an exposition of a single theological aspect of the cross, such as Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, and have in turn neglected a holistic view of the atonement for the sake of a single facet. Even though these two texts can be helpful in understanding the Pauline theology of the cross, they can also be a hindrance when either one or both are taken in exclusivity at the neglect of other facets of Christ’s work on the cross. When considering the atonement of Christ, His work on the cross, one’s view must be informed and shaped by the entirety of Scripture rather than a single theologian’s exegetical work. Although scholars have claimed exclusivity with a single view of the cross in the past, such claims are impossible for theologians to make due to the dense, multifaceted depth that Paul gives to the cross in His theology. Though Anselm and Athanasius offer helpful expositions of the cross, they neglect Christ’s bearing the just penalty for sin that, when taken in conjunction with their expositions of Paul, help to construct a more holistic understanding of the cross.

There are two ways in which the term atonement can be used: one general and the other specific. Generally, the term refers to all that Christ did in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as well as His ongoing intercession on behalf of the saints in order to save them. The latter, more specific use concerns itself chiefly with the role of Christ’s work on the cross. This paper will use atonement in the second sense in order to illuminate the additional teaching of Paul concerning Christ’s bearing the due punishment for man’s sin on the cross and thus demonstrate the folly of limiting one’s conception of the atonement to a theologian rather than to the Word of God.

Athanasius’ Divine Dilemma and Solution

In Athanasius’ On the Incarnation Christ’s work on the cross is chiefly one of victory over sin and death so that God can recreate mankind. This feature of the atonement is seen in Athanasius’ explanation of man’s condition before and after the fall, and God’s dilemma and solution to the problem of sin. Athanasius begins his explanation of the incarnation with the account of God’s creation. According to Athanasius, God created man out of nothing and bestowed upon him the special grace of being made in His Image so that man might attain to the knowledge of God, and in knowing Him, live a blessed life.[3] However, with this blessing God also gave man a single prohibition in paradise not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or else he shall surely die.[4] This is not a one-time death of the body, but rather a continual death described by Athanasius as, “not just [death] only, but [to] remain in the state of death and of corruption.”[5] This death and corruption became the natural consequences of God’s commandment over them in paradise, so that if man was to transgress the divine commandment, he would begin “returning, through corruption, to non-existence again.”[6] Furthermore, Athanasius states that “when they lost the knowledge of God they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists.”[7] For this reason, Athanasius views the incarnation chiefly in terms of restoration through emancipation and recreation.[8] This is why it was necessary for the Word Himself who made man in the beginning to establish salvation. He is the only agent “able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.”[9] Athanasius’ view of creation informs the bulk of his thought concerning the effects of sin on man, which Christ’s death amends so that men may know God and dwell in eternal blessedness.

In the context of the creation and fall of man, Athanasius frames the divine dilemma in three main points: first, God could not go back on His word and keep men from dying after they had transgressed His commandment; second, it was unfitting for God to let men that were once made in His image go “back again into non-existence through corruption;”[10] third, it was inappropriate that the devil should be allowed to bring men to nothing. Furthermore, Athanasius explains that the plight of man is not one resolved by mere repentance, because of the subsequent corruption and demand for death. Rather, God must first do away with death and corruption before He can re-create because of man’s debt to death. The cross in Athanasius thought is rooted in this dilemma. God, in His perfect wisdom and power, becomes a man that He might die on behalf of all, both satisfying and overthrowing death. Athanasius states, “death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid.”[11] The demands of death must be satisfied and Athanasius explains that when Christ died “the death of all was consummated” in His body, “yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished.”[12] The Word is life itself, so when death attempts to overtake Him, death is obliterated by utter life.[13]

Christ’s victory over death and the devil is a common theme in Scripture, showing up in 1 John 3:8, Hebrews 2:14-15, and 1 Corinthians15:54-57. One of the most notable verses is Colossians 2:15, where Paul states that Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it.”[14] The “it” in this passage refers back to the preceding verse, where Paul says that God has set aside the legal demand set against those who are in Christ by nailing the legal demand to the cross. “It” is standing in place of the word staurov, which means, “cross.” Therefore, according to Paul the cross is a public demonstration of Christ’s triumph over the hostile supernatural powers that have dominion over the world. Furthermore, by triumphing over them, Christ is able to set souls free from the bondage of the legal demands. Athanasius is exceedingly helpful in discussing Christ’s death as a victory against the powers of sin and the devil, but he does not encompass the entirety of Paul’s theology of the cross and thus cannot be affirmed exclusively.

