Throughout several “debates” some who advocate the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement have offered a verse as evidence of their position while the verse itself is far from proving their point. Basically, they through up a verse and then state their opinion (illustration: John 3:16 tells us that limma beans are nasty, therefore if you disagree you disagree with God…it does not state that but it nevertheless says it because that’s how theology works).
I am going to look at a few of these instances and claims starting with מוּסָר (the word often translated “chastening” or “chastisement” in Isaiah 53:5).
What we have seen on this forum is some offering the passage and making the claim that “the chastisement of (or for) our peace was upon him” a clear statement of Penal Substitution when it is in fact far from a statement (much less a clear one) of the Theory. (This was done by @Enoch111 in Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory” and by @Steve Owen in Calvinism)
The Hebrew word used in Scripture translated as “chastening” or “chastisement” is מוּסָר (
(mûsr). It is used 50 times in Scripture. Most of the time (30 times) it is used to mean “instruction”. It also means correction, bond, and discipline. In terms of Christ it can be related to the Greek word μανθάνω (instruction) as found in Hebrews 5:8 (“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”).
The word “chasten” means (1) to correct by punishment or suffering, (2) to prune of excess or pretense, or(3) to cause to be humble or restrained. (Merriam-Webster).
Mounce (Complete Expository Dictionary) notes that the word can mean "correction" or "discipline". There are several Hebrew words that point to punishment, but the one we are dealing with here does not.
So we have a few things to consider. The English word could mean punishment, but this is one of several choices. The related Greek word does not mean punishment but could mean discipline or instruction.
The point is not that using the word to mean “punishment” is impossible linguistically (although scholars of the language have stated it is not a related meaning). The point is that those who hold Penal Substitution Theory need to explain why they choose this meaning, especially since it is not necessarily considered one of the meanings of Hebrew word and does not fit with the Greek word expressing the purpose of “the things which [Christ] suffered”.
The problem is those who hold Penal Substitution Theory offer a verse as “proof” when it is in fact far from evidence the theory is correct and then they try to silence anyone from pointing this out by insulting them and obscuring the issues.
What needs to take place is those who would interpret the word as "punishment" need to explain the reasoning behind their interpretation.
I am going to look at a few of these instances and claims starting with מוּסָר (the word often translated “chastening” or “chastisement” in Isaiah 53:5).
What we have seen on this forum is some offering the passage and making the claim that “the chastisement of (or for) our peace was upon him” a clear statement of Penal Substitution when it is in fact far from a statement (much less a clear one) of the Theory. (This was done by @Enoch111 in Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory” and by @Steve Owen in Calvinism)
The Hebrew word used in Scripture translated as “chastening” or “chastisement” is מוּסָר (
(mûsr). It is used 50 times in Scripture. Most of the time (30 times) it is used to mean “instruction”. It also means correction, bond, and discipline. In terms of Christ it can be related to the Greek word μανθάνω (instruction) as found in Hebrews 5:8 (“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”).
The word “chasten” means (1) to correct by punishment or suffering, (2) to prune of excess or pretense, or(3) to cause to be humble or restrained. (Merriam-Webster).
Mounce (Complete Expository Dictionary) notes that the word can mean "correction" or "discipline". There are several Hebrew words that point to punishment, but the one we are dealing with here does not.
So we have a few things to consider. The English word could mean punishment, but this is one of several choices. The related Greek word does not mean punishment but could mean discipline or instruction.
The point is not that using the word to mean “punishment” is impossible linguistically (although scholars of the language have stated it is not a related meaning). The point is that those who hold Penal Substitution Theory need to explain why they choose this meaning, especially since it is not necessarily considered one of the meanings of Hebrew word and does not fit with the Greek word expressing the purpose of “the things which [Christ] suffered”.
The problem is those who hold Penal Substitution Theory offer a verse as “proof” when it is in fact far from evidence the theory is correct and then they try to silence anyone from pointing this out by insulting them and obscuring the issues.
What needs to take place is those who would interpret the word as "punishment" need to explain the reasoning behind their interpretation.
Last edited: