Warum Gott Mensch geworden: (Cur deus homo)

by Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm von Canterbury: Warum Gott Mensch geworden. Cur deus homo

Anselm vertritt die Satisfaktionslehre, nach der der Tod Jesu ein nötiges Opfer war, um Gottes Ehrverletzung durch den Sündenfall des Menschen zu sühnen. Nur Gott selbst war groß genug, das Opfer den menschlichen Sündenfall überwiegen zu lassen, daher musste Gott Mensch werden und sündenlos sterben.

Entstanden zwischen 1094 und 1098 in mittellateinischer Sprache unter dem Titel »Cur deus homo«. Erstdruck: Nürnberg 1491. Der Text folgt der Übersetzung durch Wilhelm Schenz von 1880.

Neuausgabe mit einer Biographie des Autors.
Herausgegeben von Karl-Maria Guth.
Berlin 2016.

Textgrundlage ist die Ausgabe:
Anselm von Canterbury: Warum Gott Mensch geworden. Übersetzt und glossiert von Wilhelm Schenz, 2. Aufl., Regensburg, Rom, New York & Cincinnati: Friedrich Pustet, 1902.

Die Paginierung obiger Ausgabe wird in dieser Neuausgabe als Marginalie zeilengenau mitgeführt.

Umschlaggestaltung von Thomas Schultz-Overhage unter Verwendung des Bildes: Giotto di Bondone, Die Kreuzigung, 1320-25.

Gesetzt aus der Minion Pro, 11 pt.

Über den Autor:

1033 in Aosta im Piemont geboren, tritt Anselm 1060 in das normannische Benediktinerkloster Bec ein und wird drei Jahre später Prior. 1078 verfaßt er in seiner Schrift »Proslogion« den berühmten ontologischen Gottesbeweis. 1094 wird Anselm Erzbischof von Canterbury und schreibt »Cur deus homo« (Warum Gott Mensch geworden ist). Er stirbt 1109 in Canterbury. Der Theologe und Philosoph gilt als Vater der Scholastik, sein ontologischer Gottesbeweis ist bis heute einer der meistdiskutierten Gedanken der Philosophie.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction, Medieval

92 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1090

About the author

Italian-born English monk, abbot, theologian, Archbishop of Canterbury and Doctor of the Church. Helped inaugurate scholasticism in the medieval period, being credited as the "father of scholasticism", and became known for what became known as the "ontological argument" for the existence of God.

He entered the Benedictine order at the abbey of Bec at the age of 27 years in 1060 and served as abbot in 1079.

Anselm of Canterbury, also known as Anselm of Aosta or Anselm of Bec, was a monk and abbot at the Benedictine abbey of Bec. He served as Archbishop of Canterbury under William II from 1093 to his death on 1109.

As a result of the investiture controversy, the most significant conflict between Church and state in Medieval Europe, Henry I again from 1105 exiled him to 1107.

A bull of Clement XI, pope, proclaimed Anselm a doctor of the Church in 1720 . We celebrate his feast day annually on 21 April.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Teologii au încercat adesea să răspundă la întrebări care nu pot primi decît răspunsuri ipotetice.

Cîteva exemple: De ce a creat Dumnezeu lumea? De ce s-a întrupat în Iisus Christos? Este iadul etern?

La întrebarea lui Anselm din Aosta (1033 / 1034 - 1109), desemnat în 1093 arhiepiscop de Canterbury, teologii au oferit trei răspunsuri principale.

a) Maxim Mărturisitorul a presupus că Întruparea e un moment decis încă înainte de Facere, din eternitate. Dumnezeu s-a întrupat, întrucît asta ține de un plan prealabil. Întruparea nu are nici o legătură cu omul și faptele lui.
b) Întruparea e un eveniment hotărît în urma nerespectării de către Adam și Eva a interdictului divin legat de Arborele cunoașterii binelui și răului. Din această pricină, sfîntul Augustin a numit păcatul „felix culpa” = greșeală binevenită. Dacă omul nu ar fi păcătuit, Dumnezeu nu s-ar fi întrupat. Dar omul a păcătuit și bunăvoința lui Dumnezeu implică în chip necesar Întruparea.
c) Sfîntul Anselm de Canterbury consideră că Întruparea trebuie examinată, mai degrabă, într-un context „juridic”.

