What was the death of Jesus for? That question keeps pressing.1The following paragraphs are initially guided by Derek W. H. Thomas’ class on ‘Satisfaction,’ available at https:www.monergism.com/school-theology-mp3-series. John Stott’s discussion ‘Satisfaction for Sin,’ in The Cross of Christ 111-132, is valuable. See also, Synopsis of a Purer Theology, Disputation 29 ‘On the Satisfaction by Jesus Christ’; Boer and Faber eds., 327-340. It demands full and rigorous biblical explanation.
‘He cannot be merciful in an unjust way or just in an unmerciful way.’
A Word Not in the Bible
Scripture furnishes a rich vocabulary: atonement, ransom, propitiation, reconciliation, and more. To these, others have been added — coined not to supplement Scripture but to gather together, define and articulate what it means, even where the words don’t appear in its pages.
We speak of the Trinity, of homoousion — the Nicene declaration that the only-begotten Son is ‘of one being’ with the Father. And we’ve already considered substitution: not a biblical term, but a vital one.
Satisfaction belongs in the same category. ‘For Christian theology, the truth value of a [term or] doctrine is how well it explains and communicates the truths of Scripture.’2Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 246. See also Oliver Crisp, Approaching the Atonement, 63-72. Crisp argues that satisfaction was not in fact original to Anselm but that similar notions are to be found in Tertullian. Fleming Rutledge’s discussion of Anslem is contained in The Crucifixion, 146-166.
So what does satisfaction address? Two things at once — the reality of us, and of God. In us: offence against God’s law, and resulting guilt. In God: justice and mercy. The Leiden Synopsis treats the various ‘causes of the satisfaction by Jesus Christ. The different causes are God, Christ as the God-and-man, God’s love and justice, Christ’s love to those who belong to him, and our sins.’3Synopsis of a Purer Theology, Volume 1, eds. Den Boer and Faber, 327-340.
Anselm’s Correction
The principle was given classical formulation by Anselm (1033-1109) in Why God Became Man (1098), within a current of medieval thought shaped by the intuition that offended honour must be satisfied. That instinct, however culturally clothed, points toward something Scripture affirms — and offered a significant correction to what came before.
Because ‘prior to his Why God Became Man, the view that prevailed most widely was that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to the devil in order to deliver souls over whom he had a legal claim.’ This view — entirely absent in Scripture — was very old, present in Origen, Tertullian and John of Damascus.4For reference to their works, see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:341.
Anselm decisively redirected attention: ‘Christ’s death was a satisfaction rendered not to Satan but to God’s justice and honor.’5EDT, 774. See Katherine Sonderegger, ‘Anselmian Atonement,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 175-194.
That reorientation proved hugely influential in Western Christianity — Roman Catholic and Protestant alike — developed by Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and post-Reformation teachers. Anselm understood satisfaction as central to the atonement: ‘everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God.’6Anselm, Why God Became Man, 1.11; Davies ed., 283. See also 2:6-14.
The Logic
‘Given the fact of human sinfulness, the alternatives are satisfaction or punishment. The consistency of God’s character requires that he act with both justice and mercy. He cannot be merciful in an unjust way or just in an unmerciful way. This eliminates the possibility of the simple annihilation of the human race in punishment for the offence to God’s honour. That would be unmerciful justice. But it also eliminates forgiveness without satisfaction. That would be unjust mercy. The “necessary” response to human sin is satisfaction. … The satisfaction of which Anselm speaks is the reparation due to an offended party. It requires going beyond the honour which is already due to the offended party. Here is another reason why even a perfect man cannot make satisfaction for the sins of others. His perfect obedience would simply be his own proper response to the person of God. … The sacrifice of Christ’s life, because of its infinite value, and because he was sinless, honours God beyond that which is required of man. His sacrifice was free, not obligatory. … The voluntary self-sacrifice of the one who always honoured God, brings even greater honour to God.’7Mark D. Thompson and Robert C. Doyle, ‘The Death of Christ 2: Historical Theology.’ Unpublished Lecture, 3.
Follow the two exclusions there. Wipe out the human race and you get justice without mercy. Forgive without satisfaction and you get mercy without justice. Neither is available to a God whose character is consistent.
Three great truths converge in Anselm’s account: the appalling nature of sin — affront, mutiny, rebellion against the Creator; the perfect justice of God, which cannot be compromised or set aside; and ‘the unique perfections of Christ (as the God-man who voluntarily gave himself up to death for us).’8Stott, The Cross of Christ, 119.
The Reformed Inheritance
Reformed teaching received and sharpened this.
The Westminster Confession says Jesus’ obedience and sacrifice — climaxing in his death — being ‘offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of his Father’ (8.5); and that God justifies the elect by ‘imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them who receive and rest on him’ (11.1).
