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

[CharismaticLady]

John you are wasting my time. I've explained this, others have explained this, you reject it. That's fine, it's your right. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I have explained this in other threads already.

Besides, you are talking about justice in your own understanding, not God's.

Other threads. You must think we follow you. If you've already said something, you can easily cut and paste. What makes your time more valuable than his?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Read the title of the thread.

Verse 5 does not tell us the answer like verse 6 does. Did you know that? Personally, I don't understand what @John Caldwell is trying to focus on. I haven't figured it out yet. I just believe that Jesus was sinless, and they are OUR iniquities, not His. They were taken away from us and placed on Him, so He could take away our sin. 1 John 3:5. His death and blood accomplished the total cleansing for our past sins as a once and for all sacrifice. John, do we agree or disagree?

David, Right or wrong, that is called adult teaching...and with additional corroborating Scripture to back up what I believe. You have yet to prove you are a teacher.

 

[Mark Deckard]

I would like to jump in here albeit very late in the discussion. I’d like to point out some things that I feel are compelling to this consideration.
First of all there is a long held misnomer that God “abandoned” Jesus and turned his back on him at the cross. This is a favorite meme among many preachers during Easter and Passion oriented messages. However this is based entirely upon the misunderstanding of the declaration, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.”
This was never specifically narrated by the gospels as God having forsaken Jesus, nor did any Apostle ever state Jesus was forsaken by God. In fact that declaration was the first and identifying title line among Jews of Psalms 22 which Jesus was pointing to due to the fact that it contained so many prophetic descriptions of what was happening in that very hour. “I am being torn apart by lions”, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” “I am being poured out like water.” are blatant signals that he was fulfilling the scripture.
The one that is contained within Ps 22 that demolishes the misnomer of God actually forsaking Jesus is in Psalms 22:24 “For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”
Furthermore this medieval notion that God was pouring out his wrath on Jesus on the cross cannot be found in scripture. It is a notion synthesized hundreds of years after the Apostles. They never said such things. What we see at the cross is not God pouring out his wrath on Jesus, but corrupt and sinful men pouring out THIER wrath on Jesus. We see God pouring out his LOVE through Jesus upon the rage filled humanity, refusing to retaliate against those who were hating him. In fact we do not see Jesus divided from God on the cross, for God is indivisible. If that were not true Jesus could not have prayed to the Father on the cross, “Father forgive them they know not what they do.” Are we to believe Jesus was being ignored at that moment because he was utterly despised and rejected? No in fact if you read carefully in Isiah it identifies the suffering servant by saying “WE esteemed him despised and rejected of God.” It was and has been mans perception and interpretation for many years.
I would also point out that neither the Jews who conspired and shouted crucify him, nor the romans who swung the hammer to nail were under the control or influence of the Holy Spirit. They were controlled by Satan and it was Satans wrath that was clearly brutalizing the Savior. Jesus was dying the death he did not deserve out of love for mankind, and of this love sacrifice the father was pleased that hewas smitten and afflicted. Not because God needed a virgin thrown i to a volcano, but because a champion must harrow hell itself in order to enter into death and the grave for the purpose of defeating it with his indestructible life. Why is it we are baptized? It is identification with his death burial and resurrection. This is where salvation occurred. Jesus forgave people on earth before the crucifixion, if PSA is necessary Jesus should have never been able to say “That you may know the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins..” The death by the cross was the demonstration of the height and depth and length and width of Gods love AND it was the vehicle whereby God tasted death for all men. It was not a satisfaction of Gods wrath. It was a satisfaction of Gods love.

 

[CharismaticLady]

They were controlled by Satan and it was Satans wrath that was clearly brutalizing the Savior.

1 Corinthians 2:8
which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[Mark Deckard]

1 Corinthians 2:8
which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Not sure if that was meant to be a point of agreement but it actually is. Check out the Fishhook theory of atonement. One of the earliest in existence dating back to first century. Long before PSA.

 

[Enoch111]

First of all there is a long held misnomer that God “abandoned” Jesus and turned his back on him at the cross. This is a favorite meme among many preachers during Easter and Passion oriented messages. However this is based entirely upon the misunderstanding of the declaration, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.”
This was never specifically narrated by the gospels as God having forsaken Jesus, nor did any Apostle ever state Jesus was forsaken by God.

If Jesus Himself (who is the God-Man) declared that He was forsaken by God the Father, what need for any further confirmation from anyone else?

After all He is the only one that experienced it and cried out is His agony "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" That was obviously a rhetorical question since He knew exactly why -- that He was made S-I-N for us when He was nailed to that cross. "Being made a curse for us" is the equivalent of being made SIN for us.

And Paul did allude to this indirectly: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

We know from other Scriptures that a part of the curse of the Law was the Second Death. And that is what He experienced in His soul for three dark hours. No man can comprehend that Christ suffered the agonies of Hell so that we might not face them.

 

[John Caldwell]

Because of context and the rest of Scripture. And, despite your denial, the word here is punishment Mounce not withstanding.

That is an asinine defence.

"Because of the context and the rest of Scripture" is why I reject your theory.

It serms obvious that you cannot explain how you get from Scripture to your theory in this verse. I have told you why I believe the word should be translated "chastened" and provided you references explaining both why and how I come to that conclusion.

Essentially you just say it means "punishment" because you want it to mean "punishment". We cannot discuss how we get to our interpretations if you do not know how you reach yours.