Iată argumentul său:
1. Omul a fost creat pentru a înlocui în Cetatea cerească îngerii căzuți.
2. Omul e predestinat la fericire (= nemurire).
3. Ispitit de diavol, omul păcătuiește.
4. Pentru păcat, înțeles ca ofensă adusă lui Dumnezeu, omul trebuie să dea „satisfacție”, să plătească, conform dictonului medieval aut poena, aut satisfactio: sau plătești, sau ești pedepsit.
5. Dar omul nu poate da satisfacție, întrucît păcatul e prea grav. Orice ar da omul ca plată ar fi prea puțin prin raport cu păcatul.
6. Satisfacția poate fi plătită doar de Dumnezeu însuși, dar nu trebuie, nu se cuvine plătită de el însuși.
7. Prin urmare, va fi plătită de un Dumnezeu-om = Iisus Christos.
8. Va fi plătită prin intermediul Întrupării.
9. Iisus îl reconciliază pe om cu Dumnezeu, oferindu-i lui Dumnezeu viața Sa în dar (este viața unui om fără păcat, pe care i-o dăruiește lui Dumnezeu de bunăvoie.
10. Numai omul poate fi reconciliat cu Dumnezeu, diavolul și îngerii căzuți, nu.

Aș observa în încheiere că sfîntul Anselm avea o excelentă pregătire dialectică. Răspunsul lui e foarte ingenios, chiar dacă rămîne o ipoteză.

[Samantha B · Rating 5 out of 5]

DUDE.

This book.

THIS BOOK.

Why didn't someone tell me to read St. Anselm sooner???

(I think this cements my destiny as a lover of Scholastic theology, because St. Anselm is apparently critiqued in here for a 'mechanical' view of salvation? And when I heard that, my reaction was "HE DOESN'T HAVE THAT AT ALL AND I WILL FIGHT YOU". So. *ahem*.)

So, while reading this book, I kept laughing with sheer delight at the perfection of his arguments, which led to the title of "Nerd" from my siblings, AGAIN, and I'm not even sorry, because DUDE ST. ANSELM JUST TOTALLY LOGICKED OUT HOW CHRIST DIED FREELY AND YET OBEDIENTLY TWICE and I can't even get over how awesome this guy was.
(My dad, who has also read St. Anselm, commented, after I squealed about it to him for a...while...commented "I don't think I've ever seen anyone have this reaction to St. Anselm." Probably true. But now SO MUCH makes sense!)

I love how he emphasizes that he believes these things through Faith, and seeks to understand them *because* he believes, not *so that* he can believe. I'd never heard it put that way before, but I like it very much.


But there was so much else I loved, too:

The bit about how Christ's death wasn't *necessarily* necessary just because it purified Mary before He was born.

And the bit about why it was so fitting that Christ, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man, was the one to redeem us! (And I'd like someone to tell me why whatever theological book I end up reading, I find our pastor in it? He just St. Anselmed us in a recent class on salvation & the Eucharist, and I'm just realizing it. XD)

And the part where he's like "Oh yeah, and this is why God's justice and mercy are the same" and GAH I SQUEALED SO MUCH. That was awesome. (Also almost cried. That was nice.)

And how Christ's redemption applies to us!!!!!

His logic is funny in places--the parts where he's talking about angels (which, to be fair, made sense. In a very Medieval way.) And the part where he's talking about why Christ was born of the virgin, and why it was the Son who was incarnated--in both places, his arguments make sense, but they did tickle me.

And the part where he explained how Jesus's death covers all our sins!! (!! (!! (!!!))) YES!

His explication of the different types of necessity!!!

What Original Sin means (in part) and just...wow.

Also! I found Lewis in here, too! (When I talk about "finding" Lewis and our pastor in here, I don't mean they're literally referred to or anything--I mean I've found the source/influence of some of their work/teaching. :))

AND the thing about how if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned during the Fall, they would have been "confirmed" and, like the angels, unable to sin after that? Dagnabit, first parents. C'mon.


EVERYTHING JUST MAKES SO MUCH SENSE NOW!

*cough* Yes. So, get thee to St. Anselm. :)

4.5 stars, and I don't care if I'm breaking my own rules! I stayed up late reading this, and it's THEOLOGY. I think that should speak for itself.

[Brian Pate · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published in 1098, Cur Deus Homo is the classic articulation of the atonement as satisfaction.

Why couldn't God just forgive us without sending Jesus to die in our place? Doesn't that limit God's power? And if the incarnation was really the only way, doesn't that limit God's freedom? Anselm uses reason to defend the freedom of God and explain the necessity of the incarnation. "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:18).

Why did God become man?

- Because sin must be paid for (1:11-15).
- Because man cannot pay for his own sins (1:20-25).
- Because satisfaction can only be made by a God-man (2:6-8)
- Because, not being subject to death, Jesus was free to voluntarily die in man's place (2:10-12)
- Because Jesus' death is sufficient to pay for our sins (2:14-15).
- Because the reward Jesus gains is applied to man (2:19).

[Peyton Gunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

My history of Christianity class is keeping me afloat in my reading challenge 😤

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting work from Anselm, though I don't think I really enjoyed it as much as his Proslogion.

