In 1094 A.D., Anselm wrestled with this question and wrote a book attempting to answer it. Anselm’s book was an apologetic defending “by absolute reasons, the impossibility that any man should be saved without Christ.”[1] Anselm’s argument walks through the necessity of the incarnation, the requirement for a fully human, fully divine rescuer, and the need for penal substitution. His argument is an extended discussion from the book of Hebrews.
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 2:14-18
The destruction of the devil, delivery from slavery to the fear of death, the saving help of God, propitiation for sin, and sympathetic human understanding—these are the answers to Anselm’s question. Without the incarnation and cross, none of these saving kindnesses would exist. There is salvation in no other name, apart from Christ we are hopelessly lost.
Athanasius argued for this same necessity. “Once man was in existence, and things that were, not things that were not, demanded to be healed, it followed as a matter of course that the Healer and Savior should align Himself with those things that existed already, in order to heal the existing evil. For that reason, therefore, He was made man, and used the body as His human instrument.”[2]
Athanasius taps into the motif of healing in his description of salvation. Gregory of Nazianzus hits this same note in his treatment of the incarnation. “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed…If only half of Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may by half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.”[3]
There are two important implications from this discussion that speak directly into the pain we all know in this life. The first, Christ is the whole and complete Savior, he takes to himself the fullness of human nature and thus rescues us entirely. Why the God Man? To heal us from head to toe, wipe away our sorrows, annihilate death’s grip on us and eradicate pain and loss forever. By faith we affirm this, by sight it is nowhere to be found.
The New Testament speaks of Christ bringing salvation with him when he returns (Heb 9:27-28), which refers to bringing the full benefits of his cross-work to bear on his people. He has already “assumed all,” becoming like us in every respect, his return ensures that he will “heal all” as his redemption reaches into us in every respect. Jesus is a comprehensive Savior. For the Christian, pain is a season, not a permanent status.
The second implication is an overlooked dimension of the incarnation and cross. God became man in order to be an understanding, compassionate and sympathetic High Priest (Heb 2:17-18, 4:15).[4] This is not a mere by-product of taking on flesh and bringing salvation, this is a critical purpose for his coming. Oh, the kindness of God; He is a rescuer attuned to the emotional contours and relational needs of his creatures. From birth to death, Jesus plumbed the depths of human experience in order to engage us with profound understanding no matter where we find ourselves on the journey.
[1]Saint Anselm, Curs Deus Homo (Lasalle: Open Court Publishing Company, 1966), 177.
[2]Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004), 36.
[3]Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 440.
[4]Martin, Luther, Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe Vol 9 (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883), 441. “There is no more effective consolation than that Jesus is completely human.”‘