Bernard of Clairvaux and the significance of Christ’s suffering and death

Michael Cadge

Christ's work on the cross in dying for humanity's sins is the foundation on which Christianity stands.

An accurate, objective and relevant understanding of Christ's work on the cross is therefore of great

importance for all Christians. Similarly, peace among Christian groups or individuals with doctrinal

differences is, and always has been, an important matter for Christians. A notable example that

covers both of these issues is Peter Abelard's and Bernard of Calirvaux's disputes over Abelard's

'Moral Influence Theory' of the atonement. This essay will evaluate Christ's death for humanity in

reference to Bernard of Clairvaux, while assessing how Bernard was influenced by the circumstances

of his time, namely Abelard's theories, and seeing the relevance of Bernard's methods today.

Abelard argued that Christ's life and death was an example of God's great love for humanity. Christ's

incarnation and death, for Abelard, “was not in order to liberate [humanity] from the yoke of the

devil” (Lane, 2013:81), but (in his own words) “by work and by example [Christ] bound us more

closely to himself in love so that kindled by such bounty of divine favour love no longer fears to

endure anything for his sake” (William, 1953:308-9). Abelard also states that “our redemption

through the suffering of Christ is that deeper love within us which not only frees us from slavery to

sin, but also secures… true liberty.” (Macgrath, 2011:332).

Similar to the example theory – that Christ's life and death is merely an example for us to follow –

Abelard's 'moral influence theory' denies that God's justice requires payment for sin (Grudem,

2012:581). Salvation for Abelard, or as Abelard puts it; redemption, freedom from slavery and

liberty, is through a love response to Christ's example of supreme humility, charity, and self-sacrifice

manifested in his suffering and death. (Merton, 1954:57). To be saved from sin, in Abelard's eyes,
was to have one's heart kindled by the great example of Christ, and to thus respond with love and

good actions so as to bring one closer to God and into salvation. Though there is a God-ward aspect

to this theory, it is the action of humans that brings salvation, which was very much in opposition to

the commonly held Christian doctrine of the time that salvation is an act of God through Christ, not

an act of man.

Abelard's writings also have echoes of Pelagianism: “If it is true”, Alebard states, “that man is not

able to do anything good by himself… it does not appear on what ground, if he sins, he can be

punished” (Mabillon, 2014:454). Pelagius' notion that humans are capable of choosing good without

divine help is mirrored here, for Abelard implies humans are capable of good actions without divine

help.

Though Abelard does not completely reduce the meaning of the cross to the idea of kindled love,

and actually acknowledges an objective transaction in the death of Christ (Lane, 2013:36), he does,

nevertheless, put much emphasis on the subjective nature of the cross so as to imply that salvation

is not through Christ's atoning death but through good works wrought by kindled love in response to

Christ's love in his suffering and death. In other words, Christ's death arouses love in humanity and

this is what overcomes the power of sin (Lane, 2013:36) and this was against the widely accepted

theory of the time that salvation is through Christ paying the penalty for sin through his sacrificial

death.

Bernard referred to Abelard's faith as 'valuation' as if “the mysteries of our faith depended upon

vague and various opinions and were not rather founded upon certain truth” (Williams, 1953), even

suggesting that Abelard called “faith opinion” (Mabillon, 2014:474). However, Bernard defended the
“strict, literal, and objective value of Christ's redemptive death for man” (Merton, 1954:57),

preferring a scriptural and orthodox view on doctrine (Myers, 2010). Lane, using Bernard's own

Biblical citations, paraphrases Bernard's writings on Christ dying for sins:

“Christ bore the sins of many (Isa 53:12)… died for our sins (Rom 4:25 with 1 Cor 15:3)… [delivering]

us from the present evil age (Gal 1:4)… died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6) and for the unrighteous (1 Pet

3:18)… fixed our sin to the Cross (Col 2:14)…. made purification… for sins (Heb 1:3) and by his

passion most powerfully removed every kind of sin (Heb 9:28)”. (2013:172).

Whereas the death of Christ itself, for Abelard, did not redeem man but was an influence that

kindled love in human hearts, leading to salvation, Bernard, on-the-other-hand, asserted that “Christ

became man precisely in order to redeem mankind from sin, [and] deliver man from the power of

the devil” (Merton, 1954:57). Bernard also states how Abelard denied that the devil had power over

sinners and that Christ died to save humanity from this power (Mabillon, 2014:477).

As we see, Bernard was a defender of the traditional doctrine of liberation from Satan, stating

himself that “[Satan] lost those who he held... since [Jesus]... receiving unjustly the penalty of

death…. set free both from the debt of death and from the dominion of the devil him who was guilty

of death” (Williams, 1953:309).

We must remember that Bernard's thinking was still “profoundly shaped by Augustine's teaching

about the will as deformed by original sin” (Mews, 2004:642). This is evident above and in Bernard's

understanding that Adam's sin is imparted to humans, thus enslaving them (Mabillon, 2014:493;
Lane, 2013:215). So while Bernard may argue his approach was strictly scriptural, he was still

nevertheless still influenced by the accepted theology of his time.