One aspect of Christianity that's always been very difficult for me to grasp is the idea of the Incarnation. I understand it, abstractly, but it was never entirely clear to me why the forgiveness of humankind had to take place through such a route: it seemed like a rather labyrinthine solution, when God presumably could have just forgiven everyone and been done with it.

I'm apparently not alone in this question, and Anselm devotes a relatively lengthy tract to explaining why Christian belief dictates that it was absolutely necessary for it to happen exactly as it did. In short: sin against God resulted in mankind owing a debt to God that drastically exceeded their ability to repay. But as this debt had to paid by a member of the human race - a descendant of Adam, who started all this trouble - God assumed human form (through a descendant of Eve) and repaid a debt he never owed to begin with. I think this eventually came to be called satisfaction theory.

In a sense, it's a very elegant argument. It frees the Incarnation from questionable earlier explanations that implied God had to fight it out with the Devil for possession of the human race, it's meticulously argued, and it can be pretty moving. But I'm also not convinced that it's all that great of an argument, particularly because it has a somewhat disconcerting tendency to assume that God operates under the dictates of human logical reasoning. Maybe I'm just being theologically dense, but I still don't fully understand how God's methodology could be reasoned out according to human ideas of debt and atonement.

Aside from that, though, I think it's definitely worth reading and thinking about for a while. Anselm is a beautiful writer.

[Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's very little in this book that I can think to complain about, except that maybe I disagreed with one or two minor propositions. The clarity of writing, especially, was a breath of fresh air this year.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading Anselm's nearly one thousand year old work on the purpose of the incarnation. Anselm focuses on why God chose to restore life to the world by becoming man rather than through any other means. Since death came to the human race through man, so through man should life be given to the human race. No being other than a man could accomplish this, but no mere man on his own would be able to accomplish it. Therefore, God chose to become man; it is only in this way that life could be given to mankind. "None but God can make this satisfaction."

Anselm is noted for presenting the satisfaction view of the atonement. Man owes a debt to God because man does not always render to God his due. He therefore dishonors God. Everyone who sins, therefore, ought to "pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God." This honor can only be paid back to God by the God-man perfectly honoring God, and his death makes satisfaction for believers.

Though Anselm's satisfaction arguments do not provide an all-encompassing view of the purpose of the atonement, they lay the groundwork for the penal-substitution concept that was fully developed centuries later. Ultimately, man has fallen short, and he needs a redeemer. It is this redeemer's perfect ability to honor God that makes enables him to make satisfaction for sins.

Anselm also spends some time in a helpful discussion of the deity and humanity of Christ in hypostatic union. He helpfully concludes with a note from a biblical theological perspective: "The God-man himself originates the New Testament and approves the Old."

Though Scripture provides the foundation for much of Anselm's argument, he does not cite Scripture profusely. This is a work of logic, whereby Anselm reasons through different questions surrounding the incarnation and the atonement. Because this is a discussion of logic, he sometimes strays from focusing on what is clearly revealed in Scripture. For example, he spends far too much time speculating on whether the number of people who will be saved will match the number of fallen angels.

Two other points from Anselm refute RCC ideas. He affirms the absolute authority of Scripture: "I am sure that, if I say anything which plainly opposes the Holy Scriptures, it is false; and if I am aware of it, I will no longer hold it." Anselm also affirms that Mary, "the virgin herself, from whom he sprang, was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did her mother bear her, since she herself sinned in Adam, in whom all men sinned."

The format is in something of a Q&A session between Anselm and a (fictional?) associate. At some points, the interjections from the questioner were a bit stilted. His responses often affirm the arguments of Anselm (e.g., "Nothing is more true," and "I cannot conceive it to be otherwise.") and sometimes reflect awe of Anselm's ability to answer well (e.g., "I cannot withstand your reasoning," and "You remove from me every possible objection which I had thought of bringing against you," and "I listen readily to whatever you say").

Overall, Anselm's work is a helpful lesson in how to reason through theological questions. Though Anselm does not arrive at a full penal-substitutionary concept as the purpose for the incarnation, his argumentation appears to lay the groundwork for fuller development of atonement theory later on.

[Jarrett Vandiver · Rating 5 out of 5]

For me, this might be right below The Consolation of Philosophy on my “Christian theology greatest hits” album.

This book is so often dismissed because of portrayals such as it being “outdated,” “overly-western,” “legal,” “medieval,” etc. I am convinced that anyone who believes in these descriptions will be confounded by simply reading the whole book. Anselm makes a powerful case in explaining Jesus’ atonement for us by combining philosophy from all ages. He is NOT simply a mouthpiece for medieval feudalism as many introductory lectures and textbooks like to claim.

