Cur Deus Homo IX-X: Did The Father Wish Christ To Die? (Cath-Orth caucus)

Internet Medieval Source Book ^ | A.D. 1097-1100 | Saint Anselm of Canterbury

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There's no division of wills among the Godhead. Christ's obedience and sacrifice were ordained from before the foundation of the world.

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." -- Isaiah 53:2-11

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." -- John 12:49

[annalex]

I apologize for delay in responding: went to church, then no boat...

Therefore, the will of God the Father was always to have His Son die

and in another post

The will of the Father and the Son was one of the same.

For one thing, Christ does distinguish between His will and the Father's: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39).

The issue is whether the Father wanted Christ to die or whether the Father wanted our salvation and Christ the Man willed to die to make it happen. The central part of the discourse is where St. Anselm gives us the analogy of the crossing of the river, and of eating following church attendance. In the crossing of the river, he says, the will is to cross it and the boat is the fitting way to do it. There might be other ways, for example, on horseback, that for whatever reason are not fitting (perhaps, there is too much baggage, the person doing the crossing is not strong enough to ride, etc.) By choosing to wait for the boat the traveler does not wish the boat, he wishes to cross and the boat is a fitting means. In another example, when we delay the meal till after mass we cannot call the mass a means to have a dinner.

With these distinctions in mind, St. Anselm is able to conclude

Christ, therefore, came not to do his own will, but that of the Father; for his holy will was not derived from his humanity, but from his divinity. For that sentence: "God spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all," means nothing more than that he did not rescue him. For there are found in the Bible many things like this. Again, when he says: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will ;" and "If this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, your will be done;" he signifies by his own will the natural desire of safety, in accordance with which human nature shrank from the anguish of death. But he speaks of the will of the Father, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life; but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless man were to do even as great a thing as was signified in the death of Christ. Since reason did not demand of another what he could not do, therefore, the Son says that he desires his own death. For he preferred to suffer, rather than that the human race should be lost; as if he were to say to the Father: "Since you do not desire the reconciliation of the world to take place in any other way, in this respect, I see that you desirest my death; let your will, therefore, be done, that is, let my death take place, so that the world may be reconciled to you." For we often say that one desires a thing, because he does not choose something else, the choice of which would preclude the existence of that which he is said to desire; for instance, when we say that he who does not choose to close the window through which the draft is admitted which puts out the light, wishes the light to be extinguished. So the Father desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way, except by man's doing so great a thing as that which I have mentioned. And this, since none other could accomplish it, availed as much with the Son, who so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die; and, therefore, "as the Father gave him commandment, so he did, and the cup which the Father gave to him he drank, being obedient even unto death."

[Mad Dawg]

I see that you desirest my death;

In kvetch mode here: I'm pretty sure "you desirest" is not English. Maybe it's Elizabethan Ebonics or something? Generally we have to choose between "THOU desirest" or "you DESIRE", since "you" is plural and "desirest" is singular.

Yeah, clearly the Agony in the garden brings the hypostatic union into the consideration. I don't see how one can talk about The economy of the Trinity w/o bringing the two natures/one person stuff into it sooner or later.

I think the reason I brought Elisabeth Seton into it was to help me see that the "personal" language of "doing what you [the Father] want because it's you that want it," rather than because of the equally true statement that it's a good thing to do "which I know because you could never want anything NOT GOOD)

This is SUCH a good thread!

[HarleyD]

For one thing, Christ does distinguish between His will and the Father's: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). The issue is whether the Father wanted Christ to die or whether the Father wanted our salvation and Christ the Man willed to die to make it happen.

Yes, I would agree with part of your post. I believe that Anselm, correctly, believed the Father's and the Son's will were unique but consistent. In order for the wills to have been consistent, both wills would have to want the Son to die to the exact same degree, although how that would be expressed by the Father and the Son would be different. Moreover, and most importantly, Anselm makes the case that the Father gave the Son His human will with this purpose in mind so that it would remain steadfast to accomplishing the divine will. As Anselm states:

it is not improper to say that God draws or moves him when he gives him this will.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think when Scripture speaks of Christ saying "Not as I will, but as thou wilt," God is giving us a glimpse into predestination and just what "free will" really consists of. The humanity of Christ might be able to present itself as capable of doing anything He wanted, but in reality, Christ could and would only do what God the Father purposed for Him to do from before creation...lay down His life for His flock.

Our "free will" is like that, too. While it feels like we're acting according to our own reasoning and efforts, we are actually and completely carrying out God's plan for His creation, all ordained by God down to the very hairs on our head.

And because Jesus Christ is God, He knows this full well. Isaiah 53 tells us exactly what God's intentions are in Christ's birth, death and resurrection...

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:2-12

Christ had to doubt and suffer and agonize because He was doing everything we should have done due to our many sins. God's perfect justice requires perfect recompense and as God tells us, we are incapable of giving it to Him. Only God Himself is equal to the task of wiping us clean by the blood of His Son. Christ became man to show man just how short he falls and just how far God will go to redeem His flock.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities" -- Isaiah 53:11

Breathtaking, isn't it?

