Catholic Soteriology - Ransom Theory - THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation

THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 Final Essay In consultation with one of the lecturers, choose one of the major topics of the unit (salvation) and: (a) summarise the approach of two theologians to this topic [900 words]; (b) discuss the strengths and limitations of their approaches [300 words]; and (c) reflect on how at least one of these theological approaches could contribute to the transformation of your professional, pastoral, or personal context [300 words]. In this essay, I will look at Ransom Theory based on Origen’s work and then briefly St Anselm’s model of Satisfaction. I will analyse certain misconceptions about Ransom Theory, especially the idea that Satan has any explicit legal claim over mankind, and also that this model of atonement in its fullness is the model that St Paul teaches. I conclude by looking to Pope Benedict and how he calls for these traditional models like Ransom Theory and Satisfaction Theory to be reconciled by complimenting them with a generous discussion about the nature of love, sacrifice and the Holy Trinity. The Ransom Theory of Atonement The Ransom Theory of Atonement proposes that Jesus’s passion and death on the cross was needed as a ransom to be paid so that mankind could be freed: ...there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all...1 Thus, the idea of a ransom is credible insofar as St Paul and even Christ in His own words2 clearly affirm. However, idea of Christ as a ransom has two divergent conclusions. The first troubling conclusion is that this ransom must be paid to satiate God. The other conclusion, almost equally as dire, is that the ransom is actually paid to Satan, who is constructed as a kind of legal captor of mankind. Proponents of both 1 1 Tim 2:5-6 (RSV). Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”. 2 1|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 versions of this theory rely on the work of Origen’s writing about spiritual combat and Satan’s captivity of mankind. For Origen, it was because of this spiritual warfare that God the Son became incarnate to join with mankind in a battle against Satan and his angels that we could not win otherwise: [Jesus Christ] being not only an example of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow in the conflict which is to overthrow the power of that evil spirit the devil, who had obtained dominion over the whole world.3 Jesus’s passion, death and resurrection therefore signalled Christ’s final victory, and Origen appeals to Colossians to emphasise this: Having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.4 Here in Colossians we can see Origen’s assertion that Satan has some kind of legal claim or victory over mankind. Origen builds on this idea of a legal relationship between the three parties – being God, mankind and Satan: And, on this account, “the Father spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.”… [Yet] contrary to their expectation, it was to the destruction of their own kingdom and power, that they received from the Father the Son.5 The question is, then, who was the recipient of the ransom of Christ’s life? Generally, it is argued that Origen was proposing that Satan received the ransom, however, I disagree. Yes, Origen clearly says that Jesus was “delivered” to Satan, who then delivered Jesus to men to destroy; but that does not necessarily equate to a payment/transaction by God to Satan. The difference between God making payment to Satan and God delivering Jesus to him is crucial, because it is the difference between God actively willing the destruction of His Son on Calvary, or on the contrary, believing that Jesus was permitted to be delivered to 3 Origen, Contra Celsius, Ch. 7, 17. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Eds.: Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm 4 Col 2:14-15. 5 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 13, 9. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Eds.: Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm 2|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 Satan and men by God’s passive will. Even understanding God’s passive and active will, both conclusions are really rather grim pastorally and made worse in the theological isolation they are normally received within. A God with no alternative? Pastoral problems and the pitfalls of Ransom Theory The first obvious pastoral problem with payment to Satan is in explaining why God would permit man to be bonded to Satan in the first place. From another angle, the questions become why an all sovereign God was somehow in debt or bound to Satan at all for us? The idea that Jesus died and was ultimately sacrificed to appease or fulfil a contract with Satan is doubly troubling. 