His argument is roughly as follows
- Humans desire life, love, and happiness
-We recognize that these things are transcendent - they cannot be fully satisfied by this world (hence, CS Lewis’ argument)
-God must be the source of this life, love, and happiness
-We ought to give ourselves back to God who gave us everything, this is the source and reason for true happiness
-PROBLEM: we have sinned and are unable to give ourselves fully to God, thus we are miserable
-SOLUTION: by God’s grace, Jesus is the “perfect repenter, as CS Lewis says, who has eternally and perfectly offered himself to God the Father
-we can be unified with Jesus Christ into his atoning life, death, and resurrection
-this restores our perfect joy and union with God
-God COULD have merely “forgiven” our sins without the Incarnation, but this would have left us in our sin and given us no DIGNITY AND HAPPINESS in offering ourselves personally to God.
-Thus, Christ’s incarnation was necessary because it was the only way to reconcile us back to God AND fulfill our happiness by allowing us to join with Jesus and offer ourselves as living sacrifices—giving God back what he gave us is the only way to real happiness.

The book ends in praise to God in one of my favorite quotes. The dialogue conversant responds to Anselm’s articulation to the gospel by saying,

“The universe can hear of nothing more reasonable, more sweet, more desirable. And I receive such confidence from this that I cannot describe the joy with which my heart exults. For it seems to me that God can reject none who come to him in his name.”

[Jordan Shirkman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mostly logic-based defense of the incarnation. Interesting insights but some weird stuff about the elect making up for fallen angels in number.

Encouraging and well within orthodoxy. (But yeah the angel stuff is weird).

[Samuel Bierig · Rating 5 out of 5]

a must read. he will take you places you've never been and he'll cause you to dwell over very important questions.

[Hailey Ziegler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, I believe Anselm had a whole lot of excellent reasoning. I got a little confused in the conversation when they started debating the number of angels who were to be saved and whether or not man was made to make up for those lost with the devil…kinda weird.

But it was so good when he started talking about Mary (the woman, think reversal of Gen. 3:6) bearing Jesus, and how He was born by and completely reliant on her for life (only in His physical human state, not His metaphysical existence), but she depended on Him for metaphysical existence because He was God the Son. She was θεοτικος not merely χριστοτικος.

[Kofi Opoku · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable and enlightening read. I appreciate Anselm and Boso for their verbal artistry and dignified form of debate. Anselm’s argument about the redeemed humans making up for the number of fallen angels was a bit weird. However, his main points about the necessity of the atonement were well reasoned.

[Paul Jensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that you read a second time with a notepad!

Very few books accomplish what they intend; in this book, St. Anselm makes very clear the reason why God deigned to take on a human nature. As someone who is constantly confused as to *exactly how* the Crucifixion brought about salvation, I left this book which much clarity. The Saint melds the doctrines of Grace, the satisfaction theory of Atonement, and orthodox Chaldean Christology to make great sense of the Incarnation for us sinners. 6/5 rating if I could.

[Tori Whitacre · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book, I may make this my advent book, for it was great preparation to remind myself of my need for the incarnation.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Satisfying. No pun intended :)

[Nemo]

Anselm of Canterbury endeavours to prove by "plain reasoning and fact", without resort to revelation, "as if nothing were known of Christ", that it is necessary for the death of a God-man to save man from death so that he may enjoy eternal life.

Justice, Dignity and Offense

If, as Plato writes in Republic, justice is to give each his due, what is the just due creatures ought to give their Creator?

Anselm answers that the will of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God. In human relations, if someone saves the life of another, the latter is said to owe the former his life, and that he is bound to do whatever the former requests of him, which is but small compensation compared to the debt of life owed. Given (the premise) that God created the world out of nothing, man owes God his whole existence, and is therefore obligated to abide by the will of his Creator. "He who does not render this honor which is due to God, robs God of his own and dishonors him; and this is sin."

In human relations, if a man wrongs another, he must make amends by restoring or repaying the damages out of his own resources. If he damages the honour of another person, he must make additional restoration, for that which cannot be measured in material value. In man's relation to God, if man dishonours God by disobeying His Will and Person, there is nothing of himself, which he can offer to atone for his sin, since man owes God his whole existence and obedience -he is in the red, so to speak, to begin with. "What do you give to God by your obedience, which is not owed him already, since he demands from you all that you are and have and can become?"

For as one who imperils another’s safety does not enough by merely restoring his safety, without making some compensation for the anguish incurred; so he who violates another’s honor does not enough by merely rendering honor again, but must, according to the extent of the injury done, make restoration in some way satisfactory to the person whom he has dishonored. We must also observe that when any one pays what he has unjustly taken away, he ought to give something which could not have been demanded of him, had he not stolen what belonged to another. So then, every one who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God

Necessity of God-Man

By disobeying God, man deprives God of his possession. For both man and the universe of which man is a part belong to God, but the order and harmony of the universe are disrupted by man's sin, in so far as man is concerned, although no injury can be done to God, Who is impassable and Whose counsel is immutable. To make satisfaction for man's sin, therefore, the universe needs to be restored to the state of harmony and order, which it would have if man had not sinned. Man is required by justice to make the compensation, but the power of the Creator is required to make it. Above and beyond this, satisfaction of the honour of God is required. Because a person is of higher dignity than his property, dishonouring the person is a more serious offense than damaging his property. Therefore, the satisfaction of the honour of God must in proportion be of higher dignity than the universe, which is none other than God Himself. Hence the God-man.

