Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts

by Joel B. Green, Mark D. Baker

For the first-century Roman world the cross was first and foremost an instrument of shameful and violent execution. But early Christians, who had seen their world upended by the atoning power of the cross of Christ, came to view it in an entirely different light. Deeply scandalous, it was paradoxically glorious. For the cross of Christ marked the epochal saving event in God's dealings with Israel and the world. And its meaning could not be fathomed or encircled by a single image or formulation. Since its publication in 2000, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross has initiated among evangelicals a new conversation about the nature of the atonement and how it should be expressed in the varied and global contexts of today. In this second edition Green and Baker have clarified and enlarged their argument in a way that will continue to provoke thought and conversation on this critical topic.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Religion, New Testament, Christianity

287 pages, Paperback

First published August 24, 2000

About the author

Joel B. Green (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of New Testament interpretation and associate dean of the Center for Advanced Theological Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Prior to moving to Fuller, he taught at Asbury Theological Seminary for ten years. He is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Theological Interpretation and has authored or edited numerous books, including the Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics.

Reviews

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atonement theories have been something of an obsession of mine for the past several years, and this book (second edition) is one of the best entries in the current conversation. Green and Baker don't hide their issues with penal substitution, but they take effort to show the prevalence of it in evangelicalism, and how it particularly responds to very Western, cultural values. They also allow for the possibility of a nuanced articulation of PSA, as seen in Kevin Vanhoozer's work. Overall, this book includes some of the most helpful, bite-size summaries of atonement theology in the New Testament and in church history. The conclusion that no one single atonement theory should prevail when we proclaim the cross is very persuasive. Highly, highly recommended!

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had the potential to offer good insights on non-penal models of the atonement, but engaged in stereotypes. Even Eastern Orthodox scholars like David Bentley Hart demonstrates that St Anselm did not have such a crass model of the atonement but was actually quite nuanced. There is more agreement between St Athanasius and St Anselm, for example, than further thought.



Still, all negatives aside (e.g., being published by IVP, guarranteing silly evanjellyfishism), it does raise serious weaknesses with an exclusive penal-only approach to the atonement.



This book could have been a really good book. There are genuine philosophical and theological problems to a "substitutionary only" approach to the atonement. Unfortunately, these authors gave the same pat 19th century liberal gospel approach. I was dissatisfied. I wanted to see hair fly and punches connect.



The main bad guys are Anselm and Charles Hodge. Even their critiques of Hodge, and I have problems with Hodge, were pathetic. They could have really nailed him. And they thought that answering Hodge answered all of the Reformed objections. It didn't.



I do not think he dealt as fairly with St Anselm as he could have. David Bentley Hart (*Beauty of the Infinite*) has shown how St Anselm and St Athanasius do not fundamentally disagree. Another problem I had is that biblical students need to see that the Bible incorporates all 3 models of the atonement (Mark 10 = substitutionary; Colossians 2:15 = Christus Victor; Peter 2:21 = exemplary). Aulen also used language that begged the question in favor of his position.



Lacking in Power? The early church, particularly in its Eastern manifestation, set forth a powerful view of the atonement where Christ triumphed over the powers. This is missing from this book.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with what this book is arguing, but I found the way it argued it was difficult. The chief argument of the books is that the NT uses a rich array of metaphors and motifs from the OT to portray the event of the cross, not just one "atonement theory". I think this is the most accurate way to understand the NT's passages.

However, this argument is carried out in three very fast moving chapters that often feels quite choppy and in haste. The rest of the book looks at the history of atonement and ways of creatively communicating the atonement today. Those were good chapters, but they rest on the central argument that the motifs of the NT theologies warrant the liberty to use new metaphors to communicate the cross intelligibly as the Apostles did in the NT.

Again, while I agree with the argument of the book, it really needed to slow down on the discussion of NT passages and present a more comprehensive treatment of that first before moving on to the rest.

[David Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the book did indeed develop a well balanced biblical model of atonement, their discussion with the historical models could have been better. They simply fixated on disproving the substitutionary and satisfaction model. I feel the authors could have used their time to address how a more dynamic view of the atonement theories work together instead of showing how two views hurt the Christian understanding of the cross.