6 God needs nothing, especially not to do business with Satan. Thankfully, we can rest assured that nowhere in Scripture is there evidence of any kind of payment to Satan or this perversion of the Ransom Theory. The tradition and teaching of the Church echo the sentiments of St Gregory Nazianzen in deriding such a suggestion7: Since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny.8 Clearly the bond is not held by Satan, but then what is the nature of this bond? A more careful reading of St Paul in Colossians above makes it clear that the legal bond was cancelled or null – and therefore not paid out to anyone. An almighty God does not bargain, make agreements, or transact with Satan. Rather, Satan’s only claim was to knowing that “nothing impure”9 shell enter Heaven or the Presence of God and so mankind would be left to join him in eternal damnation by default of the legal bond of sin. St Paul in Romans 6:18 is clear that we have not been set free from Satan, but have “been set free from sin” and its legal default if we choose, by the Grace of God. 6 Robert D. Culver, “The Doctrine of Atonement Before Anselm”, Global Journal of Classical Theology, Vol. 4. No. 3, 2004, (Houston, MN: Patrick Henry College), 1. http://phc.edu/gj_1_toc_v4n3.php 7 Culver, Robert D., “The Doctrine of Atonement Before Anselm”, 2. 8 Gregory Nazianzen, Second Oration on Easter, XXII, Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310245.htm 9 Rev 21:27 – “But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false” 3|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 From a catechumenate’s perspective, it’s not hard to see the importance of the difference – in one scenario God is evidently left with no alternative but to submit to the conditions of a creature, no less, Satan. While on the other hand, we have a God who upholds the free will of all creatures to the point of dying on a cross. St Anselm and God’s Honour The alternative is that the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, was paid to God the Father – but isn’t this troubling in itself? Doesn’t this mean that God was then our bondsman and our oppressor in some indirect way? In isolation, this idea is still troubling and difficult to reconcile with an all loving and an all-powerful God. St Anselm criticised Ransom Theory in Cur Deus Homo? by explaining that because of man’s sin, justice demanded satisfaction for the debt incurred against God’s honour by our sins, which otherwise leaves us deserving God’s wrath. St Anselm says no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction, and that a debt to Divine justice has been incurred – and that debt must be paid. For God to ignore sin would be unjust and create a cosmological imbalance affecting all creation, which would be neither just nor loving. The problem, however, is that man could never make this satisfaction for himself because God is infinite and his offence is therefore infinite. Thus, only an infinite could repay such a debt, which is why only Jesus, being both human and divine, could possibly make satisfaction and redeem mankind, saving us from God’s eternal wrath. He proposes that we participate and benefit in the great redeeming act of satisfaction to the Father when we are united to Christ and die in Him. While this solution of St Anselm’s comes from a different angle, ultimately this theory is still deficient, because we have a God who demands satisfaction (or in Aquinas’s variation - punishment). Pope Benedict highlights: [I]t is an unworthy concept of God to imagine a God who demands the slaughter of his Son to pacify his wrath. God must not be thought of in this way. Such a concept of God has nothing to do with the idea of God to be found in the New Testament.10 10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, San Francisco: St. Ignatius Press, 1968, 233. Reprint: 2004. In: Dwyer, The Radical Theology of Benedict XVI, http://www.rcda.org/offices/deacons/PDF/Dwyer/4-6-15.pdf 4|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 Even while St Anselm proposes that is not God’s wrath that is placated, but his honour that is restored, we still have the problem of a Father who restores His honour and is ultimately “satisfied” by the slaughter of His Son – which is ultimately a Pagan notion as James Allison argues, not a Jewish or Christian one.11 So, in fact, the worst problem with Satisfaction Theory is that satisfaction is demanded at all, because it reveals a God who is so concerned with his own honour and justice that He requires His Son to suffer and die – or does it? A Satisfying Theory? Anyone can quickly realise the weaknesses inherent in the two models, and hence quite often Christians are mocked for speaking of a Father who sends His Son to be slaughtered. Yet, does all this mean that Ransom and also Satisfaction Theory are of no use to us? No, because what is most important to consider is that all the theories have their extremes and become unworkable at some point, especially in theological isolation. As an example, the atheist caricature of the argument of the Son being destroyed to satisfy the Father equally applies as an extreme objection to all of our theories of atonement. However, the error of this approach should be obvious to the Trinitarian - it overemphasises the diversity of the Holy Trinity while neglecting the oneness of the Trinity. The fact that the Son died and not the Father does not mean that one God sent another, but that one God descended in love to die for us.12 Pope Benedict instead talks about how reconciliation is something God does for us in Christ, and not something done to restore the divine order, much less God’s honour.13 For him, the cross reveals our weakness but it tells us to glory in our weakness because God Himself has shared in it, descending from 11 James Alison, “An Atonement Update,” Australian eJournal of Theology, October 2006, 4. http://aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/378656/AEJT_8.1_Alison_Atonement.pdf 12 Gerald O'Collins, “Redemption as Transforming Love”, in Jesus Our Redeemer: A Christian Approach to Salvation, (Oxford University Press, UK, January 2007), 188. