Did God Have to Pay Off the Devil?

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, from time to time we revisit the topic of the atonement of Christ, not only because of its importance, but also because you wrote an important book on the subject, Atonement and the Death of Christ. I'm curious whether you've added anything on the atonement for your Systematic Philosophical Theology that's not in the book.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, I have. I've got some great new material on imputation. The strongest argument against a penal substitutionary view of the atonement is that it is immoral and unjust to punish an innocent third party for the wrongdoing of someone else. I have found additional examples of the imputation of wrongdoing to otherwise innocent third parties that is accepted in our justice system. In fact, it permeates our justice system. So you'll find that the account of imputation in the Systematic Philosophical Theology volume 4 that deals with the atonement to make a genuine advance over the previously published book.

KEVIN HARRIS: I ran across an article on Anselm's view of the atonement written by Hans Nyman^[1] who has a BA and an MA in theology. He writes,

Anselm was the first to articulate a “satisfaction” theory of atonement in extensive detail. And he did this in the late 11th century in a work titled Cur Deus Homo (“Why God Became Man”).

Nyman goes on to say that Anselm influenced Calvin and the Reformers to develop the penal substitutionary atonement, and that Anselm also was writing against the ransom theory. But before we get into those, what are your overall thoughts on Anselm's satisfaction theory?

DR. CRAIG: As brilliant as Anselm's theory is, I think in the end it's inadequate because it doesn't deal with the central problem of guilt. It is a theory to offer to God compensation for our wrongdoing. But there's nothing in the theory about absolution of guilt, about divine pardon and forgiveness. And so I think it really fails at the very core of what atonement is about. I would note, however, that Anselm not only wrote in opposition to the ransom theory of the atonement but he also wrote against Abelard's so-called moral influence theory of the atonement.

KEVIN HARRIS: As I said, Nyman writes that Anselm's view influenced Calvin and others. He writes,

The Penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement is so popular in some Protestant circles nowadays that it has become virtually synonymous with the gospel itself.

So there are many differences between Anselm's satisfaction theory and Calvin's penal substitutionary theory?

DR. CRAIG: Yes, there are. Anselm said that there are basically two ways by which justice can be satisfied, either by compensation or by punishment. And he believed that punishment would result in the destruction of the human race forever. Everyone would go to hell eternally. So punishment was not a way to satisfy divine justice which meant that therefore there had to be some sort of compensation made to God for human wrongdoing. So Anselm chose compensation rather than punishment. I think the insight of the Reformers was that if there was someone who could be substitutionarily punished in our place (namely, Christ) then he could bear the punishment for sin that we deserved thereby freeing us from our liability to punishment and affording us a divine pardon. So while Anselm was right in specifying the alternatives (compensation or punishment), he did not, I think, explore the alternative punishment with the degree of depth that the Protestant Reformers did.

KEVIN HARRIS: Nyman continues,

But back when Anselm first penned his “satisfaction” theory of atonement, he did so to rebut another theory of atonement that had gained widespread acceptance: The Ransom Theory.

He points out that the theory derives, in part, from what Jesus himself said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, to give his life as a ransom for many." That's from Matthew 20:28. Nyman writes,

By Anselm’s time, many Western Christians had come to believe that the ransom for humanity’s redemption was owed to the devil.

And in addition to what the verse means, it brings up questions like: Was there a payment that Jesus had to make, and to whom did he have to pay?

DR. CRAIG: Ransom is an important atonement motif both in the Old Testament in the animal levitical sacrifices and then also in the New Testament with respect to Christ's self-sacrificial death. The important core concept here is the concept of redemption, of release from bondage. But I don't think that the ransom should be thought of as a payment made to the devil to release his hostages. Rather, our redemption was purchased with the price of Christ's own blood who made himself a sacrificial offering to God.

KEVIN HARRIS: As we'll see in a moment, Nyman says Anselm thought any notion of God having to pay off the devil was indeed “crude and absurd.” So according to Nyman he set out to write his own explanation. And, by the way, I've read at least one scholar who thinks God may have tricked the principalities and powers into crucifying Jesus. It's based on 1 Corinthians 2:8, “None of the rulers of the age knew what was going on. Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Nyman says that was included in the ransom theory during Anselm's time. I guess that would depend on what Paul meant by “rulers of this age.”

DR. CRAIG: 1 Corinthians 2:8 is my favorite scriptural counterfactual of creaturely freedom! It says that if the rulers of this age had understood this, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And it seems to me that it does concern the principalities and powers, not just earthly rulers. And so, in that sense, you could say they were tricked, but not in the sense that some of the ransom theories held. In some of these ransom theories, the devil was conceived to have legitimate rights over man that had to be respected even by God, and therefore God tricked him into letting his hostages go.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next part is interesting. Nyman writes,

The rational method of Anselm’s theologizing in Cur Deus Homo distinguishes Anselm as the forerunner to the kind of scholastic theology that would go on to flourish in the High Middle Ages. But in its time, Anselm’s explanation of the atonement was rather novel.