If the divine nature and the human nature are not the same person, "it is impossible for both to do the work necessary to be accomplished. For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should be perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement."

"He somehow gives up himself, or something of his, to the honor of God, which he did not owe as a debtor. ... This may be to give up his life or to lay down his life, or to deliver himself up to death for God’s honor. For God will not demand this of him as a debt; for, as no sin will be found, he ought not to die."

References:

Basic Works of St. Anselm @ CCEL

[Daniel Lieber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has to be one of my favorites. It’s simply outstanding! It’s fairly short as well at roughly 100 pages but might be slow reading for those not accustomed to older speech patterns. It’s also written in the form of a conversation between Anselm and a hypothetical student of his making inquiries and probing questions about the subject. I personally find this Q&A style to be the most organic and effective style of learning.

As you might suppose, the primary question this book addresses is why did God become a man in the person of Jesus Christ? But this question inevitably involves so many others. For example, why did God not accomplish His purposes through some other being or simply speak redeemed humanity into existence as He did with the created world ex nihilo (out of nothing)? Why does the mighty, majestic God stoop to such finite and lowly humanity? The book is basically split into two parts, the first being questions addressing why salvation can’t be found outside of Christ and the second being why salvation can be found in Christ.

These are some of the questions Anselm dives into in this masterwork and while he describes the beauty of such things early on, his primary focus in this work is the wisdom and coherence of such things. Anselm very wisely and humbly prefaces that “the will of God ought to be a sufficient reason for us when he does anything, though we cannot see why he does it. For the will of God is never irrational.”

This is such a lovely truth we see so marvelously brought forth in this book that God is a reasonable God. Yet Anselm makes clear that God is reasonable not so much that He may be discovered by reason alone, but that He is reasonable by the light of divine revelation. All reason is dependent on given principles and such is the case in exploring the reasonableness of the question as to why God became man. From the limited perspective of man this should be the most confounding thing ever contemplated, yet as the Word of God has provided insight into His thoughts, we are given illumination into a marvelously coherent purpose of God to glorify Himself. So Anselm in this book is very true to His famous maxim: “I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.”

Anselm is steeped in orthodox theology about the being of God as he contemplates these questions. Why should God stoop so low with such toil in the work of Christ? Well God according to the divine nature does not toil in anything, in fact He is impassible meaning he cannot be acted upon. And contrary to modern kenoticists, Anselm is clear that in the incarnation there is “no lowering of Deity [God does not become less divine]; but the nature of man we believe to be exalted.” Therefore, nothing about the humanity of Christ, compromises the majesty and power of who He is in His divinity.

Another extended discussion I loved in this book was on the “willingness” of Christ to be obedient unto death. Anselm is so insightful as He explores the dynamic between the Father’s will and the Son’s in the work of redemption. One might question the justice of the Father in sending the innocent Son to die on behalf of sinners deserving death themselves. But Anselm shows from scripture that what the Father wills for the means of the redemption of Man, the Son also desires willingly and so there is no injustice in sending the innocent to die, because He goes forth as a sent one willingly. His death should not be confused as the act of obedience itself, but rather He was obedient to God which resulted in His death. He was crucified for His faithfulness. What remarkable color this brings to the love of Christ! He didn’t die for sinners because He had to, He died because He wanted to. As Anselm puts it, “He preferred to suffer rather than the human race should be lost.”

And yet the Father’s will has never in doubt which is why we can also state the work of Christ as the Father’s doing in sending and giving up His Son. Anselm being true to his Augustinian theology affirms that the divine will of the Father moves/inclines the human will of the Son having granted a spirit of holiness. Anselm says, “in this impelling it is not to be understood that there is any constraint, but a free and grateful clinging to the holy will which has been given.” I think there is an echo of Jonathan Edwards here that so called “free will” is not a will that is self-determining but rather one that acts as it desires even if these desires are ordained by God. Here we see the deep collision of 2 incredible divine truths: on one hand it was the Father’s will to crush Him [Jesus] (Isaiah 53:10) and on the other hand Jesus willingly suffered being crushed for the joy set before Him (Hebrews 12:2).

