Vicarious Satisfaction – The problem of offending God

According to Vicarious Satisfaction theory: We have dishonored God by our sin and need to pay Him back for the insult we have rendered to Him. But since we were incapable of rendering this payment ourselves, Christ rendered this payment for us on our behalf. Therefore, Jesus died to restore to God His honor. Anselm did not believe it was right for God to simply forgive someone without requiring payment or satisfaction. He believed that it would be unjust for God to pass over sin unpunished. For this reason, Jesus came and died and His life of infinite value and worth was more than a sufficient payment to God to restore His honor and to meet the demands of justice. Simply said, Jesus paid our debt. But this debt is viewed as more commercial and quantitative. That is, it is viewed as a mathematical quantity that needed to be paid and forgiveness required payment.

The Governmental theory differs from this view in that: Public justice being exemplified was sufficient to show the seriousness of sin and once that was done, God was sufficiently satisfied so long as those people repented and turned from their sins to live in a right relationship with God through faith. Since God’s wrath is remedial and restorative in nature, there would be no longer a need to punish the crimes once they had been repented of or were in the process of being repented of. Therefore, Vicarious Satisfaction theory must logically see God’s wrath as retributive and only retributive, at least, when it comes to Jesus’ death on the cross to pay man’s penalty. Not that Jesus took on that wrath on the cross but it was dealt with through the satisfaction of love and obedience.

Satisfaction theory is the view traditionally held by the Roman Catholic Church but we know they also believe in purgatory which is remedial and restorative regarding God’s justice and wrath. So, the Catholics do hold to both retributive and restorative justice. Jesus’ death on the cross dealt with God’s lost honor and justice. However, our merits are also somehow necessary in this life and in purgatory to pay out the rest of the debt that we have incurred through our sin. Once that debt against justice has been paid out, then we can enter heaven. At least, from my perspective, that’s how it seems to work for the Catholics. So, Jesus forgives us and pays our debt yet at the same time we also have to pay that debt. It is confusing to me, therefore, how this is not a contradiction and if Jesus’ death actually accomplished anything for us on a practical level. Also, if the sacrifice of Jesus had sufficient merit for us to render God propitious, why does the Catholic church have “the treasury of merits”? And why is there a purgatory for us to fill up what is lacking in our debt obligation if Jesus paid that debt? It might make better sense if the treasury of merits weren’t some mathematical point system being added to your account to win your way to heaven but rather if the treasury of merits were viewed more as means of grace to help sustain the liveliness of your faith. And that means of grace would be the love of people praying for you and loving you in other ways to purge away the corruption of sin within the heart so that faith is made stronger.

Regardless of these logical inconsistencies I see between Catholicism and Satisfaction theory, I will do my best to make sense of it and present the theory in a positive light. In the book Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen, he speaks about Anselm’s view this way: “It is not, indeed, fair to charge Anselm with saying that God’s attitude is changed by the satisfaction made to Him; such an imputation misses the real point, and as we have seen, it is inconsistent with his assertion that God is the ultimate author of the scheme of Atonement. It is His will that Christ on behalf of men should make the satisfaction which His justice demands” (pg. 90). So, that’s the general rebuttal about Satisfaction, that it is about changing God’s mind or attitude and in this way, does not hold to the attribute of God’s impassibility (unchangeableness). Gustaf Aulen says that’s a wrong charge to make because of Anselm’s belief that God is the ultimate author of the atonement. In this way, long before Jesus died, the plan was already enacted and God’s mind was already made.

From Anselm to Aquinas

Though St. Anselm was the one who really developed this theory of Satisfaction, St. Thomas Aquinas had his own take on it as well. This view will be discussed from Phillippe de la Trinité’s book: What is Redemption? How Christ’s Suffering Saves Us. Anselm’s view mostly emphasized God’s justice whereas Thomas Aquinas’ view emphasized more of a balance between God’s love and justice but His love being the main focus. Now, Aquinas’ view on the atonement was not strictly about Satisfaction but involved Moral Influence as well. The way Philippe and Aquinas saw the atonement differed in some ways from other Catholics and so we cannot assume all Catholics see the atonement and Vicarious Satisfaction the same way. However, for the remainder of this teaching, I will focus on how Aquinas and Trinité taught this view, which I perceive would be more in line with what the Catholics believe today.

