 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book 1, Chapters 9 to 12
Chapter Theme Anselm – It seems to me that you do not rightly understand the difference between what he did at the demand of obedience, and the suffering that resulted from his obedience being perfect. This suffering that resulted from his obedience being perfect was inflicted on him, but it was not demanded of him. Boso – I will need you to explain it more clearly. Anselm – Why did the Jews persecute him to his death? Boso – For no other reason, other than, he consistently maintained both truth and justice in what he said and in how he lived. Anselm – I believe that God demands this truth and justice of every rational being, and that every being owes this in obedience to God. Boso – We should acknowledge this. Anselm – Therefore [because he was born as part of mankind] Christ also owed this obedience to God the Father. This was the true response of humanity to Deity, so the Father claimed it from him. Boso – There is no doubt of this. Anselm – Do you now see what he did, under the demand of obedience? Boso – Yes, and I also see the infliction he endured, because he stood firm in obedience. Death was inflicted on him because he persevered in obedience and he endured it all. But I do not understand why his obedience did not demand this. Anselm – Consider this, do you think that humanity should suffer death if it never sinned, or that God would demand it of us? Boso – This principle leads us to believe that [if there was no sin] mankind would not have been subject to death, and that God would not have demanded this [of mankind or Christ], but I would like to hear you reason this matter through. Anselm – You acknowledge that as God's intelligent creatures we were made perfect and holy, and the purpose for this was to be happy in the enjoyment of God? Boso – Yes. Anselm – Surely you would not think it right for God to make us, as God's creature without fault but thoroughly miserable [because we all have to die anyway], when the original intention was to create us holy and able to enjoy a state of (eternal) blessedness. Under those circumstances it would be a miserable thing for us to die against our will. Boso – I agree, it is plain that if man had not sinned, God should not to compel him to die. Anselm – Therefore, God did not compel Christ to die, he suffered death of his own will, he did not give up his life as an act of blind obedience, it was because of his determined obedience to maintain holiness, [because he refused to sin and compromise God's justice]. He held so firmly to this obedience that he met death on account of it. It may indeed be correct to say that the Father commanded him to die, when you consider the reason for his death and that which the Father laid on him (i.e. the sins of the world and our hope of deliverance) that resulted in his crucifixion and death. It was in this sense, that the following Scriptures are true. Christ obeyed the '...command I received from my Father' (Jn 10:18). 'Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?' (Jn 18:11), 'he became obedient to death' (Phil 2:8-9) and so, 'he learned obedience from what he suffered' (Heb 5:8). This is the extent that Christ leant obedience, and our example of how far obedience should be maintained. Now the word 'didicit,' [1] which is used here, can be understood in two ways. For either 'didicit' is written to say that he caused others to learn; or it is used, because he himself learnt by personal experience what he had an understanding of before. The Apostle Paul said he '...humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! and he added, 'Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name' (Phil 2:8-9). This is similar to what David said, 'He will drink from a brook beside the way ; therefore he will lift up his head' (Ps. 110:7). These verses do not infer that his death of obedience was the only way to have attained his resurrection and authority over all things (exaltation), neither is it meant that this exaltation was conferred on him, only as a reward of his obedience (for he himself said before he suffered, that all things had been committed to him by the Father, and that all the things that belonged to the Father were his). The expression (death of obedience) is used because he had agreed with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that there was no other way to reveal the height of his omnipotence to the world, than by his death. For if an event can not take place, except on condition of something else occurring first, it is correctly said to occur because of that prior action. It the result of that prior action achieves the intended result and finally allows the main event to take place then you would say that the prior action happened because of the main event. You would even say that the order of events had been predetermined. For instance, suppose I intend to cross a river in a boat, even though it is also possible to cross it on horseback, and suppose that I delay my crossing because the boat has not returned. If