Penal Substitution Theory and the presupposed (eisegesis) definition of מוּסָר in Isaiah 53:5

[John Caldwell]

Youre actually making the argument for ps. Youre right, Christ is the propitiation for your sins.

That you think so is my point.

Christ is the propitiation for our sins. This means (literally) that He is an atoning sacrifice through which wrath is averted.

What it does not mean (granted, it does not itself reject) is that propitiation is accomplished through punishment.

My question of you is not about what is present in Scripture but those ideas that Penal Substitution Theory brings to Scripture to get from the biblical text to the Theory.

If you are going to prove your point or prove me wrong that is where you have to focus.

 

[John Caldwell]

The word is listed as punishment as a viable definition in MANY lexicons.

List them and explain why out of all possibilities and more common meanings "punishment" is the better choice. Also, are you aware of any Bible translations that translate the word as "punishment"? If so, what are they?

 

[John Caldwell]

Words mean things in different contexts don't they? Look up the greek word eis as an example. It has many uses depending on the context. In the context of Isa 53 which is a wonderful messianic prophecy it speaks of being healed by His stripes. The Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all..The whole chapter is this way. Its inescapable.

Context does matter. But so do words (they have meanings which are perhaps not as subjective as some may like).

Regardless, when people decide a word has a new, obscure, or minority meaning they need to provide reasoning for rejecting the more "normal" meaning AND for using the meaning they prefer.

That is all I am doing here. I am asking why the word choice as the context does not dictate "punishment" be used rather than "chasening" or any other words traditionally (from Christianity as a whole) used.

I am just asking why use "punishment". I think that is a fair question.

@Steve Owen tells us the reason he does so is that he does so throughout the passage. That is a bit circular but at least he is honest about why he does so in this verse. To me the process can only be called "consistent eisegesis" as I have to start another thread to ask why he presupposes divine punishment on the surrounding verses.

I offered my reasoning (I believe Isaiah 53:5 to he a part of Christ "learning obedience from the things he suffered") . @Steve Owen presented this as nonsense, that to him it is not instruction but punishment.

That is fine because at least he (and you) know how I get from Scripture to my conclusion. You all are free to accept or reject any of my understanding (I do not fault anyone for that). The problem is those who cling to Penal Substitution Theory fo not do the same. @David Taylor insists his is a possible interpretation based on many lexicons. But that, in itself, is just continued subjectivity (he has to show why that possible choice is the best choice).

That is all I am asking here. I am not arguing the Theory but trying to get to the reason for the interpretation. I think the Theory is a false doctrine and the danger is not the humanistic ideas conveyed but the truth the Theory obscures. You believe the Theory true. We both affirm the same Scriptures. Any discussion has to be how we get to our conclusions.

Do you see what I am getting at? I think we all need to be able to defend our understanding - not just provide a verse and pretend out interpretation is the only possible view. We have to be able to say why and how we get from the data (Scripture) to the conclusion.

 

[Steve Owen]

I do not agree that people have no right to disagree with Penal Substitution Theory

Just for the record, I have nowhere said that you or anyone else have no right to disagree with the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.
You might like to apologize for that aspersion, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Episkopos]

The whole premise of Penal Substitution is false. If the wrath of God was satisfied on the cross of Christ....for ALL men...as the bible says.....then why is there still a great day of wrath coming?

Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.

Rom. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Jesus was killed by wicked men...not God.

...Acts 2:23 being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

 

[Enoch111]

The whole premise of Penal Substitution is false. If the wrath of God was satisfied on the cross of Christ....for ALL men...as the bible says.....then why is there still a great day of wrath coming?

This is called specious reasoning. Only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are saved from wrath. All unbelievers are subject to wrath. But that in no way cancels what Christ accomplished when He made His soul an offering for sin.

 

[Episkopos]

This is called specious reasoning. Only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are saved from wrath. All unbelievers are subject to wrath. But that in no way cancels what Christ accomplished when He made His soul an offering for sin.

And you are engaging in spurious reasoning. For this scheme to be true would mean that Jesus died only for believers. But the opposite is true. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. As in...for God so loved the world...not just the church. ALL men were seen as unbelievers at Jesus' death.

So if Jesus only died for the church then why pour out His wrath on Jesus for believers...only to have to later pour His wrath on unbelievers?

The bible does not support a God who has preferences or respect for men. THAT is an invention of self-gratifying humanity.

Notice what the bible actually records....