Philippe writes, “God the Father did not exercise the right of retributive justice either on Christ himself or on sinners in his person. Therefore, Christ’s sufferings are not punishments […] St. Thomas’ thought can be reduced to this: it would be both cruel and unjust to punish an innocent man in the place of a felon; but Christ was innocence itself; hence it is inconceivable that he should suffer and die in our place to satisfy a just revenge. He could not be the object of the Father’s wrath” (76). Philippe also says, “Here it is most important to grasp the fundamental principle that it is not punishment but love which makes satisfaction what it is essentially. It is the loving acceptance of punishment for the love of God which gives it whatever value of satisfaction it may possess” (82).

Put plainly, Jesus’ death was an offering to the Father and He was well-pleased/satisfied with it because of the motive and great love which Jesus possessed. But without love, there is no satisfaction or value of the sacrifice. Jesus didn’t die as our substitution for retributive justice. That is, not “instead of us” or “in our place” but “for us” and “for the sake of us.” He bore suffering for us and died to lift us up, to bear us up. The degree to which He suffered also demonstrated the greatness of His love because He went to the cross and suffered willingly. It was not out of obligation that He suffered but as a willing sacrifice of love. It was His great willingness in love through suffering that satisfied God so as to make Him propitious/favorable toward us to remit our guilt and pay our penalty.

Philippe asserted that among humans, we repay debt to one another against loss of honor or possessions through restitution and reparation. But to God, we cannot actually injure Him or take anything away from Him. However, we can offend Him. Therefore, between God and man, satisfaction needs to be made. Whereas, between our neighbor, restitution is made. But we can make restitution to God in so far as we live right before Him and represent Him well. But this still is not adequate and this is why satisfaction must still need to be made because we have truly and seriously offended God by our sin and this shames Him and dishonors His glorious name. Only the infinite merit of Christ can pay this penalty (85-86).

How is it though that God can settle the account with justice without ignoring the just law? Aquinas believed that if God denied His own justice, he would deny Himself. Philippe writes: “St. Thomas makes the clearing up of this difficulty the occasion for a valuable development. A judge is bound in justice to inflict a penalty when the case concerns a crime against a third party, whether this be a citizen, the prince, or the community (rempublicam). But, should the offence be simply personal to himself then the judge may remit the penalty out of pure mercy without infringing justice. Now God has no superior. He is himself the highest common good of the universe. Hence he may, without injury to anyone, remit the offense of sin without exacting a penalty” […] “Now God alone, because of his infinite dignity, was capable of offering an adequate satisfaction for the sins of all mankind. It was fitting, therefore, that he should suffer for man what man himself had deserved to suffer by his sin” (104-105).

Sin is an Offense Against a Holy God

The Scriptures seem quite clear that our sin is not just against one another but against God. Jesus mentioned that the two greatest commandments are about loving God first and then loving people and in this particular order (Mt 22:34-40). Here, Jesus recognized the authority of the law and the prophets in exemplifying a standard given to humanity but He sums them all up by saying love God and love people. God Himself speaks through the prophet Malachi and says:

“‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, ‘How have we defiled You?’ In that you say, ‘The table of the Lord is to be despised.’ But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?” says the Lord of hosts. (Mal 1:6-8).

God cares about His honor and it baffles me how some theologians don’t acknowledge this and teach this. God continues and says what He desires, that His “name will be great among the nations” (v. 11), “But you are profaning it” (v. 12). “I am a great King” and “My name is feared among the nations” (v. 14). “If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings” (2:2). “You have wearied the Lord with your words” (2:17). “I will draw near to you for judgment” (3:5). “Your words have been arrogant against Me” (3:13). “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze” (4:1). God is primarily loving and gracious, yes, but He also said that He will not let the guilty go unpunished (Ex 34:7). Here are some other references (Gen 20:6; Ex 23:33; Lev 26; Num 14; Jer 33:8; Ezek 20:8; Hos 6:7).

For those theologians who disregard the Old Testament, they cannot escape what is written in the New Testament. Jesus said “I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me” (Jn 8:49). The Father desires that “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (Jn 5:23). Jesus was also angry when He flipped over the tables of money changers, using a scourge of cords to drive people out of the temple because they were dishonoring His Father’s house. Zeal for His Father’s house consumed Him (Jn 2:17). Paul said that those who break the law, dishonor God and “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:23-24) and God’s wrath is revealed against those who do not honor God or give thanks (Ro 1:18, 21). In the day of wrath, the righteous judgement of God will render to each person according to their deeds (Ro 2:5-6). Jesus Himself is the one who treads the wine press of the wrath of God in the eschatological day of God’s wrath where those who chose to worship the devil and his kingdom were killed by Jesus (Rev 14:19-20; 19:15). Hebrews 10:29 says, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” God takes insults seriously. He’s not messing around or just chill with whatever we do.

