The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
You might want to read Is. 53:5 in context of the whole chapter....not to mention he was pierced for what? OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, he was crushed for OUR iniquities. This is specifically saying Christ is receiving this punishment for our sin.
Isa 53:4-6

4 - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

In my last post, i demonstrated that "borne" and carried" of Isa 53:4 should be viewed as removed, cast out and NOT imputed into Christ.

Verse 5 shows Christ was wounded for our transgressions so we would not have to suffer.
Christ was bruised for our iniquities so we would not have to suffer. Verse 5 does NOT say our transgression and iniquities were imputed into Christ but simply points out Christ suffered for us where would we would not have to suffer.

Verse 6 therefore should be understood as verse 5. When it says the Lord hath laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all, it means as verse 5 that Christ suffered for our iniquities so we would not have to suffer. Verse 4, 5 nor 6 say our griefs, sorrows, transgressions, iniquities were imputed into Christ but Christ removed, cast away (see Matt 8 again) those things where we would not have to suffer for them.

Christ did not suffer because He owed it to us but suffered so we would not have to suffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christ was bruised for our iniquities so we would not have to suffer. Verse 5 does NOT say our transgression and iniquities were imputed into Christ but simply points out Christ suffered for us where would we would not have to suffer.
Why would we then not have to suffer?

Is this only about our physical infirmaties?
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Verse 5 does NOT say our transgression and iniquities were imputed into Christ...
This is COMPLETELY FALSE as the next verse proves:
...and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all...

Not only this but the New Testament says that Christ (who knew no sin) was made SIN for us, and that He took the CURSE of sin upon Himself. "All our sins were laid up Him" means that all the sin and guilt of mankind was imputed to Christ, and more than that. He paid the FULL PENALTY for the sins of the whole world. Which is death (both physical and spiritual or the Second Death).

Why are people manufacturing their own false doctrines in the face of clear Scriptures? This is becoming more and more prevalent today. Those who reject the doctrine of Penal Substitution are teaching heresy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Owen

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Isa 53:4-6

4 - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

In my last post, i demonstrated that "borne" and carried" of Isa 53:4 should be viewed as removed, cast out and NOT imputed into Christ.

Verse 5 shows Christ was wounded for our transgressions so we would not have to suffer.
Christ was bruised for our iniquities so we would not have to suffer. Verse 5 does NOT say our transgression and iniquities were imputed into Christ but simply points out Christ suffered for us where would we would not have to suffer.

Verse 6 therefore should be understood as verse 5. When it says the Lord hath laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all, it means as verse 5 that Christ suffered for our iniquities so we would not have to suffer. Verse 4, 5 nor 6 say our griefs, sorrows, transgressions, iniquities were imputed into Christ but Christ removed, cast away (see Matt 8 again) those things where we would not have to suffer for them.

Christ did not suffer because He owed it to us but suffered so we would not have to suffer.
Who said anything about him owing us anything? I have just been arguing exactly what you said, he took our punishment in our place.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,798
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jesus bore our sins meaning He took everything we had in the way of evil upon Himself. And when we tired of hurting Him we are healed by His stripes (that we gave Him) of our disobedience because Jesus was innocent AND He was our Creator. We say enough!

So our sins are both revealed and displayed on the cross....hopefully along with our desire to sin and our stand against God in carnal rebellion.

Jesus bore the sins of the world...of this world upon Himself. By His stripes we have had enough and are healed of our own independent rebellions against God. He has won us over to serve Him and His righteousness.
 

stunnedbygrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
12,397
12,048
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
One man (Adam) choosing to sin made him a sinner, his sin did not unconditionally make all other men sinners too. Men are conditionally made sinners for they, like Adam, have choose to sin

I thought your post was very good! This is the only part of it that I wondered about.