Bernard saw Abelard's views as heretical, wrong and dangerous (Webb, 1960:1010), which explains

his rigorous attacks. But how far did Abelard influenced Bernard's own views on salvation? Was

Bernard simply restating what he already believed, or were his ideas shaped by the responses he

gave to what he believed to be the heresies of Abelard?

When questioned by Abelard on who the ransom price of Christ's death is paid to, Bernard, though

stating that the Cross as a sacrifice and a satisfaction are offered to God, is nevertheless reluctant to

state who the ransom is paid to (Lane, 2013:172,202). A widely held view of the time, the ransom

theory, held that this ransom is paid to Satan (Grudem, 2010:581; Reeves, 2015). Bernard, however,

did not conform to this view, or to Anselm's that it is paid to God (Reeves, 2015). This may well have

been due to Abelard's influence pressing on Bernard, who in opposition to Abelard, used scriptural

backing in response to Abelard's approach that lacked it. Scripture does not explicitly support either

theory, and this may explain Bernard's silence on the issue. Bernard did however assert that “men

are taken captive by the devil”, matching the ransom theory idea, though he did use scriptural

passages to support this claim (Lane, 2013:478; Luke 11:21; John 13:30; Matthew 12:29).

According to Macgrath, Abelard's theory lacked adequate theological foundation, though it did bring

home the subjective impact of Christ's death, something completely ignored by contemporaries of

Abelard, such as Anselm. (2011:332). In comparison, Bernard gives three chief virtues in the work of

humanity's salvation; “the form of humility in which God emptied Himself; the measure of charity

which He stretched out even to death, and…. the mystery of redemption, by which He bore… death”
(Mabillon, 2013:494). The former two, he argues, are nothing without the latter; Christ's redemptive

death, therefore combating Abelard's argument that Christ did not pay the penalty for sin. So we see

that Bernard does indeed agree with the “example of humility [and] great example of charity” of

Jesus Christ, something Anselm and other theologians neglected (Mabillon, 2013:494), and it is

possible that Abelard's own theories, though heretical in Bernard's eyes, are what influenced

Bernard to hold these ideas, or at least to not neglect them.

In regards to salvation of individuals, Bernard contested the “excessively intellectualistic method of

Aberlard who, in his eyes reduced faith to mere opinion” (Benedict, 2009). On-the-other-hand,

Bernard's views aimed “to activate… in oneself the image of God, that capacity for conformity to

[Christ]”. (Williams, 1983:45). Bernard called for authentic conversion and total commitment to

Christ; conversion was meant to be a deeply personal friendship with Jesus of the whole self, not just

an entering in to the covenant family, but a true conversion and interior turning of the heart towards

God. (Myers, 2010; Stanton-Roark 2013). For Abelard, God's love in human hearts is the cause of

change, whereas for Bernard, God's love is the crowning experience of mystical union with Christ

when “the believer's soul becomes inebriated in ineffable love” (Benedict, 2009).

As we see, Bernard did agree with aspects of Abelard's teaching, however, there was still the crux of

the problem in that Abelard, in Bernard's words, believes Christ “might give man by His life and

teaching a rule of life, and by His suffering and death might set before him a goal of charity”

(Mabillon, 2014:486). Bernard, on-the-other-hand argued that because humans “were taken captive

at [Satan's] will (2 Tim. 2:26)… there was a need of liberator”, that is, Christ, who brought

“redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7)” (Mabillon, 2014:487). So though

he agreed in part with Abelard's ideas, Bernard saw them as useless without the work of Christ's

substitutionary death, which he believed Abelard ignored.

Abelard likewise argued against Bernard, asking why God could not liberate humans simply by giving

the order without the need for Christ to die. For Bernard, however, Christ had to die to remove the

yoke of humanity's captivity (Lane, 2013:104). Denying Christ's atoning death and accepting that his

death was merely an influence or example was, for Bernard, a heresy that mirrored Pelagianism. The

debt humans owe, for Bernard, “is too great to be repaid by our penitence”. Moreover, Bernard

believed that God, “being righteous... most righteously punishes offences” and that humanity's “sins

justly merit punishment.” (Lane, 2013:191,206,207) However, through Christ's death, sins are

forgiven and “he who lacked righteousness had another's imputed to him” (Mallibon, 2014:492).

For Bernard, Abelard's view failed for he believed humans could not earn their salvation. Bernard

believed Christ dying for sin solves the problem of original sin and averts God's judgement against

humanity.