All of this cannot be merely consequential wrath because it has to do with God’s honor. Our sin is seriously offensive to God. Even David and Joseph saw sins against people as ultimately sins against God (Ps 51:4; Gen 39:9). The judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of God’s retributive wrath. It’s not just natural or consequential that fire and brimstone rain down from the skies to consume cities. What also needs to be recognized is that Sodom is given as an example in the New Testament as what the eschatological punishment will be like (2 Pet 2:6; Jude 1:7). For these reasons, we can conclude that our sins are against God and are offensive to Him, deserving of His retributive justice.

The Satisfaction theory of the atonement addresses the problem of our sin as being an offense against God. Jesus’ incarnation and death in His love and suffering was infinitely meritorious to pay the penalty of our sins against God. In this, Jesus was a satisfaction of God’s love and justice for His honor. He restored to God as the second Adam that which humanity deprived God of. He did this as a representative on our behalf, now rendering God propitious toward us. God can now forgive us our sins because of His mercy and because the penalty of sin has been dealt with. Mercy was the primary means by which we achieve this forgiveness. Jesus was a love and mercy offering to the Father because of His great motive and disposition of love in which He willingly obeyed the Father in all things even to the point of His suffering and death on a cross. Ephesians 5:2 says He “gave Himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.” In this way, the Father was abundantly moved with compassion and mercy to overlook and forgive all our offenses against God. It was just for Him to do this because He is the ultimate authority over all the universe and since the offense was ultimately against Him, He can choose to show mercy without exacting a penalty.

Other Things to Ponder:

The remaining gaps of information that I was not able to find in my research on this theory is how God renders justice or mercy towards those who commit crimes against each other. In response to injustices that happen in our society, Paul says, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Ro 12:19). There are insidious crimes that are committed on this earth like rape, incest, and murder. These sins are not just committed against God but against other people to the destruction of their own lives. It would be just to punish these things and something within us cries out for justice to be rendered. Justice is a good thing. But how can crimes like these be justly remitted upon the mercy of God? There are a few options here:

(1) Believe that God can show mercy on whomever He desires because He’s God.

(2) Add the Moral Government view of the atonement to your current view.

(3) Make restitution with those who have been wronged to settle your account with mankind.

(4) Perhaps God’s justice for these crimes may be meted out in this life. If this is so, then the punishment of something like eternal conscious torment would not be necessary except perhaps only against offending God.

(5) If these things cannot be done, you might have to believe that you have committed a mortal sin or that you must access a treasury of merits to make up for your wrongdoing or that you must suffer purgatory to make up what is lacking in your sins. However, I would recommend that you think about 1-4 first before accepting these things.

In my opinion, I don’t see how Satisfaction theory can be a sufficient view of the atonement and more atonement theories need to be added to it to make up for what it lacks. At its very basic level though, I do like the fact that it acknowledges our sins as an offense against God and that this offense is something that needs to be dealt with in some way. If we take this theory to deal with that one problem but use other theories to deal with the other problems, then I think Vicarious Satisfaction Theory could be useful. However, for those who do not believe God’s wrath and justice is retributive, then this theory is not needed for that group.

Here are some other thoughts I have related to this discussion which may tie in to Satisfaction Theory if the actual mechanism of this atonement theory is developed and played out:

Jesus was given authority to judge from the Father since after His great sufferings in both body and soul, He intimately knows the struggle of man and because of this, is the best one fit to judge all of humanity. Now, no one can accuse God of not understanding them and judging them too harshly because Jesus suffered through all things even as humanity has (John 5:22, 26-29). Once judgement is complete at the end of the age, Jesus hands over the kingdom back to His Father so that God may be all in all (Ro 2:16; 1 Cor 15:24). It is possible that before the incarnation, it was the Father who had the authority and task of judging and at that time, though there was an intellectual knowledge of man’s sufferings, there was not an experiential knowledge. For this reason, it could be, the Father’s wrath was more strict and harsh at that time. But after Jesus came, suffered and died, the methods and severity of judgement was relaxed to an extent because of the experiential knowledge of Jesus. The Father was also moved by this great act of love and suffering, softening God’s heart or methods toward humanity. I’m not suggesting the immutability of God changed. But rather, His methods did. I’m also not suggesting that God was not omniscient this whole time, only that God lacked the human experience before the incarnation. Neither am I suggesting that God’s judgement was not just before the incarnation. I see just judgement existing on a scale between most strict to most lenient and God is free to justly judge between those two ends. I also believe that God is free to forgive anyone He wishes simply because He has the authority to forgive sins (Mt 9:6; Ro 9:15). What do you think of these ideas? Could they be consistent with Catholic theology?

