Response to Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Green and Baker

Response to Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Green and Baker

“Recovering the Scandal of the Cross,” (Green, Baker) presents an alternative means of thinking for Christians theologically. The author’s task of interpreting culture and communicating within a culture is incredibly difficult. Much of the biblical teaching of God is rooted into communicating to a specific group of people and a certain culture. Yet God has chosen the Bible as the method of communicating himself to the world. Green and Baker begin to lay the groundwork of historical influence of atonement from Anselm and Irenaeus. They later introduce ideas from Charles Hodge and penal substitution. There are four major models of explanations of the atonement: Christus Victor, penal substitution, satisfaction and moral influence. Although others are mentioned in the book, this sets the stage of the historic dilemma from which they can view atonement in their discussion of tradition.

The most popular understanding of the atonement today is the theory of “penal substitution.” The concept and idea of a wrathful God who can only have his anger at wicked sinners only appeased through bringing about the violent death of his Son on the cross – forms the basis of much Evangelical thinking, although it was not a view held by the early church. Penal substitution first emerged with Anselm in the 11th century. It was substantially shaped by John Calvin in the Reformation Era but was ultimately finalized by Charles Hodge who lived in the 19th century in the United States; he taught at Princeton Seminary for fifty years. Charles Hodge explains to us how penal substitution provides deliverance from the power of sin and Satan, something more directly associated with Christus Victor model of atonement. (p. 144). Jesus took the punishment because the law was broken and somebody has the pay the crime. Historically the word “satisfaction” does not mean grafication as in common usage, but rather “to make restitution”: mending what has been broken, paying back what was taken and can be connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice according to Anselm. From the legal aspect the purpose of satisfaction is not heal us or restore us inwardly, but is rather to satisfy society.

Earlier approaches focus on Christ death and resurrection as his victory over all forces of evil and sin, including the earthly and spiritual powers that oppress.