I think that Adam was made in Gods image but that we were born in Adams image after the fall. Small children sin and I don't think it is because they choose to. They were subjected to the futility. A very small child does not have the capacity to choose sin, you can see its just what comes naturally to bonk each other over a possession. At least from what I've seen. They have to be taught what is wrong to do.
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
My sincere apologies for not replying to this post. I did see it, but then I got tied up in other threads and forgot all about it. :oops:
Again, hamartia is used many times in the LXX as 'sin offering' or sin sacrifice for that is the inherent meaning of the word. This is why Hebrews 10:8 KJV translates it as 'sacrifices for sin'. The word 'sin' in 2 Cor 5:21 is used figuratively, as a synecdoche where it includes sin offering.
If it were a synecdoche, it would still be a very strange way for the Holy Spirit to express Himself because, as I explained above, ἁμαρτίαν appears twice in the sentence, and to say, "God made Him a sin offering who knew no sin offering" makes no sense, and to have a synecdoche once and not twice in the sentence would be very confusing.
Look what Calvinists Albert Barnes (in blue) has to say about 2 Cor 5:21 and Christ being made sin: (my emp)

To be sin - The words ‹to be‘ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‹he has made him sin, or a sin-offering‘ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen. But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:

(1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative.
It is indeed figurative, but we do not need to wonder too long about its meaning, because Isaiah explains it. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6).
All our sins were laid, by imputation, upon His sinless shoulders, just as the high priest, on the yom kippur, laid the sins of Israel upon the goat (Leviticus 16:21-22), and He paid the debt in full for every one.

There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word “sin” ( ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hosea 4:8, “They eat up the sin of my people;” that is, the sin-offerings; see Ezekiel 43:22, Ezekiel 43:25; Ezekiel 44:29; Ezekiel 45:22-23, Ezekiel 45:25."
Nowhere in the New Testament is hamartia used for 'sin offering. As I wrote earlier, in Hebrews 10:6 & 8, the term used is peri harmartias, literally, '[things] concerning sin.' In Hebrews 10:18, it is prosphera hamartias and in Hebrews 10:12, 26, the term is hamartion thusia, translated 'sacrifice for sins.' Now in Hebrews 10:6, 8 the writer is quoting from the LXX, but when he is writing directly under the power of the Spirit, he adds prosphera or thusia. the reason for this appears to be that the language had changed during the 250 years between the writing of the LXX and the Letter to the Hebrews, and he felt it necessary to add those words. Also, I here add my own learned source:

"In the Septuagint the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for 'sin offering,' is always in the genitive, hamartias. This is not the case in 2 Cor. 5:21." (Dr Peter Naylor, 2 Corinthians. Evangelical Press, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X). Exactly. In 5:21, it is the accusative, hamartian. FWIW, my personal view is that the older commentaries (Barnes, Henry) are excellent for application and spirituality, but when it comes to the languages, the more modern ones are to be preferred.
Again, Matthew 8:15-17 shines light on what the words bore, borne or carried mean and they mean to cast away, to remove and not impute into Christ.
I don't see what you're getting at here. 'Bore' has a spectrum of meanings in English; there's no reason why it cannot in Greek also. [The 'Severn Bore' is a tidal wave that comes up the Bristol Channel and into the River Severn at certain times of the year :)]
 
Last edited:

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But you have not refuted the 'junk'. it still stands. Nor do the verses you cite prove penal substitution either. For example, Isa 53:6:

Looking at the broader context:


Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."
Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Verse 5 - Our transgressions caused Christ to suffer, be wounded, NOT our transgressions were transferred to Christ.
Verse 5 - Our iniquities caused Christ to suffer, be bruised, NOT our iniquities transferred to Christ.

Same idea in verse 6 - Our iniquities laid upon Him means our iniquities caused Christ to suffer, NOT our iniquities transferred to Christ. How do I know this? Because the same language is used about Ezekiel in Ezekiel 4:4-6:

"Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year."