[Sooho Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the past few decades, scholarship has cycled back and forth into discussions about the cross, crucifixion, and atonement: criticism against the cross, criticism against criticisms, and more have flooded academia's wetlands causing both demolished lands and fertile potentials. Some say the cross is too scandalous; others say not scandalous enough. Some say the crucifixion is too problematic; others say not problematic enough. Some say the atonement is much to be blamed for; others say the atonement actually unmasks the true perps. Unlike the doctrines of the two natures of Christ and the trinity, there was never an early great ecumenical council to hammer out (pun intended) what the cross did and meant. That it happened is unquestionable. What of it begs many questions. 

Thus, Baker and Green try to untangle the frayed twine not of academia, per se, but of popular level understandings of atonement. Specifically in mind is a reductionistic understanding of penal substitution model -- which currently dominates American Evangelicalism. So, they go back to Paul and the Gospels and the Western traditions in survey form and find that popular level understanding of the penal substitution is not "the clearest and most self-evident" reading. Rather, that sort of understanding is a tradition that stems from Charles Hodge, who privileged Western legal court room context. Baker and Green, however, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater but espouse that a kaleidoscopic understanding the cross-event is wanted, even penal substitution. In fact, most of the problematic features of atonement theories (which many critics have pin-pointed) come from a narrow, limited, one-size-fits-all approach to atonement. Baker and Green argue that there never was and that there never should be just one atonement theory, but theories. 

This is a great introduction to modern discussions about the atonement.  

cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross," by Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker.

I love atonement theology. This book deals with it in historical and modern contexts. It is the modern context which interests me, especially non western views.

The first half of the book is the obligatory coverage of biblical and historical models of the atonement. It is good but I'm not going to spend tons of text on it.

"The scriptures as a whole provide no ground for a portrait of an angry God needing to be appeased in atoning sacrifice, " p 51.

"Atonement theology can not be separated from ethics," p 113. I agree, and this is a shortcoming of penal substitution.

Per Christus Victor: "When the church became so closely linked with worldly powers, then a conflict-victory metaphor was less connected to peoples daily lives," p 125.

Missionary reports about Japanese concepts of law and justice, and how vastly they differ from western concepts shows how one can not just unpack penal substitution for a different culture. The Japanese concept of justice is whatever the judge says it is, and justice will restore human relationships, while to "do time" was shameful.

Following this example of shame atonement is the example of how one feminist theologian believed an Anselmian view could make the person accept their "plight" of sexual violence. She then retools Christus Victor for the ladies. This fits well because of the very anti violent message of Christus Victor.

The modern articulations of the gospel were very good. Much centered around missionaries learning a culture and people then finding a way to say "Christ is the King now and He died for your sins.

The closing chapter poses a quite interesting way to view the work of Christ: similarly to how we view the person of Christ as fully human and fully God. I believe this is an emphasis on an objective/subjective balance. Beautiful message.