Insufficiency of Athanasius’ Exposition of the Cross According to Paul

Though Athanasius uses the terms debt, payment, and sacrifice he does not use them in the Pauline sense, which considers the way in which sin affects the relationship between God and man. One of the strongest images in Pauline theology concerned with making a payment to God for the sake of reconciliation is found in the Greek word for propitiation, |ilasthrion. In Romans 3:25a, Paul states that Jesus Christ is “put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith.” Commonly translated as "propitiation" or "mercy seat," this word refers either to the means of atonement or the place of atonement. In regards to the former, it has within itself the connotation of reconciliation through an appeasing sacrifice. Romans 3:25a is within the context of a discussion concerning the righteousness of Christ that is received through faith in His blood alone. In this passage Christ’s blood shed on the cross is shown to be an atoning sacrifice and concerns itself with reconciliation with God in terms of repayment. In addition to the term propitiation used in Romans 3:25, Paul speaks powerfully of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:16, and Colossians 1:20. In all these cases Paul’s use of reconciliation maintains a general connotation of removing the enmity created between God and man by sin.

The way in which Athanasius and Paul use the terms debt, payment, and sacrifice must be understood in the context of the way in which they argue for the cross. When Athanasius speaks of the cross as a repayment of debt, this solution is defined by his divine dilemma. The ransom for Athanasius is not a repayment to God per se, because repaying God is never a problem needing to be solved. Rather, the dept is the natural demand of the law of death against man for his transgression. Athanasius’ use of repayment does not carry with it tones of appeasing God, where Paul’s use of the term does. Though Athanasius is helpful in emphasizing Christ’s victory, vindicating the souls enslaved to death, his work On the Incarnation is insufficient because it neglects a facet of Paul’s theology of the cross. This does not mean that the text is itself wrong, rather this insufficiency prevents theologians from affirming merely Athanasius’ theories and doing without other contributions that have been made to understanding Paul’s theology of the cross. It is this Pauline concept of repayment that Anselm develops in his Cur Deus Homo.

Anselm’s Divine Dilemma and Solution

In Cur Deus Homo, the atonement is understood chiefly in terms of repaying the debt of mankind. Anselm begins his argument for the logical necessity of the incarnation with an explanation of the nature of sin. Sin for Anselm is “nothing other than not to give God what is owed to Him.”[15] By being the greatest being imaginable, God rightly deserves all glory and honor, and by sinning against Him, man is withholding the honor he owes to God.[16] By sinning, man naturally incurs a debt and must either repay or be punished, yet since God is infinitely good, all acts against him are proportionate to who He is. Consequently, all sins are infinitely wicked because they are committed against an infinitely good God. Man is a finite being and finite causes can only yield finite effects. Yet, to dishonor someone is to do more than just an action; there is a superseding offence and, in the case of an offence against God, an infinite offence. Anselm explains that God rightly requires “recompense in proportion to the magnitude of the sin.”[17] Therefore man cannot satisfy his debt on his own, yet since God is just, He cannot let it slip by unregulated in His kingdom. God is morally perfect, since He is the greatest of all beings, and thus cannot be morally inappropriate. There can be no forgiveness without punishment or repayment.

