Thanks for that reference. I’m not sure Hodge would have articulated the atonement in quite those terms though I do see the argument being made by Green, and despite Green’s discussion of the discord concept, I never quite had the impression it was one of much currency (though I do recall the Chalke claims which caused somewhat of a stir a while ago). Thanks for the post as I agree that the view of penal substitution has taken some hits to shake it from the pedestal but the concept nevertheless must remain a vital component for understanding God’s activity.

Thanks for weighing in here. Green and Baker themselves don’t wish to posit discord in the Trinity but do allege that at least Charles Hodge’s treatment of penal substitution has this effect. For the comment, see p. 147 of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross and compare Green’s response to Thomas Schreiner in The Atonement Debate, p. 114.

Blessings,
Steve

p.s. Please do feel free to address me with my first name.

Isn’t “fully Man and fully God” clearly a logical self-contradiction? And if so, then it is not avaible as a valid resolution of these problems.

Respectfully, your arguments are difficult to follow as you seem to be alleging a form of adoptionism ( if Jesus comes to seem more like a man), a form of docetism (Jesus’ appearance of dying on the cross, was a mere illusion) with a mix of some variation on arianism tossed in (just another implacable avatar of God). With all of those in the mix, I cannot see how you can have a sense of the Trinity in the first place. If the tensions are not maintained, Jesus was both/and fully human fully God as opposed to either human or God, the Cross and any theories of the purpose of the cross, such as penal substitution, become meaningless.

Duby

I did not read Green and Baker as suggesting a discord within the Trinity. Rather I read them as making a push back to the critiques of the penal substitutionary theory and at best argue for a discord in the sense of the fuller Moltmann treatment. I had understood the critiques of the penal substitution theory to be along the lines of the theory emphasizing freedom and ultimate destination rather than emphasizing a fuller Gospel treatment – Richard speaks it well – the Cross was more about reconciliation and restoration though without question the element of atonement is critical, but only as a factor in allowing a fuller understanding of the Gospel- not simply freed from sin but restored to the possibility and growth into right relationship.

Many theologians have tried to get around this kind of apparent contradiction in the Bible. By suggesting that Jesus has “two natures”: one partially divine, and the other human. But I would further suggest that there have always been problems in turn, with the two-natures thesis. The fact is that making Jesus even “fully God and fully man,” does not quite work. The two natures thesis really does mean, making Jesus partially man, partially mortal; and separating Jesus a bit from an immortal God. Suggesting problems in the very concept of the Trinity, or the authority of God or Jesus.

In any case though, if the unity of the Trinity begins to break down a bit under closer analysis, if Jesus comes to seem more like a man, rather than just another implacable avatar of God, there might be some advantages to this.

On the positive side, with regard to Duby’s concerns, the whole idea of Punitive Atonement becomes more plausible.

While then too, with regard to the larger concerns of this blog, Jesus begins to seem more human; a figure we can relate to.

While also, finally, some biblical contradictions are resolved.

Then too, recall other’s similar objections, in classic scholarship, that Jesus’ sacrifice is therefore not so great, considering the short term of his torture, his single death and so forth. So that, the sacrifice not being so great, any real “atonement” is not likely here.

Then too 2) if you try to solve these and related problems, by the classic method of claiming both a divine vs. a human nature to Jesus, then … aren’t you also attacking Calvin’s or anyone else’s insistence, that Jesus and God are entirely at one? Since Jesus now has a divided nature; one that must necessarily divide him in at least SOME way, from God. Though this would take much discussion to prove.

To be sure 3) though, if Jesus is now somewhat more at odds with God, that would make the God-vs-Jesus scenario of Penal Substitutionary Atonement more plausible. While at the same time, the doctrine of the Trinity begins to break down too; a plus for the nontrinitarians who are a current interest of my own.

And that would strenghten the case for a more human Jesus. One not quite so entirely certain and Godlike as many have thought.

Maybe I would reformulate my statement, or present it in reverse order, of the above. And say that if Jesus is too firmly identified with God, to the point of being immortal like God, then that would render his death and sacrifice, meaningless and void. Since as God, as an immortal, Jesus never actually sacrificed his life at all. And therefore could not have died for the sins of humanity.

Jesus’ sacrifice makes sense, is a real sacrifice,real atonement, only if we think of him more as a human being, and less as an immortal God.