The Satisfaction Theory

Anselm of Canterbury developed his theory of the Atonement based on the presuppositions of the feudal system of law and social propriety. Anselm presented God as a feudal lord who has been wronged by our sins. To maintain his honor, God insists on adequate satisfaction for the encroachment on that honor by his “serfs.” Sin is analogized to the future to render God due honor, an act of disrespect that injures his reputation and integrity as Lord. The impugned honor can be restored either by punishing those who impugned it, or by a third party. However, because God’s honor and dignity are infinite, no human being can satisfy the injury to God’s honor, for the satisfaction must e proportionate to the honor impugned. Man thus needed someone who had the capacity and “merit” to satisfy God’s honor. Only God is infinite, however, so only God can satisfy this demand. However, for satisfaction to be acceptable, it must be offered by those who have impugned God’s honor—which meant that only a human could satisfy the demand of God’s justice. Thus, to satisfy the demand of justice to restore God’s impugned honor, only a God-man would suffice. Thus, God expressed his mercy by offering himself to restore his honor as Jesus Christ. Moreover, to satisfy the demands of justice for all humankind, Christ offered himself as a sinless sacrifice so that the merit earned by his death would bring satisfaction to God’s wounded honor for all human beings.

There are important points of contact between the satisfaction and the compassion theories of the Atonement. We have injured our relationship with God by things we have done and by our self-absorbed ways of being in the world. There is a sense in which we cannot remedy that damage ourselves because we fail to see the need to repair the relationship; our self-deceived insistence that we are righteous and justified blinds us to our offense. It is very difficult to see our own self-deception because it is so deceptive.

However, the notions of feudal honor that underlie Anselm’s view are unacceptable. The demand to repair God’s honor seems to be a snobbish self-centeredness that reflects God’s concern for himself and a total disregard for our interests and well-being. Such a self-centered concern is contrary To God’s universal love which also seeks our best interests. Further, the notion of merit on which this theory is premised is problematic. It assumes that one can amass supererogatory moral merit so that one has more moral “cash” than one needs for one’s self. However, moral virtue is not like a bank account that can be saved up and spent. And finally, the notion that God makes a demand to satisfy his honor by punishing the only person who fully honored him is contrary even to the feudal code of honor because it is dishonorable to punish an innocent person to obtain satisfaction.