In the context of this problem, Anselm frames his divine dilemma as: God can repay but ought not; man ought to repay but cannot. The God-man is therefore the only one who both ought and can repay the debt that man owes to God.[18] In accordance with this dilemma, Anselm understands the cross as a supererogatory act of Christ by which He earns abundant merit, with which to satisfy the account of man’s debt to God. Since Christ is sinless, He does not have any debt of His own, but since He is man He can offer merit on behalf of man.[19]

Paul also views the cross as the scene of Christ’s voluntary sacrifice of His life in perfect obedience to the will of the Father.[20] Both Paul and Anselm stress Christ’s sinlessness in His sacrifice; He did not deserve or need to die since He had no sins of His own to atone for. Therefore, when Christ obeyed unto death, He was exalted by the Father and earned merit. In order to save man Christ gives His merit, or the credit of His righteous obedience to man in order to repay the debt of sin. In Romans 5:19, Paul states, “For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” By Christ’s perfect obedience, those who have faith in Christ are made righteous, since His obedience is counted to them. Anselm is helpful in explaining Christ’s righteous merit achieved through His voluntary sacrifice of His own life for man and perfect obedience to the will of the Father. However, Anselm does not answer or address Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21, which are essential to forming a more complete conception of the cross.

Insufficiency of Anselm’s Exposition of the Cross According to Paul

Anselm does not speak of the cross in terms of the punishment that was due to man. In fact, the way in which he frames the divine dilemma does not allow for Christ becoming “sin” and “a curse” on behalf of man. Man has dishonored God. Now man must either repay or be punished. Christ repaid the debt of man. Therefore, the cross is a supererogatory action through which Christ receives abundant merit and not a scene of the punishment of God released against an innocent man on behalf of a lawless people. The cross is a good act that earns Christ a reward. The deal is either we repay or get punished—Christ repays, so He was not punished. Christ did not need to get punished since He is righteous, so we must not consider Him receiving punishment on the cross for Himself, just receiving merit and paying the infinite debt for any humans that choose to receive the merit of the God-man. Though Anselm is helpful in understanding sin as an affront to God that needs to be repaid, he does not address the repayment in such a way as to permit the Pauline facet of Christ becoming “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and “a curse” in Galatians 3:13. In Paul’s theology, the cross is not merely explained in terms of victory or repayment; rather a more holistic conception of Christ’s salvific act on the cross would also include Christ’s bearing the awesome weight of sin.

Christ Became a Curse, Galatians 3:13-14

Paul writes to the Galatians in order to address their faltering faith. Jewish Christians had entered the church in Galatia and were insisting upon certain ceremonial practices from the Old Testament to be held as obligatory for those in Christ. Paul realizes that the gospel is in danger and begins with a stern command to listen to no one, not even one of the apostles, if he preaches a different gospel than the one Paul had proclaimed among them. He then proceeds to argue for the true gospel of Christ. By the end of chapter 2, Paul has already outlined the gospel’s origin and authority and established that the righteousness of the gospel is attained only through faith and not by observing the law. In Galatians 3, Paul begins a formal argument for the insufficiency of the law and the necessity of faith in Christ in order to be righteous in God’s sight. Paul begins with Abraham as an example of righteousness by faith. He explains that it is within the context of Abraham’s faith that God promises to bless Abraham and all nations through Him. Thus in order to receive the blessing promised Abraham, one must be a “man of faith,” like Abraham.[21] However, unless a man meets all the requirements of perfection prescribed by the law he is “under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”[22] The law demands perfection and cannot make any man righteous. Faith alone justifies a man before God and faith is not a work. Therefore, the law is an obstacle to receiving the blessing promised to Abraham, because those who fail to keep it unwaveringly will be subject to the curse.

Paul then explains the significance of Christ’s manner of death, stating, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”[23] The curse Christ receives on the cross is spoken of in the context of the natural consequence of what would happen to man if he did not abide by Law. Christ bears the curse that is due to those who fail to keep the law, even though He Himself performed all that is required for righteousness according to the law. Paul proceeds to state that Christ became a curse “so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.”[24] In Christ’s becoming a curse, taking upon Himself what is rightly due to man, men are now able to be blessed by God.

