Partakers of His Reward

Again, in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by plain reasoning and fact that human nature was ordained for this purpose, viz., that every man should enjoy a happy immortality, both in body and in soul; and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled; but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, and unless all things were to take place which we hold with regard to Christ.

Cur Deus Homo: Why God Became Man, St. Anselm (also available online)

Rational man was made holy by God and to be happy in enjoying Him.  He was made to shun evil and love good.  The highest good would be chosen for its own sake, for if it was chosen for another cause, the other would be the highest good.  Therefore, this is what man was made for, to choose and love and be happy in choosing the highest good: God.

Sin and the fall separated man from realizing fully this purpose; man could not experience that for which he was intended.  Without a complete expiation of sin, man would remain separated.  This, for sinful man, was impossible to resolve in himself.  It would require one that was not separated from God, one not carrying the burden of sinful man.  It would further require one who would act voluntarily, one who had a choice in his action.  Why is that?

…when he freely places himself under the necessity of benefiting another, and sustains that necessity without reluctance, then he certainly deserves greater thanks for the favor.

We will come to the “greater thanks” part shortly.  In the meantime, Anselm would deal with this idea again of God acting under necessity: how could this be, that God had to act, as it were?

…God does this from the necessity of maintaining his honor; which necessity is after all no more than this, viz., the immutability of his honor, which belongs to him in himself, and is not derived from another; and therefore it is not properly called necessity.

The “necessity” that isn’t necessity was due to that which is inherent in God’s nature; it is in His character to act in this way toward His creation.  This reminds me of the idea of liberty for man, an idea I have greatly explored when dealing with natural law and man’s highest purpose: can one ever have more liberty than when he acts in accord with his nature and toward the purpose for which he was designed?  I cannot imagine a person with more liberty than this.

Now, I don’t speak of God “as designed,” only that God does have a nature, and His freedom and liberty is maximized when He acts in accord with it (which, as Anselm suggest, is a necessity that isn’t a necessity).

Yet we may say, although the whole work which God does for man is of grace, that it is necessary for God, on account of his unchangeable goodness, to complete the work which he has begun.

The price to pay, for all of the sins of all of humanity through all time, must be, as Boso suggests, “greater than all the universe except God.”  It is a price beyond the ability of any man to pay – and, as has been demonstrated by Anselm in the first book, even a sinless man (i.e., if Jesus was only human) is doing nothing more than giving to God what he himself owes to God; there is nothing leftover or excess to offer to God for all of the sins of all others. 

As Anselm states, succinctly: “Therefore none but God can make this satisfaction.”  But this alone doesn’t work, as he also points out that it must be man that makes the satisfaction as it is man that has fallen short.  It is a satisfaction that only the God-man can make.

Anselm takes a little side trip, offering his reasoning as to why this God-man came the way He did, from a virgin:

In four ways can God create man, viz., either of man and woman, in the common way; or neither of man nor woman, as he created Adam; or of man without woman, as he made Eve; or of woman without man, which thus far he has never done.

So, that’s why God did it this way with Jesus.  Further, he notes: sin sprang from a woman, therefore from a woman would come the resolution; the first sin was from a virgin, so the resolution would come from a virgin.

Returning to his, and my, main thread, Anselm suggests that the gift presented by the God-man to God must be something greater than that which God possesses (yes, I have also had to dwell on this…).  That greater thing: the God-man chose to die even though he had no obligation to do so. 

Now, nothing can be more severe or difficult for man to do for God's honor, than to suffer death voluntarily when not bound by obligation; and man cannot give himself to God in any way more truly than by surrendering himself to death for God's honor.

In this, the God-man was unique, as no man other than this one ever gave to God that which he was not obliged to give; no man other than this one paid a debt to God that he did not owe.  He offered to God the thing that there was no need of His ever losing. 

As he is both God and man, in connection with his human nature, which made him a man, he must also have received from the Divine nature that control over himself which freed him from all obligation, except to do as he chose.

Had He chosen not to die, this was perfectly in His right; but then God would have owed Him nothing.  In other words, while He had a choice to do or not do the thing – death – by choosing the better option, the more demanding option, he was owed a reward. 

Anselm then comes specifically to the point of how this all explains human salvation.  Yes, a reward is necessary, but what does this mean when the one to whom the reward is due lacks nothing?

But if a reward so large and so deserved is not given to him or any one else, then it will almost appear as if the Son had done this great work in vain.

In this case, Boso suggests that the reward should be given to whomever the Son desires.  And the answer here seems straightforward enough for Anslem:

Upon whom would he more properly bestow the reward accruing from his death, than upon those for whose salvation, as right reason teaches, he became man; and for whose sake, as we have already said, he left an example of suffering death to preserve holiness?

It was man that was fallen; it was man that was not achieving the purpose for which he was designed.  Everything about the narrative points directly to this: to grow ever more like Christ.

For surely in vain will men imitate him, if they be not also partakers of his reward.

Conclusion

This concludes my work on this book.  As to a conclusion, none really to offer, other than to suggest that these two books which I have reviewed, On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius and Why God Became Man, by St. Anselm, offer a sound examination on the issue of the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Epilogue

Not to start a food fight, but Boso asks something worthy of note:

For, though the conception of this man be pure, and free from the sin of fleshly gratification, yet 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.

To which Anselm replies:

Since it is fitting for that man to be God, and also the restorer of sinners, we doubt not that he is wholly without sin; yet will this avail nothing, unless he be taken without sin and yet of a sinful substance.

This thinking, obviously, has evolved in the Catholic Church.