Obviously this passage does NOT mean the sins of Israel were transferred to Ezekiel and he was punished (lay on his side) for the sins of Israel. If Israel's sins were transferred to Ezekiel and Ezekiel suffered for their sin, then Israel would not need Christ. Then we today could transfer our sins to another man, that man suffer for us and we would not need Christ either. But the idea of Israel's sins being laid to Ezekiel, that Ezekiel would bear their sins simply means Ezekiel would suffer for Israel's sins, sins that Ezekiel was not responsible for. In the same manner, Isa 53:6 means Christ suffered for the iniquities of man, sins man committed that Christ was not responsible for. Again, neither passage means sins of man was transferred to Ezekiel or Christ.

-----------------------------------------------

1 Peter 2:24. Some just read PART of this verse "Who his own self bare our sins" and claim this means our sins were imputed/transferred to Christ. The whole phrase says:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,"

HOW did He bare our sins? In His body on the tree. "His body on the tree" refers to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Therefore He bare our sins by His sacrifice of His body NOT by ours sins being transferred to Him. The verse about about what Christ's body accomplished (our sacrifice on the tree) and NOT about what was done to His body (our sins transferred to His body).

1 Peter 2:25 refers back to Isaiah 53:4-6
4 - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

THe context says Christ "borne our griefs" and "carried our sorrows". Again, these two phrases do NOT mean our sorrows and griefs were transferred to Christ. So what does "borne" and "carried" mean?

Matthew tells us in his account in Matthew 8:14-17 where he quotes Isaiah in v17:
14 - And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
15 - And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
16 - When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
17 - That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses
.

Notice the sickness "left her" and the demons were "cast out". The sickness nor the demons were transferred/imputed to Christ but instead were removed, cast out. Therefore Isaiah would be understood the same way in that our infirmities and sicknesses are removed, cast out NOT imputed to Christ. Therefore when Peter (having quoted Isaiah as Matthew), says Christ "bare" (borne) our sins, it means Christ removed them, cast them off by what His body accomplished on the tree NOT imputed to His body.

--------------------------------------------

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us,..."

The underlying Greek word for sins (hamartia) also carries the idea of sacrifice or offering for sins, (see Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:8). This Greek word is translated many times in the LXX as "sacrifice for sins". Hence Christ was a sacrifice for our sins and NOT our sins transferred to Christ.

BEFORE Christ's sacrifice on the cross and AFTER His sacrifice on the cross, Christ was "undefiled, separated from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26) and was "without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). Hence Christ was not "sin", never a receptacle for our sin but an offering/sacrifice for our sin.

--------------------------

Sin nor righteousness is transferred from one person to another meaning no penal substitution, no original sin.
@Steve Owen It is so funny when they actually end up affirming PSA by trying to knock it down. They just can't help themselves. Why? Because it is biblical truth.
 

Getitright

Active Member
Nov 7, 2019
230
68
28
62
North Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Almost nothing in your post is correct. The truth of P.S. long predates Calvin (think Bible, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr); John Wesley was an Arminian and taught it; his brother Charles wrote at least one hymn about it.
C.H. Spurgeon taught P.S. and George Whitfield preached it. They were two of the most active evangelists in church history.
P.S. does absolutely not deny the necessity of obedience to God's will or that man will be held accountable for the deeds he does if he does not repent.

It is always dangerous on this board to say you are a Calvinist, since people immediately conclude that you would have burned Servetus. However, I am happy to join Bunyan, Spurgeon, William Carey and Adoniram Judson in saying that I am firmly calvinistic in my theology; that is, I believe in effective atonement. But that's not what this thread's about. The thread on Calvinism is still open, so run along and air your ignorance over there.
Actually, it doesn't. For the first thousand years of the church the atonement was seen through the Ransom model. Around 1100 A.D. a Catholic theologian named Anselm of Canterbury decided that God needed reparations. He said that God was so far above man that no man could repay God for the sins he commits. He suggested that only God could do that. He submitted that Christ paid for these sins. This became known as the Satisfaction model. This model continued until the Reformation where the Reformers tweaked it into what is today called Penal Substitution. If you study the early Christians you'll see that the Ransom theory was pretty much universal.