Athanasius uses this verse in answering the curiosity of Christians in IV.25.54-55, but he does not use it in context of the discussion of those who are cursed for not keeping the law perfectly. In order to explain the cross Athanasius uses an illustration, he likens Christ to a wrestler who lets his spectators choose who he will fight.[25] According to Athanasius, Satan got to choose Christ’s manner of death so as to demonstrate His fearlessness and power by letting His enemy choose the greatest opponent, death on a cross. Clearly, Athanasius does not use Galatians 3:13 in the context of Paul’s argument, in which the cross is explained as Christ bearing the weight of the curse rightly due to man for failing to keep the law.

Christ was made Sin 2 Corinthians 5:21

In addition to Galatians 3:13, Paul speaks of Christ has bearing the punishment due to man in 2 Corinthians 5:21, stating, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”[26] This verse is within the larger context of Paul’s explanation of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation with which the Apostles and Christians are entrusted. Paul explains that it is through Christ’s becoming sin that sinners can become the righteousness of God and therefore be fully reconciled to God. However, Paul leaves his audience with the question, “In what way has the sinless Christ become sin?” In order to understand what Paul means by Christ’s becoming sin, one must look to Isaiah 53, which Paul loosely references in 2 Corinthians 5.

In Isaiah 53, the prophet foretells a future servant of God who will bring peace between God and man by bearing upon Himself “the iniquity of us all,” and being “stricken for the transgression” of God’s people.[27] Isaiah explains that “he had done no violence” yet he was treated as though He were sin, being “numbered with the transgressors.” The servant is identified so closely with the sins of those that he bears that it is as if he is sin. In turn, he is treated as though he is sin. In light of Paul’s reference to this passage in Isaiah, one can interpret Paul’s words, “He made him to be sin,” as “God treated Christ as though He was sin.” Paul is showing that on the cross Christ satisfies the demands of wrath against man by bearing it upon himself, which is a facet both Athanasius and Anselm omit.

Conclusion

Athanasius and Anselm provide two helpful expositions of the cross that, when affirmed without pretenses of exclusivity, help to form a holistic view of the atonement though they are not in themselves whole. Neither Athanasius nor Anselm offers a satisfactory answer to what Paul means in Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21. The chief usefulness of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation is in his exposition of Christ’s victory on the cross, which is supported by the Pauline epistles. However he does not speak of Christ’s death as a payment of man’s debt to God in order to reconcile the two. Anselm takes up this facet of Paul’s theology of the cross in his Cur Deus Homo, but he is ultimately insufficient in expositing the cross because he does not explain Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21. Theologians ought to seek to embrace a holistic view of the cross, rather than exclusively committing themselves to a single exposition. The contributions of Anselm and Athanasius are true and helpful when they are held without inappropriate claims of being a comprehensive explanation of the cross. Christians must continue to look to Scripture to inform their conception of the atonement. Christ the victor has triumphed over sin and the devil, by being obedient unto death, even death on a cross and bearing upon Himself the punishment rightly due to the sinners on whose behalf He intercedes.

[1] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV).

[2] Galatians 3:13 (ESV).

[3] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. A Religious of C.S.M.V. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977), I:3.28, III:11.38.

[4] Ibid., I:3.28-29.

[5] Ibid., I:3.29.

[6] Ibid., I:4.30.

[7] Ibid., I:4.30.

[8] Ibid., I:1.26.

[9] Ibid., II:7.33.

[10] Athanasius, Incarnation, II:7.32.

[11] Ibid., IV:20.49.

[12] Ibid., IV:20.49.

[13] Ibid., II:8.34.

[14] Colossians 2:15 (ESV).

[15] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, trans. Janet Fairweather (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), I:11.283.

[16] Anselm, Deus, II;1.315-516.

[17] Ibid., I:21.305-306.

[18] Ibid., II;6.320, II:18.348.

[19] Ibid., II;6.320, II:18.349.

[20] Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 5:19 (ESV).

[21] Galatians 3:8-9 (ESV).

[22] Galatians, 3:10 (ESV).

[23] Ibid., 3:13.

[24] Ibid., 3:14.

[25] Athanasius, Incarnation, IV:24.54.

[26] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV).

[27] Isaiah 53:6, 8 (ESV).