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Jesus died for ALL men. It is the resurrection of Christ that is specifically for believers. So that we may walk as Jesus walked.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

So either the wrath for the whole world was poured out on Jesus....which is ridiculous and heretical...OR...Jesus died for the sins of the whole world...and whoever rejects Christ is under wrath...and refused life in the resurrection to come.

The righteous are justified by the death of Jesus. The holy are justified by His resurrection and the grace derived from that...to walk in.

So the resurrection life is reserved for they who believe. But the wrath of God is to come. Jesus was crucified by evil men. And He continues to be crucified by many who profess to love Him.

Jesus was put to death by men because they hate truth...just look at they who speak evil of Him today...both believers and unbelievers. Each has their own agenda.

 

[Episkopos]

Let's try some reasoning and common sense....since spiritual understanding is lacking.

Scenario 1: Jesus died ONLY for believers. If that was so it would be written that way...and the reasoning would be that whoever believes in Jesus...well then Jesus retroactively died for THAT person. So Jesus becomes a sacrifice only for they who believe Him...which all sounds very evangelical...but of course is not biblical. Jesus did not come to start a religion.

Scenario 2: Jesus died for ALL men. The bible IS written with this in mind. This way no one can say they own Jesus or salvation. (Pharisees and doctors and philosophers of religion are not required or even desired in this scenario.)

 

[John Caldwell]

Just for the record, I have nowhere said that you or anyone else have no right to disagree with the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.
You might like to apologize for that aspersion, but I'm not holding my breath.

I strongly advise you not to hold your breath, Steve.

I learned the dangers of such things when I held mine anticipating your defense of Penal Substitution Theory only to get a list of verses we both affirm accompanied by your conclusions. What I was asking for was how you arrived at your conclusions (not where you started or where you ended, but how you got from point A to point B). Had I continued to hold my breath I'd be dead.

 

[reformed1689]

List them and explain why out of all possibilities and more common meanings "punishment" is the better choice. Also, are you aware of any Bible translations that translate the word as "punishment"? If so, what are they?

Do you know the meaning of the English word chastisement?

 

[Nondenom40]

The whole premise of Penal Substitution is false. If the wrath of God was satisfied on the cross of Christ....for ALL men...as the bible says.....then why is there still a great day of wrath coming?

Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.

Rom. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Jesus was killed by wicked men...not God.

...Acts 2:23 being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Only those that believe have peace with God. All others are under His wrath.

 

[reformed1689]

Let's try some reasoning and common sense....since spiritual understanding is lacking.

Wow, and they say our side speaks with arrogance....

 

[Episkopos]

Only those that believe have peace with God. All others are under His wrath.

Only they who reject Him willfully are under wrath. There are other possibilities for mercy and kindness other than to cast everyone that doesn't believe yet into the fire. Perhaps you have read about the mercy of God?

 

[reformed1689]

If that was so it would be written that way...

It is written that way. "I lay my life down for the SHEEP."

.and the reasoning would be that whoever believes in Jesus...well then Jesus retroactively died for THAT person.

No, that would not be the reasoning.

So Jesus becomes a sacrifice only for they who believe Him...which all sounds very evangelical...but of course is not biblical. Jesus did not come to start a religion.

Nobody is arguing that.

The bible IS written with this in mind.

I've already shown it is not.

. This way no one can say they own Jesus or salvation. (Pharisees and doctors and philosophers of religion are not required or even desired in this scenario.)

They aren't in the first scenario either...

The problem with your second scenario is this:

First, it's not found in the Bible. Second, it means that all would be saved if all were atoned for. Third, if the second piece is not true, and we know that it isn't, then that means Christ's sacrifice was not enough.

The funny thing is this, you claim that your second scenario is biblical because it doesn't need man, except that it does need man. It essentially turns salvation into a choice of man, not of God.

 

[John Caldwell]

Do you know the meaning of the English word chastisement?

Yes. I provided the merriam Webster definition already. As I noted, the English word can mean many things to include "punishment" (I even granted the Hebrew word can mean punishment as there are two instances where this is possible and one where it is probable).

I know you don't believe Scripture was authored in English, but even if you believe in secondary inspiration (that God inspired the use of "chastening") you still need to defend the choice of "punishment".

Why do you believe the verse should be interpreted as God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us (how do you get from Scripture to your theory)?

Beyond offering verses that state one thing and claiming they teach another are you able to honestly defend Penal Substitution Theory or do you simply rest in your presuppositions?

 

[reformed1689]

Yes. I provided the merriam Webster definition already. As I noted, the English word can mean many things to include "punishment" (I even granted the Hebrew word can mean punishment as there are two instances where this is possible and one where it is probable).