Abelard disagreed and could not see how God would consider Christ's death so pleasing. For him it

seemed “cruel and unfair” that an innocent man had to die this way, for Bernard, however, it was

the only way (Lane, 2013:212). Similarly, today there can be a “denial of any substitutionary or even

'objective' element in the Christian doctrine of atonement” (Richardson, 1950:213). This is notably

held by Chalke who considers Christ's death as “cosmic child abuse” (Chalke, 2003:182-3), similar to

Abelard's ideas above. For Christians who hold Scripture to be authoritative, Bernard combated

Abelard well as he was committed in defending the Christian faith with orthodox theology and

scriptural support. Following Bernard's example of combating unorthodox views, such as Chalke's,

through the use of Scripture is very much relevant today. It helps prevent dangerous heresies than

can mislead believers, and helps to prevent division (though it can of course also cause division).

Furthermore, from their disputes, we can learn “the usefulness and need for healthy theological

discussion within the Church”, which Bernard and Abelard are commended for (Benedict, 2009).
For J.C. Ryle, writing in the nineteenth century, the “professing church… [is] much damaged by laxity

and indistinctness about matters of doctrine within”, which, for him, led to “bloodless, boneless,

tasteless, colourless, lukewarm, undogmatic Christianity” (2011:260-1). For Christians concerned

with the integrity of Biblical Christianity, and the protection of new/venerable believers, then

combating heresies is of the utmost importance as it helps prevent confusion for believers and

division within church, and also prevents what Ryle considers to be lukewarm and colourless

Christianity.

For Christians who hold the Bible as authoritative, we must assert that Bernard's views on the death

of Christ are more adequate and sound compared to Abelard's. According to the Bible, humans

cannot do good by themselves and are deserving of punishment for their sins (Romans 3:10-12, 6:23,

4:15). Likewise, though 1 Peter 2:21 states that Christ's death is an example to follow, the Bible is

clear in that salvation is through Christ dying on the cross where he faced the penalty of sin that

humanity deserved as humanity’s substitute, thus removing guilt and sin and bringing redemption

and forgiveness (Romans 6:23, 1:18-32; 5:8-9; 3:24-26; Galatians 3:13). Abelard's writings clearly lack

scriptural integrity, whereas Bernard appealed more to Scripture and to the orthodox views of his

time, therefore giving a more adequate conclusion for the orthodox Christian. Abelard did however

bring to light the subjective nature of the cross in that Christ's death is a great example of love that

can indeed influence people to do good deeds, and can being more appreciation for what Christ did.

We can also learn from Bernard and Abelard on how to, and not to, discuss theological difference

and can note the usefulness of challenges to one's faith that can enable growth in the theological

field and that can prevent lukewamness and taking one's faith for granted.
Bibliography

Evans, G.R. et al., 1987. Bernard of Clairvaux Selected Works, New Jersey: Paulist Press.

Grudem, W., 2012. Systematic Theology, Nottingham: Inter-Varisty Press.

James, B.S., 1998. The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Surrey: Sutton Publishing.

Lane, A.N.S., 2013. Bernard of Clairvaux Theologian of the Cross, Minnesota: Cistercian Publication.

Leclercq, J., 1976. Bernard of Clairvaux and The Cistercian Spirit, Michigan: Cistercian Publications.

Mabillon, J., 2014. Life and Works of Saint Bernard (Ebook: Aeterna Press), London: Burns & Oates.

Mcgrath, A., 2011. Christian Theology an Introduction 5th Edition., Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Merton, T., 1954. The Last of the Fathers, London: Lowe and Brydone Limited.

Mews, C.J., 2004. Bernard of Clairvaux , Peter Abelard and Heloise on the Definition of Love. Revista
Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 60, Fasc. 3, Sapientia Dei - Scientia Mundi: Bernardo de Claraval e o Seu Tempo
pp.633–660. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337847.

Mohr, M. et al., 2009. Bernard of Clairvaux. Available at: http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/4673 [Accessed

December 15, 2015].

Richardson, A., 1950. A Theological Word Book of the Bible, London: SCM Press.

Shaff, D.S., 1903. St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The Princeton Theological Review, pp.180–199. Available at:
http://journals.ptsem.edu/id/BR190312/dmd003.

Webb, G. et al., 1960. Bernard of Clairvaux, London: A.R. Mowbray & Cow Limited.

Williams, W. 1953. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Williams, R. in Wakefield, G. 1983 A Dictionary of Christian Spirituality. SCM Press p44-5

Reeves, R. 2015: Abelard on the Cross. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMTryPruYh4

Richardson, A., 1950. A Theological Word Book of the Bible, London: SCM Press.

Chalke, S. and Mann, A. 2003. The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Ryle, J. C. 2011. Holiness. Heritage Bible Fellowship. Kindle Edition.

Myers, G.E. 2010. Fiery Preacher: Bernard of Clairvaux. http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/fiery-

preacher%3A-bernard-of-clairvaux

Pope Benedict XVI. 2009. St Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abelard. L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in
English 11 November 2009, page 12. https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16ChrstChrch95.htm

Stanton-Roark, N. 2013. Toward an Everyday Monasticism: The Monastic Theology of Bernard of Clairvaux.
http://www.academia.edu/5137613/Toward_an_Everyday_Monasticism_The_Monastic_Theology_of_Be
rnard_of_Clairvaux