I cross the river later, when the boat has returned, it may be correctly said, that the boat was ready, and therefore he crossed. And not only do we use this form of expression, when there is a prior action that needs to take place first, but also when we intend to do something else later on, that is not connected that prior action. For example, if you delay eating food because you have not attended the celebration of mass today, when you have done what you intended to do first (i.e. celebrating mass), it would be correct to say, now take food, for you have now completed the task that caused you to delay eating food. Therefore, the language is not that strange when it says Christ is exalted because he endured death. For it was [by the process of going] through death, and [the process of rising from death and overcoming the devil] after he endured death, that God intended to accomplish his exaltation [2]. This may be understood also in the same way as that passage in which it is said that our Lord increased in wisdom, and in favor with God (Luke 2:52); not that this was really the case [3], but that he deported himself as if it were so. In a similar fashion his exaltation appears linked his death, as if his death was really the thing that caused it [4]. The statement of Jesus that, 'I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me' (Jn 6:38) is just like another saying: 'my teaching is not my own' (Jn 7:16), for whatever we receive from God rather from self should be acknowledged as from God. For we do not own the truth we teach, and we can not gain a holy [pure, sanctified] will from self effort; on the contrary, it is a gift of God who is the author of all our righteous motivations. Therefore Christ did not come to do his own will, he came to do the Father's will, and the holiness of his will was not derived from his humanity, but from his Divinity. For that sentence: 'He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all' (Rom 8:32), means that God deliberately chose not to intervene and rescue him. There are many Scriptures like this found in the Bible. In another place Jesus says: 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done' (Lk 22:42) and 'My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done' (Mt 26:42) (see also Mt 26:39, Mk 14:36), Jesus is referring to his own human will and the natural desire for safety, that naturally enough shrinks from the pain of death. He also speaks of the Father's will, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life, but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless we were willing and able to play our part in the great act of redemption that was part of the death of Christ. Reason demanded that the Son should not ask another to do something that was not possible; therefore the Son says he desires his own death, for he preferred his own suffering, to the alternative of the human race remaining lost. It is as if he said to the Father: 'since this is the only desirable way to reconcile the world, I understand why you desire my death; therefore, let your will be done, let my death take place, so that the world may be reconciled to you.' It could be said that we declare what we want by the choices that we ignore, because that also excludes the outcomes of those choices. For instance, we would assume that whoever does not close a window to prevent a draft blowing out a candle, wishes the light to go out, in this sense the Father desired the death of the Son, because God was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way. The Son who also greatly desired the salvation of man could see that no was no other being that could accomplish this great work, so as if the Father had commanded him to die, he followed through all that Scripture had spoken, including, '...the command I received from my Father' (Jn 10:18). 'Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?' (Jn 18:11), and '...he became obedient to death...' (Phil 2:8) [5].
[1] Didicit – Latin verb; the 3rd person singular perfect of 'learn'. [2] Exaltation – the declaration that Christ was the lamb that was slain for the world (Jn 1:29, Rev 5:12-13, Rev 7:10). [3] From the Divine side of his nature, one could say that since he was God, it would in reality be impossible for him to increase in wisdom, and since he was God's only son he always had the full favor of the Father. [4] This statement should also be viewed from Christ's Divine nature. After all, Scripture tells us that the Son who was in the beginning (the Word of God) agreed to this lowering of self to be born of woman (Phil 2:6-9), therefore the exaltation of the Son is a natural progression, and only to be expected whatever the order of events was to be. There can be no doubt that his death brings a fulfillment to his name 'the lamb of God,' but this does not mean that his exaltation was caused by his death. [5] For although many may be willing to die, only the Son was without sin, that is without spot or blemish. Only the Son could reconcile all aspects of our relationship directly to the Father.