I know you don't believe Scripture was authored in English, but even if you believe in secondary inspiration (that God inspired the use of "chastening") you still need to defend the choice of "punishment".

Why do you believe the verse should be interpreted as God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us (how do you get from Scripture to your theory)?

Actually since most scholars agree and lexicons agree that the Hebrew word means punishment in this passage I believe the burden of proof is on you to show why it should NOT be understood that way.

 

[Nondenom40]

And you are engaging in spurious reasoning. For this scheme to be true would mean that Jesus died only for believers. But the opposite is true. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. As in...for God so loved the world...not just the church. ALL men were seen as unbelievers at Jesus' death.

So if Jesus only died for the church then why pour out His wrath on Jesus for believers...only to have to later pour His wrath on unbelievers?

The bible does not support a God who has preferences or respect for men. THAT is an invention of self-gratifying humanity.

Notice what the bible actually records....

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Jesus died for ALL men. It is the resurrection of Christ that is specifically for believers. So that we may walk as Jesus walked.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

So either the wrath for the whole world was poured out on Jesus....which is ridiculous and heretical...OR...Jesus died for the sins of the whole world...and whoever rejects Christ is under wrath...and refused life in the resurrection to come.

The righteous are justified by the death of Jesus. The holy are justified by His resurrection and the grace derived from that...to walk in.

So the resurrection life is reserved for they who believe. But the wrath of God is to come. Jesus was crucified by evil men. And He continues to be crucified by many who profess to love Him.

Jesus was put to death by men because they hate truth...just look at they who speak evil of Him today...both believers and unbelievers. Each has their own agenda.

You forgot a verse;

John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,NASB

Jesus' death isn't applied to anyone apart from faith. His blood must be appropriated and applied just like way back when at the first passover. If the blood of the lamb isn't applied to the door posts they were not protected were they? That is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus' death. His blood is available to the world, no one is forbidden to come to Him, but they must believe. Until then Gods wrath in on them.

 

[Episkopos]

It is written that way. "I lay my life down for the SHEEP."

Not by shielding them from God's wrath...but by rescuing them from the jaws of the wolf.

Nobody is arguing that.

Then you aren't understanding the argument. either Jesus died for the whole world OR just for believers. You can't have it both ways. The fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world means that God would have had to pour out His wrath on His Son FOR THE WHOLE WORLD...meaning no future wrath. So you have to get your own ideas straight.

I've already shown it is not.

You have shown your lack of understanding and reasoning. You are adding your own ideas...which you have been indoctrinated into thinking that they are your own...into the text. The bible is far different than what you are making it to be. You will find that you are way off track...IF you were to limit your opinions in favour of the biblical text.

it means that all would be saved if all were atoned for.

All men were atoned for on the cross. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

So you also lack understanding of salvation...and many other things. So no wonder you don't get the bible.

Jesus was also resurrected to justify the saints...by they entering into His resurrection life...away from sin.

 

[reformed1689]

All men were atoned for on the cross. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

So you also lack understanding of salvation...and many other things. So no wonder you don't get the bible.

Jesus was also resurrected to justify the saints...by they entering into His resurrection life...away from sin.

If all men, meaning every individual man, were atoned for, then all are saved.

 

[Episkopos]

You forgot a verse;

John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,NASB

Jesus' death isn't applied to anyone apart from faith. His blood must be appropriated and applied just like way back when at the first passover. If the blood of the lamb isn't applied to the door posts they were not protected were they? That is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus' death. His blood is available to the world, no one is forbidden to come to Him, but they must believe. Until then Gods wrath in on them.

This is false. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Are you going to change the bible..or just deny what it says?

God judges. It isn't for you to apply the blood of Jesus to yourself or they whom you approve of. How dare you be so arrogant?

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually since most scholars agree and lexicons agree that the Hebrew word means punishment in this passage I believe the burden of proof is on you to show why it should NOT be understood that way.

This is a cop out (and most likely a veiled admission you cannot defend your theory).

Most Christians have not held Penal Substitution Theory (either today or historically). Most evangelical Protestants do, but you are not on an evangelical Protestant forum so you are in a minority not only with Christianity in general, with historic Christianity, but here as well. So no, you do not escape the burden of proof. I'd say "nice try" but I find the attempt cowardice (it was not a "nice try" but a "turn tail and run").

I stated what I believe and why. We all have the burden of proof to defend our understanding and explain how we get from Scripture to our belief. You have not done this (probably because you are unable to do so).

Your "appeal to the masses" is a logical fallacy, BTW. You should know better.