On a first reading of Abelard’s exposition of Romans 3:19-26, it looks as though he is pursuing a fairly logical argument. On subsequent readings, however, it appears that something is missing in his account of grace. Basically, he draws too sharp a distinction between the dispensation of law and that of grace. The result shows up in his account of the atonement. In the end, he does not view it in terms of legal satisfaction. It is, instead, a source of inspiration, a thing to be imitated. One’s understanding of the atonement will affect his understanding of grace. Consequently, I want to look at what Abelard does with the former in order to see what he thinks about the latter.
Abelard considers and rejects the idea that the death of Christ constituted a ransom paid to Satan for our redemption. The argument, as he states it in chapter II of his exposition, was:
that it was Satan who (because the first man had sinned and had yielded himself by voluntary obedience to him) was exercising a total dominion over man; and that he would always exercise the same unless a deliverer came.
Abelard weaves together two arguments against this proposition, one more convincing than the other. In the first, he provides examples of those who were not under Satan’s dominion before the Christ’s death. The deliverer, he writes, has only delivered the elect. Lazarus was carried into Abraham’s bosom before the death of Christ. And what of Abraham himself? Satan had no power over these and all the rest of the elect who were there, even though Christ had not died yet. Further down in the same chapter, Abelard notes that Christ forgave the sins of both Mary Magdalene and the paralytic before his Passion. And then Abelard makes a statement showing that he does not understand what has happened. He writes, “If, I say, the Lord was willing to pardon sinful man apart from his Passion…” This misses the point. Just because the elect are allowed to enter into Abraham’s bosom or because Christ pardons sins at a point in time before his Passion, this does not mean that events have happened apart from Christ’s Passion. Abelard has confused temporal priority with logical priority and, in so doing, has opened the door to saying that the death of Christ is not necessary to the forgiveness of sins. God can forgive sins apart from any legal satisfaction.
The other argument that Abelard makes against the atonement as a ransom paid to Satan is more convincing. Man, as the slave of the Lord, had no right in the first place to put himself under Satan’s dominion. No ransom need be paid: God can simply take him back. Besides this, Satan is himself the slave of the Lord. One slave has seduced a fellow slave. Who then, Abelard asks, is more guilty- the seducer or the seduced? Satan is in no position, from anything that he has done himself, to have any right over man. If he does possess any rights, this can only be “through the express permission, or even the assignment, of the Lord.”
So far, Abelard would be on the right track if this argument were taken by itself. But he has also made the case that forgiveness of sins is possible apart from the atonement. He has not yet explicitly stated it, but he doesn’t see the atonement in terms of a ransom being paid to anyone. Consequently, when he comes to the conclusion that a ransom paid to Satan would actually imply a ransom paid to God, since God is Satan’s master, he does not explore this option but rejects it out of hand.
Abelard adds to his case that grace is technically possible apart from the atonement by giving the example of Christ himself:
Indeed, as man, he did not by his own merits ensure that he should be conceived, be born, and continue throughout his life without sin, but received this through the grace of the Lord upholding him.
Abelard conflates more than one thing in this statement. First of all, he has not differentiated between the goodness of God that keeps his creatures from sinning at all and that goodness of God that deals mercifully with them after they have sinned. He calls both of these “grace” when the term properly belongs only to the latter. Consequently, his argument that it would be a lesser thing for God to simply forgive sin than to unite himself with man does not hold. The two events are not in the same category.
The second ambiguity in Abelard’s statement is found in the difference between the passive qualities of being conceived and born and the activity of not sinning. The righteous life of Christ is seen to be the result of the grace of God. Put another way, grace has enabled merit. If this seems unfair to Abelard, consider the first chapter of his exposition. Note especially his definitions.
Consider first his definition of the righteousness of God that has been manifested in the dispensation of grace. This righteousness is “something which God approves and by which we are justified in God’s sight, namely love.” We learn later on that this means our love for God. This righteousness depends upon the justice of God. But then, the justice of God is our faith in Christ. Later on, however, this justice is also love. For those who believe in the death of Christ, their faith results in love, which is righteousness and which results in the remission of sins. In Abelard’s words, Christ died “to convince us how much we ought to love him who ‘spared not even his own Son’ for us.” Something is not right with this picture.
Abelard calls grace “a free and spiritual gift of God.” It is essential, however, to keep this statement in context. He had just written that man is justified freely “not by any previous merits of their own, but by the grace of…God.” Considering what he has said all around this statement, it seems that the key word is not “freely” but “previous.” Grace is not seen as being in distinction to merit but as a helper of merit. Obedience rendered apart from the motivation of love to God does not count. Merit is only efficacious after it has been motivated by love.
Abelard still wants to know why Christ had to take on human flesh and die in order to redeem us. He has already concluded that it was not to pay any kind of a ransom, whether to Satan or to God. He concludes that we are redeemed from the power of sin. The greatest example of love is, as the scripture says, “that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Christ’s death was, therefore, the greatest example possible of his love. This display of love, in turn, motivates us to love God. This, our love for God, is our righteousness resulting in the remission of our sins. The grace of God is found in his provision of an example to be imitated.