Anselm claims to argue for the necessity of why God became human using the principles of human reason rather than depending on the authority of Scriptural revelation regarding Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.

To be sure, Anselm’s method presupposes the truth of biblical revelation concerning God’s existence, and Anselm depends on the revelation of Scripture to make his case. It’s just that Anselm does not justify the Christ event, in particular, by deferring to the authority of Scripture on the matter.

Anselm says that it is first necessary to “believe the deep things of Christian faith” before investigating Christianity’s logical coherence; then one can apply reason to the matters of faith in order to “understand what we believe.”

According to Nyman, Anselm believed in the authority of scripture, but filled in the blanks philosophically, something you've talked about many times, Bill.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. Anselm thought that given the existence of God, the incarnation was necessary to satisfy the demands of God's love and justice. Now, that might sound like an overly ambitious project to you, but I've got to say, Anselm makes a pretty convincing case. Given the demands of God's essential love and justice, which are inherent to his moral perfection, God had to do something out of his love for man to save him. But no human being could pay the penalty for man's sin. So it would require God himself to become incarnate and save man. So it's really a pretty compelling argument even though it seems very ambitious.

KEVIN HARRIS: Nyman writes,

According to Anselm, humans deserve punishment for their sins, and the devil punishes humans for their sin (“God in justice permits this” he says). Yet, it is a mistake to infer from this that the devil has a legitimate ownership of humanity which God must respect. According to Anselm, such a situation would be impossible because the devil acted unrighteously in tempting humanity to sin in the first place. And one cannot acquire a lawful right if, to get it, one violates the principle of Law on which that right depends. The devil’s dominion over sinful humanity was, therefore, a de facto rulership and not a de jure right of ownership.

DR. CRAIG: Here Nyman is not entirely correct. As I say, there were different versions of the ransom theory, and in some of these versions it was held that man put himself willingly under Satan's bondage by freely sinning against God, and therefore Satan had legitimate rights over man. On the other hand, other ransom theorists denied that Satan had legitimate rights over man and thought that God could free men from Satan's power simply by force if he wanted to.

KEVIN HARRIS: You have to kind of put your lawyer hat on again for this – the devil acted unrighteously in tempting humanity, and you can't get a lawful right if, to get it, you violate the principle of law on which that right depends.

DR. CRAIG: Yes.

KEVIN HARRIS: Is there anything to that?

DR. CRAIG: The question, though, would be: if humanity willingly and freely put themselves in subjection to Satan so that he didn't take them hostage, they put themselves under his suzerainty. And in that case, some of these ransom theorists said that the devil has legitimate rights over humans, and that's why God cannot simply wrest them from Satan's clutches by his power. St. Augustine would often say that God triumphs over Satan not by power but by righteousness. If it were simply a matter of power then the problem would be easily solved. But if Satan had legitimate rights that God must respect then God had to secure a righteous means of freeing man from bondage, not simply a power play.

KEVIN HARRIS: Nyman continues,

Though Anselm rejected the idea that human salvation required a payment to be made to the devil, he did not suggest that human sin required no payment. For Anselm, justice is defined in relationship to a principle of objective Law which has jurisdiction over sin. And this “Law” requires payment or compensation for sin.

Anselm calls this compensation, ‘satisfaction.’

He reasons against the ransom theory by explaining that the “cost” of sin must be repaid to God rather than the devil because it was God who was defrauded by humanity’s sin.¹⁵

God’s design in creation also meant that this sin-debt be repaid (satisfied) by a human because, otherwise humanity’s status would be less than God originally intended it to be if humanity was indebted to another creature for repayment.

This seems to be the crux of Anselm's satisfaction theory.

DR. CRAIG: I think Nyman does a nice job here of emphasizing compensation as Anselm's solution. I've suggested that his theory is really better called a compensation theory of the atonement rather than a satisfaction theory. Because for the Protestant Reformers who defended penal substitution, they also believed that God's justice had to be satisfied. But it was satisfied by punishment rather than compensation. So Nyman is quite helpful here in emphasizing that Anselm's solution is paying God some sort of compensation for the wrong done to him. But I doubt that Anselm would even entertain the possibility that some other creature could pay mankind's debt, as Nyman suggests, because any creature is already obligated to live a sinless life before God. So even if there were someone who lived an absolutely sinless life, that's something he's already obligated to do and therefore he accrues no merit through doing that. So for that reason, no creature could redeem man from his sin.