Book 1, Chapter 10
Chapter Theme Anselm – It is also a fair interpretation that the Son responded to God's holy will by wanting to die for the salvation of the world. In this sense it was a command of the Father, but it was not a compulsion [1]. This element of choice needs to be considered when interpreting statements like; the cup of suffering; and spared him not, but gave him up for us; and desired his death; and that the Son himself was obedient, even accepting death; and learned obedience from the things which he suffered. The will of God that motivated Christ to lead a completely holy life, did not arise from part of his human nature, it came from God [that is - all good gifts come from the Father (Js 1:17)]. It also follows that the holy will that enabled him to desire and accomplish so great a outcome, must have come from the Father of lights (Js 1:17), who gives every good and perfect gift; and as God is said to draw us by imparting an inclination, so there is nothing wrong in asserting that God motivates man. For as the Son says of the Father: 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him' (Jn 6:44), he might as well have said, except God move him. In a similar fashion he could also have declared: 'No man lays down his life for my sake, except the Father move or draw him.' For since a man is drawn or moved by the will to whatever is invariably chosen, it is not wrong to say that God draws or moves us by giving us this will. In this drawing or impelling it should not be understood that there is any force involved. Quite the opposite, it is freely given, and in return we may freely and grateful cling to this holy will. If then it cannot be denied that the Father drew or moved the Son to death by giving him that will; who can deny that, in the same way, God gave him the commandment to endure this death of his own accord and to take the cup, which he freely chose to drink. So then if it is right to say that the Son did not spare himself, but gave himself for us out of his own will, who will deny that it is right to say that the Father, from whom he received this will, did not spare him but gave him up for us, and desired his death? Also, without straying from that same will he received from the Father, the Son from his own initiative became obedient to God, even unto death; and learned obedience [2] (Heb 5:8) from the things that he suffered; that is, by his obedience he learned the full human significance of the work to be accomplished. For the test of real and sincere obedience is when a rational being is able to freely follow the will received from God without being compelled. We could also explain the Father's desire that the Son should die in other ways; though these would appear to be sufficient. For just as we might say that whoever creates the desire in someone to want something, really wants it himself; so we would say that whoever approves of the desire of another person agrees with that desire, even though he did not cause it. So when we see a man desiring to endure pain through adversity for the sake of accomplishing some good purpose or design; we do not take pleasure in his suffering, but we agree that he is making a noble choice and we even wish that he endure that pain, but it is his choice. We could also say that whoever can avoid something but does not, has chosen by default to accept all the consequences. Therefore, since the will of the Son pleased the Father, and the Father did not prevent him from choosing, or from accomplishing his choice, it is reasonable to say that though God was not pleased with Christ's suffering he wished the Son to endure death with determination and purity, so he could achieve the greatest result. Jesus said that the cup of suffering must not pass from him, unless he drank it. He said this because he had chosen to drink it, even though he could have escaped death; because, as has been said, the world could not have been saved in any other way; and it was his predetermined choice to suffer death, rather than that allow the world to be lost. It was also for this reason, that he used those words [that the cup must not pass from him], to teach the human race that there was no salvation for them other than through his death [Acts 4:12, 1Tim 2:4-6, 2Tim 1:9-10]; and he certainly did not mean that he had no power to avoid death. In regard to things attributed to Jesus, if they are similar to those mentioned, they should be explained consistent with the belief that he died out of free choice, not by force. For [as the Son of God] he was omnipotent [3], and Scripture says that he desired to be the offering [for sin]. The Son himself said: 'the reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again' (Jn 10:18). Therefore, it can not be argued he was driven to do it, because it was within his own [divine] authority and will. Boso – But the simple fact that God allowed him to be treated in this way, does not seem appropriate for the Father as it shows the Son no respect, even if he were willing. Anselm – No, I think it is of all things most proper that such a Father should agree with such a Son in his desire, if it is worthy of praise and upholds the honor of God, and brings about man's salvation, which would not otherwise be obtained. Boso – The question which still troubles us is how the death of the Son can be proved reasonable and necessary. Otherwise, it does not seem that the Son ought to desire his death, and it does appear appropriate for the Father to compel or permit it. For the question is, why God could not save man in some other way, and if so, why he wished to do it in this way? It seems unbecoming for God to have saved man in this way, and it is not clear how the death of the Son is of benefit for the salvation of man. It would be a strange thing for God to delight in, or require the blood of the innocent, because he is not able (to save humanity without it), and just as strange if God refuses to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent. Anselm – Since, in this inquiry, you take the place of those who are unwilling to believe anything that is not proved by reason, I would like it be understood that we will not allow anything in the least unworthy to be ascribed to the Deity. Also we should agree to not reject the smallest reason unless it is opposed by a greater one. For because it is impossible to attribute anything in the least unworthy to God [4]; so any reason, however small, if not overbalanced by a greater one, needs to be given serious consideration. Boso – I agree with you completely in this, these things should be preserved and held in common between us. Anselm – The whole matter we are discussing concerns only the incarnation of God [5], and those things, which we believe in regard to God taking human nature. Boso – This is true. Anselm – Then let us suppose for the moment, that the incarnation of God, and the events that we firmly accept and believe concerning God as human, had never taken place; and let us agree that man was made for happiness, the kind that cannot be attained in this life, and that no being can ever arrive at happiness, save by freedom from earthly sin [6], and that nobody passes through this life without gathering sin. Let us also take for granted the belief of other things necessary for eternal salvation. Boso – I accept this, for in these things there is nothing that seems unworthy or impossible for God. Anselm – Therefore, in order that mankind may attain happiness, it is necessary to find a way to remove and compensate for this sin. Boso – We all hold these ideals.