Wonderful book on atonement theology, one quite critical of PSA.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Познавам проф. Грийн като един от най-силните, ясни и смислени съвременни гласове критикуващи доминиращият консервативнот евангелско богословие модел на наказателно заместническо изкупление. Настоящата книга не е изключение. Все пак макар да не споделям докрай неговата позиция в нея има много, което си струва да чуем и което намирам за напълно вярно.
Една от изходните точки на тяхното разглеждане на изкуплението е, че то е многостранно и многообразно – и, което е по-важно, самият Нов Завет го представя именно по този начин. За да покажат това, след като задават някои въвеждащи въпроси в гл. 1, в следващите 2 глави те преминават през различните библейски автори (синоптичните евангелия, Павел, Йоан, Петър, Евреи) позволявайки на всеки от тях да каже своята дума за изкуплението и показвайки ясно множеството и разнообразието на образни, които те използват и многостранната реалност на изкуплението. То не може да бъде нито сведено нито изчерпено от една единствена категория или образ – нито дори от всички заедно. Дълбочината на мистерията на кръста надминава способността на езика да я изрази. Трябва да вземем много сериозно предупреждението за този богословсски редукционизъм защото в него има много истина. Грийн и Бейкър са напълно прави в твърдението си, че църквата в своите изповеди на вяра никога не е определяла като единствено легитимна някоя конкретна теория за изкуплението. Това е многозначително на фона на днешните дебати относно това коя е вярнаТА теория.
В гл. 4 авторите казват, че цялата образност, която новозаветните автори изпозлват, за да изразят значението на изкуплението е съставена от метафори. Метафорите имат свойството да разкриват, но взети буквално съдържат потенциала и да объркат. Това трябва да се има в предвид когато четем библията.
В гл. 5 глава те разглеждат и оценяват основните теории за изкупленуето - рекспитулацията (Ириней), откупа (Ориген и Григорий от Ниса), Christus Victor, задоволяването (Анселм), моралното влияние (Абелард) и наказателното заместническо изкупление (Ходж). Грий и Бейкър правилно подчертават, че някои от тези теории не са еднородни и изпозлват елементи от други (напр. рекапитулацията и откупа понякога се смесват както и наказателното заместническо изкупление и Christus Victor при Лутер и Калвин). Освен това те използват определена образност и идеи характерни не само за библията, но и за времето, в което са предлагани (напр. Анселм ползва разбирането и за функци��нирането на феотдалната система, а Ириней ползва някои платонистки идеи). Всички те имат свои силни и слаби страни, но изведени докрай логически започват да се отдалечават от библейкото учение.
Критикувайки по-оконкретно теорията за наказателното заместническо изкупление авторите повдигат някои сериозни въпроси и правят важни уточнения. (1) Не следва да се разделя Отец от Сина и двете страни да се противопоставят. (2) Резултата от пропуска да се оцени взаимодействието на Троицата в делото на изкуплението лесно води до т. нар. divine child abuse. (3) Не можем да представяме Отец като гневен и изисващ компенсация/наказание на всяка цена и едва след като я получи способен да обича. Божията любов е водещият импусл за изкуплението от страна на Бога. (4) Не можем да свеждаме изкуплението като дело на Христос отделено от Бога – Бог примирява света със Себе Си и купува църквата със Собствената Си кръв. (5) Можем ли да налагаме външна принуда (в случая изискване за справедливост от точно такъв тип) на Божията свобида да прощава? (6) В стриктно наказателния заместнически модел възкресението на практика не играе важна роля (и трябва да признаем, че дори в забележително балансираното разглеждане на Стот в Кръстът на Христос” това е така). (7) Логически погледнато при наказателното заместническо изкупление човек може да бъде спасен на практика без да преживее някаква реална промяна в живота си. Всичко това трябва да се приеме и е вярно.
Все пак аз не мога да се освободя от впечатлението, че Грийн (и авторите, които цитира) в немалка степен опонират не на същинското виждане за наказателното заместническо изкупление колкото на някои карикатури и погрешни интерпретации. За мен е трудно да приема, че за достойнствата на едно виждане може да се съди най-добре не от неговите зрели представения, а от често непълната и донякъде изопачена представа добита от “човека от улицата”, на когото повече или по-малко липсва богословска задълбоченост. Освен това, както правилно казва Н.Т. Райт, има различни теории за наказателното заместническо изкупление и някои от тях определено са по-библейски от други. Затова ми се струва, че поне в някои случаи е добре възраженията да се посрещнат и да им се отговори като се премахнат карикатурите и погрешното разбиране отколкото автоматично да се признават за верни просто защото са повдигнати.
На едно следващо ниво Грий и Бейкър развиват своята идея за контекстуализация на начина, по който представяме изкуплението. За тях това означава две неща. Първо, начинът, по който говорим не трябва да се заключва просто в повтаряне на новозаветните метафори, които не са удачни за времето и обстановката, в която живеят съвременните хора. Понякога се налага да намерим нови контекстуализирани метафори и начини на представяне, които да са по-смислени за слушателите. Този процес на търсене и намиране на удачно представяне те наричат “превод”. Второ, тази контекстуализация не трябва да бъде за сметка на библейското съдържание т.е. новото представяне на благовестието трябва не просто да е разбираемо и смислено за слушателите, но и верно на библията. Лично аз намирам тези две страни за изключително добре допълващи се и необходими. Грийн и Бейкър са достатъчно реалистични в своето предложение. Това, което те предлагат не е едно цялостно пресъздаване на благовестието т.е. пълен “превод”. По-скоро: “Most of the time, though, communication is a two-way street, involving translation and reeducation” (стр. 171).
В следващите глави Грийн продължава като предлага примери за развитие на културно ориентирани модели на изкуплението, които са едновременно иновативни и библейки вкоренени. В гл. 6 той разлежда и оценява работата на Норман Краус в азиатската култура на срама, в гл. 7 обобщава мислите на феминисткия богослов Дарби Катлийн Рей, архиеписко Роуан Уилямс в съвременна Англия, епископ Кизаре сред племената в Африка и на холандският богослов Лене ван Дик свързана с троиния модел на Христос като пророк, свещеник и цар отнесен към изкуплението. Книгата завършва с призив към читателите и църквата да приложат това на практика на своето собствено място.
Макар далеч да не съм съгласен с всичко, което казва намирам книгата за твърде значима и имаща какво да ни каже.