KEVIN HARRIS: Nyman elaborates,

In Cur Deus Homo Anselm defines sin as a failure “to render God his due” and explains this “due” as being humanity’s inherent obligation to be in perfect conformity with God’s will. To fall short of this impinges on God’s rights by stealing God’s rightful honor and holding God in contempt.

So there's your lawyer hat again! We're familiar with contempt of court – failing to obey or respect the authority and integrity of the court. Sin is holding God in contempt, according to Anselm?

DR. CRAIG: Yes. For Anselm, sin is dishonoring to God. And I think that we would all agree with that – that someone who sins and rebels against God is not giving to God the proper honor that is due God.

KEVIN HARRIS: Nyman adds,

Anselm further reasons that humanity’s sin against an infinite God incurred an infinite debt, and humanity was unable to pay this because humans are both finite and sinful.

I can't think of a specific scriptural reference for this, but it makes sense and it's often given as an explanation of why, for example, hell would be eternal.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I don't think we would need to say that the debt of humanity is infinite. But the important idea here is, as I already said, we already owe God perfect obedience to begin with. So there's nothing that we can do that would satisfy divine justice for our sins because we already owe God everything. So there's no compensation that we could offer him to atone for our sin.

KEVIN HARRIS: Listen to this. Nyman writes,

Anselm even contends that the compensation for sin had to somehow exceed the initial theft of God’s honor because of the contempt shown in sinning. Moreover, this additional payment must be “something which could not have been demanded” had God’s honor not been violated.

God was willing to pay humanity’s debt but was unable to do so because God was not human. So, in order for God to satisfy humanity’s sin-debt, God had to become a human in order to pay it as a human (i.e., the God-man, Jesus).

Because Jesus was sinless, without need of forgiveness as a human, and already shared all that was the Father’s as the divine Son of God, Jesus’ voluntary death merited a reward from God. Thus Christ earned what he did not need and donates it to penitent sinners.

So Anselm is including aspects of the incarnation here. And according to Nyman, Anselm says any payment owed to the eternal God must somehow exceed the initial debt. I haven't thought about that.

DR. CRAIG: The incarnation is demanded by God's love and justice. Only God could pay what man owed. But only man can pay that. And so God had to become a man in order to pay what man owed.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's the bottom line. Nyman writes,

Anselm’s logic aims to harmonize God’s mercy in sparing sinners with God’s justice in requiring “satisfaction” for sin according to a principle of Law that sees justice and mercy as competing, or even mutually exclusive, aspects of morality.

Do you think Anselm accomplished this harmonization?

DR. CRAIG: I think that Anselm is correct that mercy and justice have competing demands upon God which could be satisfied only through Christ. Only Christ can satisfy the perfect demands of God's love and justice. But where I would disagree with Anselm is that the satisfaction comes through compensation. It seems to me rather that the compensation comes through vicarious punishment.

KEVIN HARRIS: One more thing. Nyman ends the article by offering why he rejects the penal substitutionary atonement and the satisfaction theory. I think I can sum up his objections here. First, he says God does not need anything and is not in subjection to any external consideration. Secondly, God is love, and his love takes priority over his justice. Therefore, God may have just ordained that payment for sin would be in Christ's atonement even though God could have ordained another way. So, Nyman seems to object to God's justice taking priority over God's love when it should be the other way around. God's justice is actually just one aspect of God's love. God's just actions are all expressions of God's love. Putting God's justice before God's love obscures God's moral character of his true nature. Nyman writes,

I do not subscribe to the transactional idea that Jesus had to die as an object of God’s wrath before God was justly able to forgive human sin.

Nyman doesn't like these constraints put on God, nor anything obscuring the supremacy of God's love. So he rejects the penal substitutionary atonement and the satisfaction theory. Bill?

DR. CRAIG: This is so unfortunate. It just grieves my heart to see progressive Christians adopting this line. The demands of love and justice are not external constraints placed upon God. Rather they arise from the essential moral perfection of God. God is both perfectly loving and perfectly just and neither of his moral attributes can be compromised. What Nyman is buying into is the currently fashionable view that God's love is the fundamental moral property of God, and therefore his justice can be compromised. But biblically speaking, God's justice and holiness are just as essential to God as is his love and mercy. I've written on this in my Systematic Philosophical Theology volume 2A in the locus on the goodness of God. No one should buy into Nyman’s progressive theology of the atonement until he has dealt seriously with the contents of that chapter.

KEVIN HARRIS: Just one quick word before we go. If this podcast has encouraged you, I want to encourage you to consider giving back. Reasonable Faith is a completely listener-supported ministry and your donation helps us do what we do each year. Whether that's Dr. Craig's writing of a systematic philosophical theology, our animation videos on the attributes of God, or the podcast you just listened to, help us reach more people with the truth of the Christian faith by partnering with us today. Just go to ReasonableFaith.org and click donate. Every gift makes a difference. Thank you very much.^[2]