 

[John Caldwell]

Verse 5 does not tell us the answer like verse 6 does. Did you know that? Personally, I don't understand what @John Caldwell is trying to focus on. I haven't figured it out yet. I just believe that Jesus was sinless, and they are OUR iniquities, not His. They were taken away from us and placed on Him, so He could take away our sin. 1 John 3:5. His death and blood accomplished the total cleansing for our past sins as a once and for all sacrifice. John, do we agree or disagree?

David, Right or wrong, that is called adult teaching...and with additional corroborating Scripture to back up what I believe. You have yet to prove you are a teacher.

Basically I do not believe our individual sins were placed on Christ. I believe the work of redemption is from the Incarnation to the Resurrection and what was laid on Christ (our sins) is the sin of mankind as a whole. To borrow from Justin Martyr, the whole "human family".

 

[John Caldwell]

If Jesus Himself (who is the God-Man) declared that He was forsaken by God the Father, what need for any further confirmation from anyone else?

After all He is the only one that experienced it and cried out is His agony "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" That was obviously a rhetorical question since He knew exactly why -- that He was made S-I-N for us when He was nailed to that cross. "Being made a curse for us" is the equivalent of being made SIN for us.

And Paul did allude to this indirectly: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

We know from other Scriptures that a part of the curse of the Law was the Second Death. And that is what He experienced in His soul for three dark hours. No man can comprehend that Christ suffered the agonies of Hell so that we might not face them.

You are suggesting Christ experienced the "second death" (Revelation 21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death .”)?

You believe what we see on the Cross is God abandoning Jesus and condemning him to 3 hours of this "second death"?

How can these ideas be properly understood as a Christian doctrine when we have Scripture directly denying God will condemn the righteous, be wrathful to the righteous, abandon the righteous, and punish the righteous?

 

[reformed1689]

It serms obvious that you cannot explain how you get from Scripture to your theory in this verse. I have told you why I believe the word should be translated "chastened" and provided you references explaining both why and how I come to that conclusion.

Chasten means PUNISH.

 

[reformed1689]

How can these ideas be properly understood as a Christian doctrine when we have Scripture directly denying God will condemn the righteous, be wrathful to the righteous, abandon the righteous, and punish the righteous?

Why do you think this is God condemning the righteous? It is a replacement, a stand it. If I served out the penalty for someone else does that mean I was the one convicted and condemned? No. It simply means I am the one paying the penalty.

 

[reformed1689]

Verse 5 does not tell us the answer like verse 6 does. Did you know that? Personally, I don't understand what @John Caldwell is trying to focus on. I haven't figured it out yet. I just believe that Jesus was sinless, and they are OUR iniquities, not His. They were taken away from us and placed on Him, so He could take away our sin. 1 John 3:5. His death and blood accomplished the total cleansing for our past sins as a once and for all sacrifice. John, do we agree or disagree?

David, Right or wrong, that is called adult teaching...and with additional corroborating Scripture to back up what I believe. You have yet to prove you are a teacher.

Right, because I never give Scripture to back up my claims. More false witness. Besides, what happened to you putting me on ignore?

And yes, verse 5 does give us an answer as does verse 6. You and I agree about our iniquities being placed on Him. The Bible directly states this. However, @John Caldwell seems to think not.

 

[Episkopos]

Chasten means PUNISH.

Heb 12: 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?


Hebrews 12:6
6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”

 

[John Caldwell]

Chasten means PUNISH.

Chasen can mean punish.


It can mean to correct by punishment or suffering, to discipline, to humble, to purify, to prune of excess, to "cause to be more humble", and to refine.

The Hebrew word refers to punishment 2 out of the 50 times it is used (excluding this verse).

Why do you believe it should mean "punished by God" in this case (how do you get from Scripture to your conclusion)?

 

[reformed1689]

Chasen can mean punish.


It can mean to correct by punishment or suffering, to discipline, to humble, to purify, to prune of excess, to "cause to be more humble", and to refine.

The Hebrew word refers to punishment 2 out of the 50 times it is used (excluding this verse).

Why do you believe it should mean "punished by God" in this case (how do you get from Scripture to your conclusion)?

And the merry-go-round continues. The context is not teaching, humbling, disciplining. Is a piercing teaching? Is bruising refining? NO, they are punishing.

 

[reformed1689]

Heb 12: 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?


Hebrews 12:6
6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”

In Is. 53 it means punish within the context.

 

[John Caldwell]

And the merry-go-round continues. The context is not teaching, humbling, disciplining. Is a piercing teaching? Is bruising refining? NO, they are punishing.

I explained the reason for my conclusion. I believe "chasen" refers to "learning obedience" and "being made perfect" from the things Christ suffered.

Are you able to say why you interpret the verse to mean divine punishment and that in our stead?

 

[reformed1689]

I explained the reason for my conclusion. I believe "chasen" refers to "learning obedience" and "being made perfect" from the things Christ suffered.

Are you able to say why you interpret the verse to mean divine punishment and that in our stead?

I JUST DID IN THE POST YOU QUOTED

 

[Episkopos]

Chasen can mean punish.


It can mean to correct by punishment or suffering, to discipline, to humble, to purify, to prune of excess, to "cause to be more humble", and to refine.

The Hebrew word refers to punishment 2 out of the 50 times it is used (excluding this verse).

Why do you believe it should mean "punished by God" in this case (how do you get from Scripture to your conclusion)?

But always as a father who chastens his own son. Chastening is with love that sees to the maturing of the one being chastened. God is love.

 

[John Caldwell]

But always as a father who chastens his own son. Chastening is with love that sees to the maturing of the one being chastened. God is love.

Exactly. God's wrath does not abide on the righteous (those He chastens).