In addition to the that, there are serious problems with Penal substitution. For instance, the Scriptures says over and over that God will forgives sins. Where is there anything in Scripture that says people can pay God for their sins. If Christ paid a sin debt, as many put it, then sins aren't forgiven, they're paid for. We see no such thing in the Scriptures. We are told that God will forgive sins.
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Steve Owen It is so funny when they actually end up affirming PSA by trying to knock it down. They just can't help themselves. Why? Because it is biblical truth.
@David Taylor ,

I understand why you believe that Christ had to suffer the punishment for sin instead of us. But in practice I am not sure how you explain this.

Did Christ suffer in His physical body instead of us suffering in our physical bodies?

Did Christ suffer a physical death instead of us having to suffering a physical death?
 
Last edited:

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,798
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Actually, it doesn't. For the first thousand years of the church the atonement was seen through the Ransom model. Around 1100 A.D. a Catholic theologian named Anselm of Canterbury decided that God needed to reparations. He said that God was so far above man that no man could repay God for the sins he commits. He suggested that only God could do that. He submitted that Christ paid for these sins. This became known as the Satisfaction model. This model continued until the Reformation where the Reformers tweaked it into what is today called Penal Substitution. If you study the early Christians you'll see that the Ransom theory was pretty much universal.

In addition to the that, there are serious problems with Penal substitution. For instance, the Scriptures says over and over that God will forgive sins. Where is there anything in Scripture that says people can pay God for their sins. If Christ paid a sin debt, as many put it, then sins aren't forgiven, they're paid for. We see no such thing in the Scriptures. We are told that God will forgive sins.


Very good.....and wise thoughts. :)
 

Huperetes

Member
Dec 10, 2019
81
86
18
Millington
www.grex.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Those are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT subjects. TULIP is false doctrine.

But all Bible-believing Christians can agree -- ON THE BASIS OF SCRIPTURE -- that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole world when He offered Himself as the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world.

ROMANS 5 - REFORMATTED FOR CLARITY

ADAM BROUGHT SIN AND DEATH UPON HUMANITY

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:.. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

THE LAW IMPUTED SIN TO THOSE WHO SIN (ALL MEN)
13 For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

THE PENALTY FOR SIN WAS ETERNAL DAMNATION

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation [damnation], but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

WHERE SIN ABOUNDED GOD'S GRACE ABOUNDED EVEN MORE

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many... 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

SINCE ALL ARE UNGODLY, CHRIST DIED FOR ALL
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

GOD'S LOVE IS EXPRESSED IN CHRIST'S SACRIFICE
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IS TOTALLY UNIQUE

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

CHRIST'S SACRIFICE QUENCHED GOD'S WRATH AGAINST US
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

CHRIST HAS ATONED FOR OUR SINS

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON CHRIST ARE RECONCILED TO GOD
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

GOD'S GRACE OFFERS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH CHRIST
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ...
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS MAKES JUSTIFICATION POSSIBLE
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE MAKES IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS POSSIBLE
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

TULIP is definitely false doctrine but the scriptures presented above cannot be denied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
TULIP is definitely false doctrine but the scriptures presented above cannot be denied.
I fully agree. We can have disagreements about doctrines (like TULIP and the interpretations of Scripture) but we have no business denying Scripture itself. Scripture does not serve our interpretations/ understandings. Our interpretations may be subjective and prone to the failings of human reasoning but Scripture is God's absolute and objective Word.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who said anything about him owing us anything? I have just been arguing exactly what you said, he took our punishment in our place.
David,

Do you believe that Jesus died physically (shed His blood) instead of us dying physically or was His physical death simply a byproduct of a "spiritual death"?

If Christ's physical death was instead of us dying physically, then why do we experience physical death?

If not, then in your opinion why did Christ have to die (why the physical suffering, the physical pain, the shed blood)?
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@David Taylor ,

I understand why you believe that Christ had to suffer the punishment for sin instead of us. But in practice I am not sure how you explain this.

Did Christ suffer in His physical body instead of us suffering in our physical bodies?

Did Christ suffer a physical death instead of us having to suffering a physical death?
I think that Jesus suffered before His death to give Him the human experience of obedience even in agony. I think that He died in our place not so that we avoid a physical death, but to give our physical death a different outcome.

