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

[Nondenom40]

There are 4 possible destinies for mankind according to Jesus....and the bible...from Genesis onward. The wicked will be cast into the fire and perish there.

So your argument is that people with their sins atoned for by Jesus can wind up in hell? What kind of gospel is that?

 

[Episkopos]

Actually batting 100 is awful. So hes awful at falsehood....nice compliment. Now if he batted 1000, well then you might have said what you were trying to say. I'd take 100 at falsehood.

You're right. My bad on the baseball analogy! But 100% wrong is still like not getting a hit.

 

[Episkopos]

So your argument is that people with their sins atoned for by Jesus can wind up in hell? What kind of gospel is that?

Do you think that the gospel is meant to prop up the carnal nature of men? All people have been atoned for. It's just that believers know about it...and are held to a higher standard for it.

But believers cannot be sent into the fire to perish. Only the wicked are destroyed in that way. The destiny for believers found to harbour iniquity is outer darkness (Read Jude). There will be weeping and anger.

 

[John Caldwell]

3. LN 38.1–38.13 punishment, i.e., an infliction of a judicial penalty based on a standard (Pr 16:22; Isa 53:5), note: for NIV text in Pr 7:22, see 4591;

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).


4148. מוּסָר musar (416b); from 3256; discipline, chastening, correction:—chastening(3), chastise(1), correction(3), discipline(18), disciplines(1), instruction(20), punishment(2), reproof(1), warning(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

But all such discipline becomes futile through the resistance and stubbornness of those to whom it is given (cf. Jer 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; 17:23; 32:33). Isaiah 53:5 adds “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (RSV “the chastisement that made us whole”). This is clearly a context of substitutionary atonement. Here the Servant of the Lord is seen as taking “the severe punishment” vicariously, more clearly revealing God’s merciful ways of dealing with his rebellious (pešaʿ) people through redemptive judgment and suffering.

Paul R. Gilchrist, “877 יָסַר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 387.

2. more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God יהוה ˊמ‍ chastening of Yahweh. b. of man.

Richard Whitaker et al., The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).

discipline n., the imposition of painful consequences or other disadvantages upon someone for their disobedience as part of a process of improving someone’s character or actions: Dt 11:2; Is 30:32; 53:5; Je 7:28; 30:14; Ho 5:2; Pr 15:10 (7×)

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017).


chas•tise \(ˌ)chas-ˈtīz\ verb transitive
chas•tised; chas•tis•ing [Middle English chastisen, alteration of chasten] 14th century
1: to inflict punishment on (as by whipping)


Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

We have already established that "chastisement" does not necessitate "punishment" but it can. I already granted the Hebrew word can mean "punishment" and in fact said of the 2 times it is translated as "punishment" one instance is probably necessary.

This does not change the fact that out of the 50 times the word appears most of the time it cannot mean punishment.

When examining Scripture you CANNOT treat lexicons as a smorgasbord from which to choose the meaning that suits your theory.

You still have not defended your choice of "punishment". You say it is a possible definition of the word. Who cares? That does not mean it IS the meaning in the passage.

In the text itself there is no reason to use the idea of "punishment". I stated what I believe the meaning to be ("chastening" based on Christ "being made perfect" and "learning obedience" from the things He suffered).

You have ducked and dodged yet have offered absolutely no reason for adopting your interpretation except that linguistically it is possible to interpret the word as punishment and that suits your theory.

This is called eisegesis.

 

[reformed1689]

You are batting 100 in falsehood. I am in the minority of modern believers who believes that in Christ is no sin.

I don't believe we are imprisoned in Christ anymore than we are always to be imprisoned in sins. Salvation is by grace through faith...and we are free to move either way.

Yeah that's not what you said in another thread. You said we do not sin after we are saved.

 

[reformed1689]

You hold a fairly new and minority view in opposition to the "classic view" and claim your view is the only and obvious possible conclusion of the text.

Did Early Christians Believe in Substitutionary Atonement?

 

[reformed1689]

We have already established that "chastisement" does not necessitate "punishment" but it can. I already granted the Hebrew word can mean "punishment" and in fact said of the 2 times it is translated as "punishment" one instance is probably necessary.

This does not change the fact that out of the 50 times the word appears most of the time it cannot mean punishment.

When examining Scripture you CANNOT treat lexicons as a smorgasbord from which to choose the meaning that suits your theory.

You still have not defended your choice of "punishment". You say it is a possible definition of the word. Who cares? That does not mean it IS the meaning in the passage.