What if we saw the Catholic view of salvation more like this:

What if, the whole deal about being worthy enough to go into heaven is not about merits and demerits? What if it’s more about proving yourself worthy to be in heaven by getting along with one another, forgiving each other, and not letting arrogance be who you are? In other words, it’s about proving yourself to be loving to God and people to the degree that you would not be someone that anyone could foresee as creating another rebellion in heaven. But if you are evil enough or your heart is evil enough, you would prove that you can’t get along with people and if that were the case and you got into heaven, you might lead a rebellion one day against God or corrupt the goodness that is in heaven. Of course, there’s no sin in heaven but then again, the devil and a third of his angels rebelled against God. So, there seems to at least be the possibility of free-choice. What if those who reach heaven are those who have been refined by the fires of earthly trials to the degree that they have proven their heart’s devotion to God and are therefore marked by God? In this case, it would be about one’s continued devout heart to God in fighting against sin and persevering in faith rather than the mere performance of good deeds and rituals to add to the merit scale. Therefore, it would seem, that those who are in heaven are those who want heaven enough. Meaning, they actually want Jesus and because of this, they continue to persevere in their faith no matter what life throws at them. They continue to put sin to death even though the fight is hard. Perhaps one of the reasons there will never be any sin in heaven is because after God completely frees us from our corrupted nature, and we have on earth demonstrated in the determination of our wills to stay the course, our wills are hardened and solidified to perfect obedience so that there is no reason any man could ever give us that would turn us away from our holy state. Also, if we did sin, we would lose our immortality, so that would be a real downer.

What if we think of good works more like this:

What if our good works are a means of grace to keep our faith strong? That is, it is only by grace through faith that we are saved (Eph 2:8-9) but the good works keeps our faith alive and strong so that we will make it unto the end. In addition to this, our good works prove our faith is genuine and by this we can say that we are also justified by works as James says. Therefore, our works are like medicine to the soul and like waters that flow from a living spring. But our faith is the spring itself from which the waters flow and like the living person who consumes the medicine. But to speak more clearly, it is Jesus who is the spring in whom we place our faith and this living Jesus abides in us and lives through us producing good works. Therefore, it is ultimately our union with Christ that saves us. It is in virtue of our union with Him that we are saved but we must continue to abide in that union to make in unto the end. Now, I’m not saying this is the Catholic view. Only that, it could be a further development in their theology if they don’t already believe in some of these things.

Let’s turn to Hebrews 10 real quick and see what connections there might be to Satisfaction Theory. I will try to make the connections that I can but I cannot guarantee it will be free of bias.

Hebrews 10:4-10

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The sacrifices and the blood of animals could never take away sin. For this reason, the Father prepared a body for the Son to dwell in to become a sacrifice for us. Unlike the other sacrifices, this sacrifice had merit because it was a willing sacrifice unlike all others. The will of this sacrifice was love incarnate and love divine. Because Jesus as God obeyed the Father in all things and willed to die out of love, this offering was accepted by the Father and God was well-pleased. The first was taken away—that is, the sacrificial system. And the second was established as the new way—the one sacrifice of Jesus once and for all. It is through Jesus’ willing obedience and love as a sacrifice that we have been sanctified. The exact mechanism is not clear from this text how we get from the sacrifice to the sanctification. However, if we continue reading, we see the result is that God’s law becomes written on our hearts and minds which is our hearts having been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (v. 16, 22). Then after this, forgiveness comes (v. 17-18). From this passage, it seems as though what was required for forgiveness was expiation, that is, the cleansing and purifying of our hearts so that we can enter the presence of God. This is a real cleansing in which sin is actually removed from our hearts.

Since then, our hearts have been cleansed and God has forgiven us, verse 18 says “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.” Meaning, the merit of Jesus’ death was sufficient and efficacious for our forgiveness and it produced real change within us. Old Covenant ritual offerings were no longer needed and Jesus would never need to die a second time. Nor would there be any offering that we could make for ourselves to God to fill up what is lacking. Forgiveness from God does not require any of our offerings to Him to add to our merit because Jesus was our offering once and for all and Jesus now lives in us because we have put our full trust and faith in Him. The will and love of Jesus living and working within us on our behalf is pleasing and acceptable to God. It is through the virtue of Christ in our union with Him that we are acceptable to God. And if we continue reading in Hebrews to the end, we see that it is through faith that we persevere unto the end.

Hebrews 10:37-39

For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come, and will not delay.
But My righteous one shall live by faith;
And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.