[Ben Sahyouni · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a helpful book. The authors do a great job outlining the fact that no single theory of the atonement can capture the entire biblical perspective. Their argument is essentially that while the Bible, the historical church, and theological creeds have always agreed that Christ's death and resurrection is central to our salvation and the salvation of the world, none of them are explicit as far as how that salvation is achieved.

The authors dedicate a good deal of this book to critiquing the traditional penal substitutionary model of the atonement, which is put forth as the singular model of atonement theology in popular Christian thought. It's important to the authors that the readers understand how rooted that theology is in modern Western society, with its emphasis on individualism and justice, when it's actually a bit of a mishmash of biblical images and ideas.


While this is a helpful and necessary paradigm shift, I found this book tedious. The main ideas are reiterated over and over again, and I didn't walk away having gained many new ways of thinking about the atonement, just an understanding that we can't put forth any individual theory as the prevailing biblical theory. I don't know that I would have lost much if I'd only read the first few chapters of this book, rather than the whole thing.

[Terry Wildman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good presentation of the historic and contemporary atonement theories. While pointing out the concerns raised by the penal substitutionary view of atonement, this book gives the reader possible reasons for its modern popularity. The authors also present several other views that make sense within certain cultural contexts, while showing that there really is no one theory that fits all. The Biblical models in the Gospels and in the Letters are thoroughly examined, revealing the differing ways the Biblical authors approached this subject. In the end they give us examples of a contextual approach that can be adapted as differing cultures view the world in multiple ways. In the end there is no 'one shoe fits all' way to present the atonement, and we should be aware of how certain models can actually hinder its understanding.

[Anthony Locke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Green does a good job challenging the primacy of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). I found some of his arguments convincing, though I think he beat up a straw-man version of PSA. I think he does a decent job arguing that PSA cannot be the only view of the atonement and that advocates can be guilty of conflating other images and ideas of the atonement into PSA. However, I don’t think he does a strong job arguing for a strong alternative. He presents a Mosaic view of the atonement, but his examples at the end on shame and an atonement view without a cross were less-than-convincing. I left challenged to refine my thinking and to integrate other views of the atonement into my preaching. I also left unconvinced that PSA is not integral to an understanding of the atonement.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of one of the better debates in church history. In today’s postmodernism perhaps it has become less of a conflict but the nature of the atonement should impact the entire faith of an individual. Their attack is against penal substitution- that it is not the only way. My only issue is the lack of treatment on Augustine and the Reformers, the largest treatment of Oneal substitution. Anselm does not get the discussion he deserves but I do agree with the thesis, that there are many theories and the right one incorporates many. Perhaps that is why there hasn’t been an orthodox statement or confession on it.

[Tim Donnelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent resource for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of atonement theology as a whole. Baker and Green dive into several of the leading atonement theories and, in my opinion, give Penal Substitution a thoughtful critique. They don’t flat out deny substitutionary atonement, but rightly call out the shortcomings of PSA as it has developed in the last few hundred years.

This book will challenge you to think critically about inherited theological frameworks while embracing the richness and diversity of biblical atonement imagery in both NT and modern day contexts.

[Joshua Blackmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful

The authors present a compelling argument for those doing faithful theology everywhere to develop models of the atonement that take into account the varies witness of the NT, historical models, and their present contexts. Every pastor and missionary should read this book with an open mind to what the Spirit of God might speak to them about how they are presenting the Gospel.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciated the overview of Abelard and Anselm. I think this a good introduction to atonement theory.

[Carson Harraman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read a decent amount for class

[Dr V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cruciform

[Robbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was something I've been interested in reading for sometime. In fact, I probably had it on my wish list on Amazon for close to three or four years. For some reason I just never got around to reading it.

I really don't have the time to provide an in depth/detailed review of the book; however, I will say that it challenges the primary evangelical notion of atonement. That is, it takes on the notion that the penal substitutionary atonement model (Jesus' death on the cross conquered sin by satisfying the wrath of God) is the primary way the Bible describes what occurred on the cross. Instead, the authors say that the Bible offers several different ways to understand Jesus' death and resurrection.