Anselm also spends significant time discussing what is sin and why it need be punished. As many Christians might expect there is an extended discussion about the justice of God maintaining his honor and lordship over creation. These are helpful thoughts but I think they are made more complete if we invite the thoughts of Edwards as well that the purpose of man’s whole existence is for the glory of God. So if God does not uphold old his own purpose for man by tolerating the defaming of Him among men, then ultimately God is unjust to Himself. I think that’s an important distinction that Anselm doesn’t necessarily dive into: God himself is the standard of justice; it cannot be defined apart from Him or something that exists outside of Him. Thus God is not bound by some abstraction called “justice”, rather He is necessarily true to Himself according to the immutability of His will. Anselm does touch upon my previous statement towards the end of the book.

Strangely in the middle of his discussion of the necessity to atone for sin, Anselm breaks into what he thinks is a supporting tangent about how it is also proper for God to make up for the number of fallen angels within the kingdom of heaven by replacing them with redeemed men. I thought this was a bit silly and out of place. To me it demonstrates that Anselm was still a man of his time during the age of Scholasticism and this seems to demonstrate the excesses of that system that sought to answer all questions that could possibly be conceived of. While scripture sheds some limited light on the existence of fallen angels, in my opinion it does not give us much light on the divine purpose regarding fallen angels and consequently it is better we keep our thoughts limited as the Bible does. I think he extrapolates this into a discussion about the work of atonement that is neither helpful nor necessary, but that does not negate the great helpfulness of his other thoughts!

In getting closer to the question of why God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, Anselm also touches on the massively important truth that God “is not served by human hands” (Acts 17:25). Anselm discusses that transgression requires not only that things be made right moving forward, but that things ought to be made right for what was done in the past. He communicates this point by stating compensation must be made. But Anselm points out we must not think that repentance, a contrite heart, and obedience are appropriate compensation to God. This is a massive point because it illustrates the entire difference between a works based faith and one that is based on grace. These things are what God already deserves, thus they cannot be thought as sufficient payment for the debt owed for sin. If God isn’t served by human hands, what offering can please Him? This is the hopeless position a sinner finds themself in. The question Anselm poses is “how shall man be saved if he neither pays what he owes and ought not be saved without paying?” There is nothing that can please God other than Himself, but to the joy of the broken hearted that is exactly what God offers in the person of Jesus Christ. God offers Himself to Himself as a satisfactory payment for sin. In this way, He takes the ugliness of sin and uses it to demonstrate the beauty and glory of Himself. In this way, the transgression of past sin is made right because it served to fulfill his original purpose to glorify Himself.

I love that in contemplating all this, the purpose of God is not simply a cold submission on the part of man, but in Anselm you hear the proclamation of all saints, such as the authors of the Westminster Confession and John Piper, that man was made to be happy in God. Anselm says, “The rational nature was made holy, in order to be happy in enjoying the supreme good, which is God. Therefore man, whose nature is rational, was made holy for this end, that he might be happy in enjoying God.” These are truly majestic, beautiful and happy thoughts that are core to the Christian faith!

And so the great answer to why God became man was so that man might atone what he is unable to atone for. Man must offer the perfection of God himself as a satisfactory atonement for the transgression of sin. Consequently, God becomes Man so that Jesus Christ might make that offering on behalf of sinful man. As Anselm says it is such an offering that “none but God can make and none but man ought to make, it is necessary for the God-man to make it.” And so there it is, that is why the God-man. Praise the Lord for such wonderful works and revelations!

[Illiterate · Rating 1 out of 5]

Anselm argues for the moral/logical necessity of the incarnation and atonement. Of no philosophical interest.

[Dominic Foo · Rating 3 out of 5]

People who heap blame upon the "cruel" or "mechanical" atonement theory of St Anselm has clearly not read the actual work itself.

It is in fact very different from the common caricatures of St Anselm's "satisfaction" or "commerical" theory of the atonement as God being incredibly petty to demand his honour satisfied and being incapable of forgiving without it. To dispel some of the common misconceptions:

(1) St Anselm is clear that God did not directly will or command Christ to die. Rather, Christ was obliged to maintain truth and righteousness and it was in obedience to the truth and to righteousness which resulted in Christ's death.

(2) St Anselm's theory is cleary, satisfaction OR punishment are the two response of God to sin, thus, at this stage of scholastic thought on the atonement, there has not as yet arisen the (in)famous penal substitution theory whereby Christ's death is a *punishment* for the sins of the world.

(3) Christ's death is to be conceived more along the lines of "superogatory merit" rather than an inherent necessity. The argument is apparently that Christ needed to do more than just be a perfect human being obeying God's standard commands, which is what is owed by all human beings in the first place, Christ needed to "go beyond the call of duty" and do something beyond the standard duty to have "surplus" merit which God will need to reward, and which reward is naturally the redemption of mankind since Christ doesn't need anything himself, possessing everything from the Father.

(4) Finally, it seems that St Anselm's argument for the "necessity" or fitness of death rather than any other supereogatory deed is, oddly enough, Peter Abelard's moral influence theory whereby it is fitting for Christ to choose to die as an example to mankind to learn to suffer all things including death.