[1] A command to do something cannot be considered a compulsion, as there is still the possibility of choice. Compulsion is the removal of all choice. [2] Learned obedience – That is, he leant as a human what he already knew as an eternal truth or principle. Conversely, humanity experienced for the first time how to perfectly and fully hold to the law, justice and mercy of God in the midst of constant temptation and a fallen world. [3] Omnipotent – Having unlimited power of a particular kind, or able to do anything. [4] Eternal values must be able to stand eternally, without being compromised by others, especially by temporal earthly conveniences or compromises, or else they are not eternal values. [5] The incarnation – God being born as a man; 'he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man' (Nicene Creed and Mt 1:18-23). [6] Sin – the result of missing the mark or perfection we were aiming for, as the archer might completely miss the mark/target.
Book 1, Chapter 11
Chapter Theme Anselm – First we need to inquire, how God deals with human sin. In order to be plain about this, let us first consider what it is to sin, and what needs to be done to repair the damage done by our sin. Boso – I will listen to all you explain. Anselm – If human or angel always gave true honour to God, that is, if they gave all that was owed, they would never sin. Boso – I cannot deny that. Anselm – Therefore to sin is nothing else than not giving to God what is God's by right. Boso – What is the debt we owe that is God's by right? Anselm – (The debt we owe is that) every wish [1] of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God. Boso – Nothing is truer. Anselm – This is the debt [1] that both human and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin, but every one who does not pay it does sin. It is this justice or uprightness of will, which makes us just or upright in heart (that is, in will). This is the sole and complete debt of honour that we owe to God, and what is required of us. For it is only when such a will can be fully exercised, that we do works that are pleasing to God. Even when this holy will can not be exercised, it is pleasing by itself alone, since without it, nothing we do is acceptable. Whoever does not render to God the honour that is due, robs God of a divine right, and this dishonour is sin. As long as we do not restore what we have taken away, we remain at fault. According to the extent of the injury done, we must provide a satisfactory form of restoration to the person that was dishonoured. However it will not be sufficient to merely restore what has been taken away, we must also consider the contempt offered, and the need to restore more than we took away [2]. For if we put another persons life in danger it is not enough to restore their safety, some compensation is also required for the anguish incurred. Therefore it is not enough for whoever violates another's honour to merely do what was previously required. It is reasonable to expect that when any one repays what was unjustly taken away, something extra should be paid. So then, everyone who sins ought to also provide extra compensation for the honour that was stolen from God. This is the true level of satisfaction that every sinner owes to God. Boso – Since we have determined to follow reason in all these things, I am unable to bring any objection against what you say, although I am a little surprised by your conclusions.
[1] The debt is 'every wish'; that is, we owe the creator everything, because we were created from the dust of the earth, which is as good as saying we were created from nothing. Another way of approaching it is to say that there is no act or combination of things we can do to inherit eternal life, except a life perfectly lived -- that is, 'every wish'. [2] The contempt offered – A beautiful thought; rarely is contempt of God ever taken into consideration as something that is reasonable to be repaid.