[HarleyD]

God is giving us a glimpse into predestination ...The humanity of Christ might be able to present itself as capable of doing anything He wanted, but in reality, Christ could and would only do what God the Father purposed for Him to do from before creation...lay down His life for His flock.

I believe that is what Anselm was getting at when he stated:

the Father drew or moved the Son to death by giving him that will

by following the will received from the Father

and it was his fixed choice to stiffer death

But I wasn't gonig to say anything. ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

“...his fixed choice...”

Great phrase.

[Religion Moderator]

This is a Catholic/Orthodox Caucus thread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for that reminder. I didn't realize that. I'm posting in a hurry and missed the designation. I don't think we posted anything controversial. Should we not post to caucus threads? If not, I'm happy to oblige.

Thanks again for the correction. And apologies to all if I wasn't supposed to post on this thread.

[Religion Moderator]

Should we not post to caucus threads?

Some caucus hosts object when a poster of another confession shows up, even if (s)he behaves as if in the other's church. Some don't.

[Mad Dawg]

FWIW

IMHO, the point of this thread is to understand Anselm and to do a sort of compare/contrast or "highlight the tricky/controversial bits" NOT to say, "I'm right and he's wrong for this that and the other reason."

According to my increasingly fallible recollection, among the antecedents to this series of posts were earlier conversations/threads where different views of the "Work of Christ" were presented, with considerable heat and not so much light. So at least as far as I'm concerned the value here is to look at an early scholastic apology and to stack it up against other attempts to understand just what it is Christ did and why.

So as long as the posts are along the lines of "Oh, So I guess Anselm thinks this, and I think that, and look at this interesting and possibly important difference," I personally wouldn't object to any poster.

[annalex]

I clarified in my posting comment that I welcome everyone, so long as the posts stay on topic and avoid confrontational tone. I welcome specifically this discussion of free will to be open to non-Caucus members, as it is at the heart of many divisions in the Christian community.

[HarleyD]

My goal is to understand what Anselm is saying. I’m not interested (at least not on this thread) about discussing doctrinal difference. Normally I don’t bother with caucus threads but annelex posting of Anselm’s writings intrigued me. I have been wanting to read his works since they are referenced by a number of authors from various groups of Christians. He is a focus point of many. I'm not interested in pointing out where I might disagree with him but where I want to understand what he is saying.

If the purpose of a caucus thread is simply to read a piece of work without comment then I’m in the wrong place. If the purpose is to explore what is written by theologians, then I would say that I have tried to keep within those parameters.

If you want me to go, I will go.

[annalex]

Elizabethan Ebonics

Wilhelmian? Rufian?

King William II, Rufus
1087 - 1100

It is his death that enabled St. Anselm to wrap up the book we are discussing and attempt to return to England for more practical pursuits. It did not work out for him, as under William II's successor, King Henry I, the investiture controversy raged on. (Wiki)

It is not the first time that I see typos, but I would attribute them to a transcribing error. This one looks like originating form the translator himself, esteemed Sidney Norton Deane, B. A.

[annalex]

In order for the wills to have been consistent, both wills would have to want the Son to die to the exact same degree, although how that would be expressed by the Father and the Son would be different

Anselm would disagree, as he expressly says "God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will"; and then he proceeds to explain how "wish to die" means two different things with respect to the Father (who "desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way") and the son (who "so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die"). The Father's wish for Jesus to die is permissive and not compelling, and Jesus's human will is active and compels Him to undertake steps He knows will lead to the Cross.

[annalex]

all ordained by God

This view does not overcome Boso's objection, "if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die", does it?

[Mad Dawg]

Wilhelmian? Rufian?

Well, yeah, as far as when Anselm wrote is concerned but not for the language the translator is trying to speak in. Deane did the first edition in, what, 1903?

Anyway, I now have Deane at my elbow. That's what we read in collitch back in the 60's. They wrote some right nasty fake Elizabethan at the turn on the last century. I have an Elder Edda that would make me gag if the thing weren't so fascinating.

[Religion Moderator]

annalex is the host and welcomes you to the caucus - so everything is fine.

Just a caution to everyone: participate in a caucus thread as if it were a meeting behind the closed church doors of the caucus confession.

[Forest Keeper]

The question which still troubles us is, how the death of the Son can be proved reasonable and necessary.

Thank you for pinging me to these, Alex. I will be interested to see the answer to this. I'd also like to know what the view is on the operation of the two wills of Christ. In this installment it appears to concentrate on Christ's human will. Probably most Christians say some version of "the wills worked in harmony", but I'm not sure how that actually manifested itself. For example, when Jesus contemplated the cup, did He really defer to His own divine will, or did He wholly and separately defer to the Father's will? Or, if it's all the same, does it still count as an exercise of free will that we can identify with?

[Risky-Riskerdo]

all ordained by God

This view does not overcome Boso's objection, "if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die", does it?

Doing theology from silence and hypotheticals is never good idea.