Well, as the pioneer work in later reflections on the "theory of the atonement", it is certainly a work of classic, but yet now that I've read it, it is most certainly not to me a "must read" work for it has a rather crude "mechanical" sort of view of the atonement and about transfer of merits and the world is ultimately encumbered with scholastic distinctions and expositions on necessity, freedom and my goodness! An entire section on whether mankind was meant to replace the number of fallen angels or exceed their number, etc. I can see where the expression "how many angels can dance on the head of the pin" arose...

[Zack Hudson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like the part where he rejects the immaculate conception of Mary.

[Jacob Rush · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's interesting how much ancient Christians used an aesthetic appeal in their arguments—that it would be most "fitting" for God to do something in a particular way. Anselm does this and so does Athanasius (and I think Cyril?).

He pretty much argues that Christ's death is sufficient to pay for all the sins of the world, to conquer the devil and pay back the debt of honor that man owes God, and thus he is rightly credited with laying a groundwork for the future Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. His account of the gifting of Christ's post-crucifixion reward to those who trust in him is interesting. Basically, he says that this act of obedience Christ gives to the Father is rewarded accordingly, but since Christ, as God, does not lack anything, He freely gives it to believers in him. This, of course, makes sense if that reward is eternal life. He gains the reward that he does not need, the eternal life promised to Adam upon his perfect obedience and bestows it upon his children.

He also argues for the unity of God's redemptive work in Christ even prior to Christ's incarnation From the days of Adam and Eve, God redeemed sinners through Christ's sacrifice, and this is grounded in the fact that since it was the Son's will that he would for sinners, and He is God, that will is an actuality in God's reckoning. But, this is qualified by saying that those in Christ prior to His incarnation and death were not allowed into God's presence yet. So, in other words, Anselm believes in Abraham's bosom in Sheol??

This is important to read because it reminds us that historical theology doesn't just belong to "Catholics" or something silly like that. Yes, Anselm held to a certain sort of meditation of the saints, and his devotional literature is filled with many prayers to them. Yet he also lays out a thoroughly Protestant protology and teleology for mankind, as well as an atonement theory that Calvin and the gang were happy to expand upon. And for that matter, it's not like Anselm was the only orthodox Christian theologian before the Reformation.

Also, the responses of Anselm's fictional punching bag,"Bozo" were often really funny.

[Joseph Louthan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anselm's Cur Deus Homo or Why Did God Become Man? is an excellent, deep theological work that attempts to unravel the mystery behind the Incarnation of God in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. I gave this book only four out of five stars only because half of the book was letters back and forth between Anselm and people in the church and the monastery and it felt like filler to me. Despite the filler, the first 100 pages are well worth the price of the book and I recommend it to anyone who is not only interested in the "God became flesh and dwelt among us" but exploring the deep theological and philosophical aspects on the supposed free will of man versus the true and absolute free will of God.

The format is quite unique in that this is the first theological book I have read that is a discussion between two men. In this, we have Boso, a compatriot of the author's, who serves as the one inquiring about the Incarnation from a layperson's view and the unregenerate's view. And then we have Anselm, who seems to provide the answers but even more so, sharpens iron with Boso and sharpens iron with the reader.

I was pleased and fortunately to read this book after finishing Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word (which was a double joy to read around Christmas) and I felt like Athanasius' work serves as great, worshipful setup to this book. Athanasius lobs the pitch up and Anselm swings for the fences. If I could give the highest recommendation, it would to read On The Incarnation followed by Cur Deus Homo.

After reading, praying, processing and meditating, I would summed up the entire book in this:

In man's sinful nature, man lacks the power, ability and free will to fully live for God. However, in His divine nature, God has the power, ability and the free will to die for man so that man might fully live for Him.

[Ethan McCarter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic work of theology. This is actually my second time reading through it, and I got more out of it the second go around. First, I'll describe what Anselm does so well. His writing style is quite good even humorous at points in his dialogue with Boso. Don't think it's a dry work simply because it's written by a Medieval Scholastic! His doctrine of the atonement is excellent, it's not penal substitution as described by Calvin and the Reformers, but it's a groundbreaking work of historical theology. His logic is also quite good, and he seeks to prove all of his reasoning in line within logical parameters.
There are some problems with this work as any Protestant theologian would have. One issue is the reason why God saves man through Christ. For Anselm it's to replace the fallen angels who sinned and were kicked out of the Heavenly City. So salvation is not based on God's free choice alone (a Reformed view of Romans 9), but that God had to save man because he needed a perfect number in heaven. Anselm sees the elect as replacing the angels. This is not a biblical view, nor reasonable, and comes from Pseudo-Dionysus rather than St Paul. There are other issues too (atonement from a more mercantile rather than judicial provision for one) that are in this work. However, it's a classic. Reformed Protestants need to consult Anselm who paved the way for later understandings of Christ's atonement.

