Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory

The legal emphasis on the justice of God in the ransom theory as it was interpreted by the Latin fathers in the West was further developed by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. His views have continued to shape Western views of substitutionary atonement, whether in Roman Catholic or Protestant traditions, in the millennium since he wrote. His Cur Deus Homo? (Why [did] God [become] Man?) addresses the same question as Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. Christ’s incarnation is framed in terms of fallen humanity. However, Anselm draws on the Western emphasis on God’s justice, ultimately finding ransom theories of atonement lacking.

Returning to Gregory of Nazianzus’ question above, “To whom was the ransom paid?,” Anselm answers emphatically: Divine justice demands a debt to be paid by sinful humanity to God. “Thus, therefore, everyone who sins must pay to God the honor he has taken away, and this is satisfaction, which every sinner must make to God” (Anselm, Cur Deus Homo 1.11). Christ is seen then as standing in substitution of humanity through His death and paying this debt to God the Father. This understanding builds on the Old Testament understanding of sin as a debt to be paid, which probably developed during Israel’s time of exile (compare Isa 40:1–2; see Anderson, Sin, 27–42).

This understanding of substitutionary atonement is further developed by Thomas Aquinas, though he sees the chief issue not as a debt of honor to be repaid, but as a debt of moral injustice to be righted (see Summa Theologiæ I-II 113.2).