Book 1, Chapter 12
Chapter Theme Anselm – Let us return and consider whether it is right for God to put away sins out of compassion alone, leaving aside for the moment the payment that was due for the honour taken away. Boso – I don't see as yet why it is not acceptable and reasonable (to put away sins out of compassion alone). Anselm – To remove sin in this manner is simply avoiding any form of penalty. It is simply not right to cancel sin without appropriate compensation or punishment, putting away sin out of compassion alone allows sin to pass away without being appropriately discharged [1]. Boso – What you say is reasonable. Anselm – It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged [2]. Boso – If I speak against this, I expect I will sin. Anselm – It is, therefore, not right for God to pass over or ignore sin and let it go unpunished. Boso – So it follows. Anselm – There is also another thing that follows if sin is allowed to go unpunished, and that is, with God there will be no difference between people that are guilty and not guilty; and this [lack of discernment and/or lack of justice] is unbecoming to God. Boso – I cannot deny the truth of this. Anselm – Also notice this. Every one knows that justice is regulated by the law, and according to the requirements of the law. The ability to measure this justice should be considered a gift from God [because God is the only source of pure justice] [3]. Boso – This is our belief. Anselm – But if sin is not paid for or punished, then sin is not subject to the law [4a]. Boso – I can not imagine any other conclusion. Anselm – Therefore, if injustice is cancelled by compassion alone, it is free from the restrictions of justice [4b], and that seems very inconsistent. And to this we should also add a further incongruity, that just as God is not subject to law but above the law, now injustice is also above the law and therefore like God [4c]. Boso – I cannot withstand your reasoning. But what about God's command that tells us to forgive those who trespass against us [Lk 11:4, Lord's prayer], it seems inconsistent to ask us to do something, that is not right for God to do. Anselm – There is no inconsistency here because God commands us not to take upon ourselves what belongs to God alone. For the execution of punishment that is the end result of injustice belongs to none but God who is Lord of all [Isa 59:18]. Even when the powers of the world governmental systems rightly accomplish justice, it could be said that it was God who gave them their authority in the first place, therefore God did it [Rom 13:1]. Boso – You have answered the problem that I thought to exist; but there is another that I would like you to answer. The issue is that God is not subject to law, and so is free from the judgment of others. God is also so merciful that nothing more merciful can be conceived; and nothing is right or correct unless it is according to divine will; therefore it seems hard for us to understand that God is completely unwilling or unable to put away an injury done to divine honour. In fact we often ask him to help us in regard to those sins we commit against others. Anselm – What you say of God's liberty and choice and compassion is true; but we need to interpret these things in a way that does not appear to compromise divine dignity. For liberty is only found in whatever is best or fitting; and we should not agree to a definition of mercy that attaches anything improper to the Divine character. Also, when it is said that what God wishes is just, and whatever God does not wish is unjust, we must not conclude that God only needs to wish an improper thing proper, to make it just, (that is -simply because he wished it). Now if God wishes to lie, why we should conclude that it is right to lie? It would be more correct to conclude that it is was not God. For no one can ever wish to lie, unless the truth in them is impaired, in fact, the will itself would be impaired in the process of forsaking the truth. So when, when we read: 'If God wishes to lie,' [Heb 6:18 [5]] the meaning is simply this: 'If the nature of God is such that God wishes to lie;' and it does not therefore follow that wrong is right. An exception to this might be found if we were speaking of two impossible things, along the line of: 'If this be true, then that follows; because neither this nor that may be true' (because they are both impossible); for example if someone should say: 'Supposing water to be dry, and fire to be moist;' and obviously neither is correct. Therefore, with regard to these things, the truth is that if God desires a thing, it is right that it should be one hundred percent appropriate. For if God chooses that it should rain, it is right that it should rain; and if he desires that any person should die, then is it right that they should die. Therefore, if it is not fitting for God to do anything that is in any way unjust, then according to God's liberty, compassion or will, it is not right to let sinners go unpunished if they fail to return God whatever they defraud. Boso – You have removed from me every possible objection that I had thought of bringing against you. Anselm – Yet you should also observe why it is not fitting for God to do this. Boso – I listen readily to whatever you have to say.
[1] Also to ignore sin in this way allows for God to show favouritism at any convenient moment, because it allows God to disregard all the requirements of justice. [2] God does not simply forget things; otherwise God would fail to keep justice, not be consistent, and could be accused of making convenient exceptions like a fallible human. [3] God is the only pure source and model of justice, all other measures or scales of justice can vary enormously from one society to another. [4a] No payment equals no responsibility. [4b] If sin is not subject to the law there is no logical reason to apply or expect any form of punishment; 'we can do whatever we like for tomorrow we die.' [4c] Inconsistent would appear to be an understatement; totally chaotic would be more appropriate. [5] If the Scripture referred to is Hebrews 6:18, then the NIV translators agree with Anselm and translate as 'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie'
Paraphrased by -
P. I. Editor |
|
|