[Noah Richards · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first read of the year!
I enjoyed this one, although it wasn't the easiest read. I will have two opportunities to discuss this book soon, in our church reading group and then in my atonement class, so I am going to wait to give it a rating and further review until then.

Thoughts after a second read:
Still don't really get it all that much but I am starting to pick on some of the brilliance. I will comment further once I re read it again and get it more.

On of the great things about seminary is that sometimes you are forced to read the same book 3 times in the same year. reading this for the forth time, I feel like i get it now kinda. still such a dense and deep text.

[Drew Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Obviously a work of critical importance to Western Christianity, it offers some fascinating logic-driven explanations of the incarnation/atonement. But, it’s rather laborious to read. A deeply ‘scholastic’ work, written with significantly more philosophical precision than eloquence. Important, but not particularly enjoyable.

[Joshua Biggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this as a sort of advent book, although it definitely wasn’t written as such. I found most of the book fantastic! Anselm, like nearly all the medieval theologians, had such an exalted view of God and Christ. Every now he went on some tangents that seemed quite odd… but I guess that’s what you get when you read very old books.

His articulation of why a God-man was necessary (not just good and beautiful, but necessary) for our salvation was timeless. It was also fun reading his framework for Jesus’ death acting as a satisfaction for sins. From what I know, this work shares much in common and laid a lot of groundwork for the modern reformed articulation of penal substitutionary atonement, although Ansel’s view has more to due with Christ paying the debt of humanity and restoring honor to the Father that fallen humanity owes than it does Christ paying the penalty for individual sins. I’m not sure if Anselm would disagree with the modern articulation, but in terms of emphasis he seems to be a little different than the current expression.

Some good quotes:
“Indeed, what can be thought to be more merciful than for God the Father to say to a sinner: ‘Receive my only begotten son and render him in place of yourself,’ and for the Son to say “Take me and redeem yourself”? -pg 94

“He who violates another’s honor does not sufficiently repay his honors unless, in proportion to the injury caused by dishonoring, he makes some restitution which is acceptable to the one whom he has dishonored. Accordingly, then, everyone who sins is obliged to repay God the honor which he has stolen. This repayment constitutes the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to make to God.” -pg 25

“For only one who is truly divine can make satisfaction, and only one who is truly human ought to make it. Therefore, since it is necessary to find a God-man who retains the integrity of both natures, it is no less necessary that these two integral natures conjoin in one person.” -pg 61

[alex creel · Rating 4 out of 5]

helpful book about the atonement as a satisfaction of God’s justice; talking about the necessity of Christ being BOTH God AND man for his atonement to be good/right. I’d like to talk to a Muslim friend about this book.

an outline i found online, to come back to at some point:
- God made man for eternal blessedness.
- Man fell from his original state, forfeited eternal blessedness, and ruined the entire race through sin.
- The remission of sins in necessary for fallen man to arrive at eternal blessedness.
- In order for sins to be remitted, satisfaction must be made.
- Only man ought to make satisfaction for his sin, but he cannot.
- Only God can make this satisfaction, but he ought not.
- Since only man ought to make satisfaction, and only God can, it must be made by a God-man.
- If man remains unredeemed, God’s purpose for humanity and creation will be frustrated, which is impossible for an omnipotent Being.
- Therefore, a God-man is necessary for the redemption of humanity.

[Caleb Meyers · Rating 5 out of 5]

10 out of 10. This definitely deserves to be a classic. In my opinion, Anselm is even greater than Aquinas, although I have not read very much of Aquinas. Anselm represents the best of Scholasticism. This book, why God [became] Man, contains so many brilliant arguments for why Christ had to come here to this earth. It is compact, although short, and due to its dialogue format it draws the reader in. I especially loved his insight on how since we already owe everything to God, any sin is something extra, something more than everything, and thus man can never pay it of himself. Many other insights are contained in these pages. If you like philosophy, the classics, theology, or simply raising yourself, this book serves those purposes.

[Marcy · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is such clarity of thought, and even of language (here it's the Latin!) from these great thinkers of old. This was an incredible work, and it is another that I cannot believe was not on my radar before reading it. Anselm has thought deeply and rightly on matters that have never occurred to my wee brain, and to enter into those meditative thoughts and reasoning is an incredible treat. I cannot recommend works like this and On the Incarnation highly enough.

[Laura McCarter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful, brief classic. A few weird ideas about the elect being of a number to make up for the fallen angels, and not as fully fleshed out as later accounts of the atonement, but certainly a foundational, readable, and logical "discussion" on the nature of Christ. Highly recommended. Since it is written as a conversation between Anselm and the enquiring Boso, it has humor, too.