In the text itself there is no reason to use the idea of "punishment". I stated what I believe the meaning to be ("chastening" based on Christ "being made perfect" and "learning obedience" from the things He suffered).

You have ducked and dodged yet have offered absolutely no reason for adopting your interpretation except that linguistically it is possible to interpret the word as punishment and that suits your theory.

This is called eisegesis.

The text itself DOES lend itself to punishment. He was pierced for our transgressions, etc....

 

[John Caldwell]

@David Taylor and @Enoch111,

I discusd things with you like I do with Mormons on this board. I disagree with your religion but I am genuinely interested in how you come about your ideas. I am not trying to change your mind but instead am asking how you get from Scripture to your theories.

I hope I have not come across as too harsh, but unlike my Mormon friends you do not seem knowledgeable about your own belief outside of your sect and appear unable to discuss how you get from the data of Scripture to the theories of your religion.

 

[reformed1689]

This is called eisegesis.

No, the text necessitates it. That is EXEGESIS

 

[reformed1689]

I disagree with your religion

So you disagree with Christianity?

I am not trying to change your mind but instead am asking how you get from Scripture to your theories.

Yet, when shown you just reject it.

I hope I have not come across as too harsh, but unlike my Mormon friends you do not seem knowledgeable about your own belief outside of your sect and appear unable to discuss how you get from the data of Scripture to the theories of your religion.

And this is why nobody can have honest debate with you. You have a superiority complex.

 

[John Caldwell]

The text itself DOES lend itself to punishment. He was pierced for our transgressions, etc....

Why do you believe "pierced for our transgressions" means "punished by God for our transgressions"?

 

[reformed1689]

Actually batting 100 is awful. So hes awful at falsehood....nice compliment. Now if he batted 1000, well then you might have said what you were trying to say. I'd take 100 at falsehood.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[reformed1689]

Why do you believe "pierced for our transgressions" means "punished by God for our transgressions"?

Because of context. He would not be receiving those if we had not been sinful. We however are punished for our sins without his punishment.

 

[John Caldwell]

So you disagree with Christianity?

Yet, when shown you just reject it.

And this is why nobody can have honest debate with you. You have a superiority complex.

No. I do not have a superiority complex. I have an inferiority complex. But I do believe Scripture is superior to your theory. That is why you may have confused the issue.

We cannot have an honest debate because you refuse to explain how you get from Scripture to your interpretation (I explained my reasoning twice). All you do is give us a verse and then tell us what you feel it means. You never justify the interpretation except to say it is linguistically possible.

 

[John Caldwell]

Because of context. He would not be receiving those if we had not been sinful. We however are punished for our sins without his punishment.

That is not the context. The context is Christ suffered and by His suffering we are saved (He was pierced for out transgressions).

You say this is God punishing Jesus I stead of punishing us but as it stands this is merely an opinion you hold yet can't (or won't) defend.

 

[John Caldwell]

@David Taylor

Stop being dishonest.

Look at your posts.

You offer a verse and then give us your interpretation. When asked how you get there you say the words can carry the meaning and you believe your theory is the context. But you NEVER actually defend your interpretation.[/QUOTE]

 

[reformed1689]

But I do believe Scripture is superior to your theory.

My view comes from Scripture.

We cannot have an honest debate because you refuse to explain how you get from Scripture to your interpretation (I explained my reasoning twice).

I've explained mine in multiple locations.

You say this is God punishing Jesus I stead of punishing us but as it stands this is merely an opinion you hold yet can't (or won't) defend.

Do you not believe we are eternally suffering torment if we are not atoned for?

 

[Episkopos]

Yeah that's not what you said in another thread. You said we do not sin after we are saved.

Find it...you are interpreting me the way you are interpreting the bible...through an outside commentary.

I always say the same things...and I don't use the word "saved" because of the indoctrinating effect that word has on people. So it must be someone else....or you have read other people's interpretations.

 

[Episkopos]

Do you not believe we are eternally suffering torment if we are not atoned for?

That's not what atoning is for...and no one suffers in hell forever for a life lived in this flesh. God KILLS both the body and the soul in hell fire...reserved for the wicked.

But many will be cast into outer darkness...some think that a fate worse than death. This is reserved for the religious hypocrites. They who call light darkness and darkness light.

 

[reformed1689]

That's not what atoning is for...and no one suffers in hell forever for a life lived in this flesh. God KILLS both the body and the soul in hell fire...reserved for the wicked.

But many will be cast into outer darkness...some think that a fate worse than death. This is reserved for the religious hypocrites.

So you are under the opinion they just cease to exist?