Much love!
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think that Jesus suffered before His death to give Him the human experience of obedience even in agony. I think that He died in our place not so that we avoid a physical death, but to give our physical death a different outcome.

Much love!
I agree. What you see in terms of Christ's "suffering before His death" is how I have viewed this "chastening" (I link it to Christ "learning obedience").

So it was not necessary "instead of us" but "for us"?

Why a physical death (if not a punishment instead of us but to give death a different outcome) ?

I ask because I would say being found in appearance as a man, Jesus humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
 
Last edited:

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
@Steve Owen It is so funny when they actually end up affirming PSA by trying to knock it down. They just can't help themselves. Why? Because it is biblical truth.

The Bible does not teach sin is unconditionally transferred from the sinner to Christ or that Christ's righteousness is unconditionally transferred to the sinner. Such an idea is invented by man in an attempt to get around the fact the sinner must conditionally obey to have his sins blotted out (not transferred) and by being obedient he then is in Christ covered by Christ's perfect righteousness and therefore seen by God as perfect.

It has not been shown in this thread that 'bare' or 'laid upon' means to transfer. Again, all men will physically die as a consequence of sin entering the world (Hebrews 9:27) therefore Christ did NOT take this penalty upon Himself and physically die for man. Rather man will stand before God in judgment and must give account of his deeds Romans 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10 for Christ has NOT taken the guilt, penalty of man's sins upon Himself and away from man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

Ernest T. Bass

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2014
1,845
616
113
out in the woods
My sincere apologies for not replying to this post. I did see it, but then I got tied up in other threads and forgot all about it. :oops:
If it were a synecdoche, it would still be a very strange way for the Holy Spirit to express Himself because, as I explained above, ἁμαρτίαν appears twice in the sentence, and to say, "God made Him a sin offering who knew no sin offering" makes no sense, and to have a synecdoche once and not twice in the sentence would be very confusing.

It is indeed figurative, but we do not need to wonder too long about its meaning, because Isaiah explains it. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6).
All our sins were laid, by imputation, upon His sinless shoulders, just as the high priest, on the yom kippur, laid the sins of Israel upon the goat (Leviticus 16:21-22), and He paid the debt in full for every one.


Nowhere in the New Testament is hamartia used for 'sin offering. As I wrote earlier, in Hebrews 10:6 & 8, the term used is peri harmartias, literally, '[things] concerning sin.' In Hebrews 10:18, it is prosphera hamartias and in Hebrews 10:12, 26, the term is hamartion thusia, translated 'sacrifice for sins.' Now in Hebrews 10:6, 8 the writer is quoting from the LXX, but when he is writing directly under the power of the Spirit, he adds prosphera or thusia. the reason for this appears to be that the language had changed during the 250 years between the writing of the LXX and the Letter to the Hebrews, and he felt it necessary to add those words. Also, I here add my own learned source:

"In the Septuagint the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for 'sin offering,' is always in the genitive, hamartias. This is not the case in 2 Cor. 5:21." (Dr Peter Naylor, 2 Corinthians. Evangelical Press, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X). Exactly. In 5:21, it is the accusative, hamartian. FWIW, my personal view is that the older commentaries (Barnes, Henry) are excellent for application and spirituality, but when it comes to the languages, the more modern ones are to be preferred.
I don't see what you're getting at here. 'Bore' has a spectrum of meanings in English; there's no reason why it cannot in Greek also. [The 'Severn Bore' is a tidal wave that comes up the Bristol Channel and into the River Severn at certain times of the year :)]

Matthew quotes Isaiah as does Peter (1 Peter 2:24) yet Matthew gives more information than Peter.

In Matthew 8:14-17 Matthew cites 2 miracles performed by Christ, causing the fever to leave Peter's mother in law and casting out demons. Matthew then directly ties those two miracles to Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17 where Matthew writes "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."