This book is on its second edition and as one might imagine it has caused quite a stir in some theological camps. Overall, I would highly recommend this book for someone that can handle theological prose. I would also recommend this to individuals interested in the mission of the church because this book really does a good job of discussing how one's context can impact how one sees and speaks of atonement.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Review)

This is a good, balanced overview of atonement theology. Early pages walk you through a few of the atonement theories, exploring the good and what’s lacking. Many pages are spent wrestling against Anselm’s penal substitution and it’s there that the main thesis of the book is revealed: atonement must look like Jesus, for God and how God works looks like Jesus. Anselm and many other theories through the ages have blended their cultures with biblical narrative to create a story of atonement. In Anselm’s example, Anselm blends God with the feudal system of his day. *Recovering the Scandal of the Cross* authors emphasize that atonement is diverse and complicated; it is about being at-one with God again. It is about God restoring.

The book’s resolution, rather than giving a single, defined message of atonement, was that atonement is a wide, diverse concept. Even biblically, atonement is not one single theory but a wide development of God in action in the past, present and future.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great treatment of the atonement. The authors persuasively demonstrate that the mystery of the atonement can't be summed up in its totality in one metaphor (read: penal substitution).

Biblically, sacrifice, reconciliation, restoration, etc. were other ways that the death of Christ was "for us". Tracing through Anselm and Abelard, and then showing current interpretations of the atonement, such as feminist views, African, and Japanese perspectives, Green and Baker carefully argue that Christ's death should be taken in all of its scandalous, inexhaustible, mysterious glory, rather than leaning too much on twisted takes on medieval interpretations.

I'd love for them to write a book on dispensationalism.........

[John]

Green and Baker take their shot at undermining penal substitutionary atonement. This book fails at many levels. Here are a few:
(1) It constantly paints PSA in caricatures that aren't helpful or assumes an unorthodox understanding of God - like divine child abuse, pins the Trinity against itself, etc. Because Green and Baker have an unorthodox doctrine of God and christology, then they have an unorthodox view of atonement.
(2) They constantly assume a New Perspective understanding of Paul and relies uncritically upon Second Temple literature.
(3) They fail to realize the substitutionary value of all the historical views of the atonement - the Cappedocian fathers to Anselm.
A very sad contribution to the cross and atonement.

[Joe Burnham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read my review here: https://joeburnham.com/review/recover...

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really was intrigued by this book and it's goal of developing a more expansive meaning to the Cross and why Jesus died. I enjoyed the different perspectives, and was especially intrigued by the chapter on contextualizing the cross for the Japanese audience.

I don't have much to compare the book to as it is one of my first forays into more "theological" reading, so I'll leave my content review at that.

Overall, it was quite readable and not to esoteric, but it was still intellectual in nature, so don't look for any stories or anecdotes, or reflection questions in this book or you will come away sorely disappointed.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read another Atonement book? Yep. So it's for a class. This one is quite good. It is another multiple metaphor book. There is a bias against penal substitution but I think it offers a good critique. Particularly insightful is the discussion of guilt vs. shame based cultures in trying to contextualize the atonement.

Joel Green also does a good job at analyzing the appropriate N.T. texts related to the cross.

[Deb Amend · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a GREAT read! It answered questions that have lingered in my mind for years, while at the same time giving me a great over view of what SCRIPTURE, rather than Calvin, has to say about atonement. While it was dry reading at times, as most academic reads are, it had a wealth of information.

[Noemi · Rating 5 out of 5]

AMAZING!!!! This book opened me up to new models of the atonement that were refreshing, liberating, and life-giving. I recommend this to ANYONE trying to understand what was accomplished on the cross where Jesus died. Note: this is not your typical Sunday school teaching. Grounded in Scripture and theology, Baker and Green explain the beautiful "scandal of the cross."

[Jerry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Alright.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book in that it expands our understanding of the saving significance of Jesus beyond just penal-substitution. However, I have reservations about some of their thesis. Worth reading though.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Need some time to process. I'll get a review out shortly.

[Raborn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction into the world of atonement theories. This book presents a "Kaleidoscopic View" of the atonement.

[Charlotte · Rating 3 out of 5]

For my Theology of Atonement class.