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203130.001.0001/acprof9780199203130 13 Alison, James, “An Atonement Update,” 3. 5|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 His Heavenly throne to live amongst us and die with us – but not out of an absolute necessity, but as a Revelation to the Church and as a testimony to the true nature of His love, which is self-sacrificial. Therefore, it is in order that the true nature of love, humility and obedience could be revealed that required that Calvary be a sacrifice which was “the expression of that foolish love of God’s that gives itself away to the point of humiliation”.14 This view is known as the Moral Influence Theory, and it emphasises the example and revelation of the life and death of Jesus. This model agrees with Scripture better when complimenting Ransom or Satisfaction Theory, especially to balance out an overemphasis on the sacrificial nature of Calvary or God demanding or requiring the death of His Son, by showing how mankind “does nothing needful for God; the direction is all the other way”.15 Conclusion In this essay, I have demonstrated how Ransom Theory and Satisfaction Theory are inadequate in theological isolation and too often lend themselves to parody. Soteriology is nuanced and it is vital that we understand and explain the Truth to the world in the light of the fullness of Tradition and Scripture. We must avoid reducing these central mysteries of our faith to a counterfeit caricature of half-truths where Calvary looks like just an accumulation of pain or God seems to demand sacrifice and/or will the suffering of His Son (to name a few common errors). All of these conclusions are terrible distortions of the Gospel and God’s love and triumph on Calvary. Pope Benedict challenges us to discover new and engaging ways of proclaiming our faith – a faith based on the paradox of and great mystery of a God who died. So, while it is true that sin incurs the righteous anger of the Just Judge, and that anger is averted by the satisfaction made by Christ, it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciliation because of this satisfaction. Rather, God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction. 14 Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Introduction to Christianity, 283. Eric Osborn, "Love of enemies and recapitulation,” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2000, 24. https://login.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&A N=ATLA0000006263&site=ehost-live 15 6|P age THCT600 – Creation, Grace & Salvation Joseph W. Moloney S00152525 Bibliography Alison, James, “An Atonement Update,” Australian eJournal of Theology, October 2006, 4. http://aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/378656/AEJT_8.1_Alison_Atonement.pdf Dwyer, John, “The Radical Theology of Benedict XVI”, Deacons of the Diocese of Albany Theological Program, May 2009, http://www.rcda.org/offices/deacons/PDF/Dwyer/4-6-15.pdf Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch, “When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper,” The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - The New Testament. Vol. RSV Second Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010. Nazianzen, Gregory, Second Oration on Easter, XXII, Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310245.htm O'Collins, Gerald, “Redemption as Transforming Love”, in Jesus Our Redeemer: A Christian Approach to Salvation, (Oxford University Press, UK, January 2007), 188. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203130.001.0001/acprof9780199203130 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 13, 9. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Eds.: Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm Origen, Contra Celsius, Ch. 7, 17. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Eds.: Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm Osborn, Eric, "Love of enemies and recapitulation,” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2000, 12-31. https://login.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000006263&site=ehost-live Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Introduction to Christianity, San Francisco: St. Ignatius Press, 1968, 233. Reprint: 2004. In: Dwyer, The Radical Theology of Benedict XVI, http://www.rcda.org/offices/deacons/PDF/Dwyer/4-6-15.pdf 7|P age