The point is this, how should the words "took" and "bare" be understood in Isa 53:4 and therefore "bare" be understood in 1 Peter 2:24? In the two miracles Matthew tied to Isaiah, Christ did NOT IMPUTE the sickness or demons into Himself but rather removed, cast them out. Therefore "took" and "bare" should NOT be understood as "impute" but as remove or cast out. I do not find where the word "bare" inherently means impute or transfer.

Isa 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

How should "laid" be understood? As in Matthew 8, the Bible is it own best commentary. In Ezekiel 4 the same words are used about Ezekiel that are used about Christ in Isa 53:6...God says to Ezekiel."Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." This passage speaks of the sins of Israel being laid upon Ezekiel, that he will bear the iniquity of Israel. Of course laying the iniquity of Israel upon Ezekiel and Ezekiel bearing the sins of Israel does NOT mean Israel's sins were transferred or imputed to Ezekiel. Therefore Isa 53:6 should not be understood as "transferred" either. If the sins of Israel could be transferred to Ezekiel and he would suffer for them then Israel would never need Christ. Why could we today transfer our sins to some man, that man suffer for us and we would not need Christ either! But the context of Isaiah 53:5-6 should be understood that Christ suffered for us so we would not have to suffer, that Christ and Ezekiel suffered for sins they were not responsible for and NOT sins being transferred to them.

As far as 2 Corinthians 5:21 should be, as Barnes rightly point out, understood as offering for sin. For Christ did not have man's sins, the guilt and penalty of sin imputed to Him and Him becoming a sinner and die spiritually so we would not have to. This is why Barnes calls the idea blasphemy for 1) Christ "knew no sin", 2) He was "separate from sinners" and 3) He never sinned (He was a perfect sinless sacrifice, a Lamb without spot or blemish) and never spiritually died so we would not have to. There is every good reason why the Calvinist view of 2 Cor 5:21 should be rejected.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew quotes Isaiah as does Peter (1 Peter 2:24) yet Matthew gives more information than Peter.

In Matthew 8:14-17 Matthew cites 2 miracles performed by Christ, causing the fever to leave Peter's mother in law and casting out demons. Matthew then directly ties those two miracles to Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17 where Matthew writes "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."

The point is this, how should the words "took" and "bare" be understood in Isa 53:4 and therefore "bare" be understood in 1 Peter 2:24? In the two miracles Matthew tied to Isaiah, Christ did NOT IMPUTE the sickness or demons into Himself but rather removed, cast them out. Therefore "took" and "bare" should NOT be understood as "impute" but as remove or cast out. I do not find where the word "bare" inherently means impute or transfer.

Isa 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

How should "laid" be understood? As in Matthew 8, the Bible is it own best commentary. In Ezekiel 4 the same words are used about Ezekiel that are used about Christ in Isa 53:6...God says to Ezekiel."Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." This passage speaks of the sins of Israel being laid upon Ezekiel, that he will bear the iniquity of Israel. Of course laying the iniquity of Israel upon Ezekiel and Ezekiel bearing the sins of Israel does NOT mean Israel's sins were transferred or imputed to Ezekiel. Therefore Isa 53:6 should not be understood as "transferred" either. If the sins of Israel could be transferred to Ezekiel and he would suffer for them then Israel would never need Christ. Why could we today transfer our sins to some man, that man suffer for us and we would not need Christ either! But the context of Isaiah 53:5-6 should be understood that Christ suffered for us so we would not have to suffer, that Christ and Ezekiel suffered for sins they were not responsible for and NOT sins being transferred to them.

As far as 2 Corinthians 5:21 should be, as Barnes rightly point out, understood as offering for sin. For Christ did not have man's sins, the guilt and penalty of sin imputed to Him and Him becoming a sinner and die spiritually so we would not have to. This is why Barnes calls the idea blasphemy for 1) Christ "knew no sin", 2) He was "separate from sinners" and 3) He never sinned (He was a perfect sinless sacrifice, a Lamb without spot or blemish) and never spiritually died so we would not have to. There is every good reason why the Calvinist view of 2 Cor 5:21 should be rejected.
Your username is appropriate.