Cursed That We Might Be Blessed
A controlling passage is Galatians 3:10-14, where Paul declares that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.
The background is the antiphony of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 27-28: obedience brings blessing, disobedience brings curse.
Paul’s argument is that Jesus’ death involved bearing the curse due for our disobedience, so we might receive the blessing promised for obedience. At the cross we see something defying imagination: in his incarnate Son, God bore our curse — that we might be blessed.
And it’s vital to recognise that as Judge of all the earth, God is not under any law above or independent of him. He is himself the law.9Doyle, ‘Did the Father Punish the Son?,’ 1. The cross is at once the channel and the focus of both God’s justice and wrath — and God’s love.
Who Is Being Satisfied?
This raises a precise question: what, or who, is being satisfied in Christ’s death?
Not the devil, as though his death were a ransom payment to a malevolent captor. It is God’s own righteousness and justice, expressed in God’s own law, that is satisfied.
Ezekiel 7:7-8 speaks of God pouring out his wrath and spending his anger — and it is exactly this spending, this exhaustion of divine anger, that is accomplished in Jesus Christ. His death spends the justice of God and satisfies it to the full.10Some of the main tenets of Christ’s death as satisfaction may be set out in rudimentary point fashion: ‘(1) Sin is robbing God of his honor. (2) People must render satisfaction for their sin: they must repay – actually, pay more than – the honor they have stolen from God. (3) People cannot pay their debt, for whatever they could pay is owed already to God. (4) Only the God-man can offer satisfaction. (5) By dying, Jesus gave something that he did not owe to God – the obligation to die – and thus obtained a reward. (6) Christ gave this reward to provide satisfaction for people’s sins’ (Gregg R. Allison, The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms, 188).
The connection between the cross and God’s honour is glimpsed in John 17:1 and Hebrews 2:9, where Christ’s death is bound up with the Father’s glorification.11There is a useful discussion of Scriptural warrant for satisfaction in Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 237-243.
Just to Forgive
First John 1:9 illuminates the same truth from another angle. When we confess our sins, John says, God is ‘faithful and just’ to forgive us.
That word just is striking. Forgiveness is not merely an act of grace but of righteousness — the correct, the fitting, the legally proper response of God when sin is confessed.12See Cynthia Rigby, ‘Forgiveness,’ in in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 493-98.
Why? Because the just anger of God has already been spent and satisfied by the cursed death of Christ. His justice has been preserved and met in full in Jesus’ pain, passion and punishment.
There is therefore no conflict between justice and mercy. In the cross of Christ, each is satisfied together — definitively and completely.
—
- 1The following paragraphs are initially guided by Derek W. H. Thomas’ class on ‘Satisfaction,’ available at https:www.monergism.com/school-theology-mp3-series. John Stott’s discussion ‘Satisfaction for Sin,’ in The Cross of Christ 111-132, is valuable. See also, Synopsis of a Purer Theology, Disputation 29 ‘On the Satisfaction by Jesus Christ’; Boer and Faber eds., 327-340. ↩︎
- 2Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 246. See also Oliver Crisp, Approaching the Atonement, 63-72. Crisp argues that satisfaction was not in fact original to Anselm but that similar notions are to be found in Tertullian. Fleming Rutledge’s discussion of Anslem is contained in The Crucifixion, 146-166. ↩︎
- 3Synopsis of a Purer Theology, Volume 1, eds. Den Boer and Faber, 327-340. ↩︎
- 4For reference to their works, see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:341. ↩︎
- 5EDT, 774. See Katherine Sonderegger, ‘Anselmian Atonement,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 175-194. ↩︎
- 6Anselm, Why God Became Man, 1.11; Davies ed., 283. See also 2:6-14. ↩︎
- 7Mark D. Thompson and Robert C. Doyle, ‘The Death of Christ 2: Historical Theology.’ Unpublished Lecture, 3. ↩︎
- 8Stott, The Cross of Christ, 119. ↩︎
- 9Doyle, ‘Did the Father Punish the Son?,’ 1. ↩︎
- 10Some of the main tenets of Christ’s death as satisfaction may be set out in rudimentary point fashion: ‘(1) Sin is robbing God of his honor. (2) People must render satisfaction for their sin: they must repay – actually, pay more than – the honor they have stolen from God. (3) People cannot pay their debt, for whatever they could pay is owed already to God. (4) Only the God-man can offer satisfaction. (5) By dying, Jesus gave something that he did not owe to God – the obligation to die – and thus obtained a reward. (6) Christ gave this reward to provide satisfaction for people’s sins’ (Gregg R. Allison, The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms, 188). ↩︎
- 11There is a useful discussion of Scriptural warrant for satisfaction in Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 237-243. ↩︎
- 12See Cynthia Rigby, ‘Forgiveness,’ in in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 493-98. ↩︎