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

[Episkopos]

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

Opinion? The bible is clear that the wages of sin is death...not eternal torment.

 

[Steve Owen]

Let me say up front here that my knowledge of Hebrew is almost non-existent. I have pieced what follows together from various concordances, lexicons and learned sources.

As Mounce notes, "punishment" is not within the semantic range of מוּסָר -BUT even if it were it would be dependent on anyone who chooses the word to defend it's choice.

Mounce may believe that but it doesn't make it right. I quoted two texts which show the semantic range of מוּסָר but since you have made no reference to them, I suppose I shall have to write them out in full.
Deuteronomy 11:2-6. 'Know today that I do not speak with your children who have not known the chastening (מוּסָר) of the LORD your God, His greatness and His mighty hand and His outstretched arm - His signs and wonders which He did in the midst of Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt in all his land; what He did to the army of Egypt.......and how the LORD has destroyed them to this day.......and what He did to Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab.....how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up.....'

Jeremiah 30:12-15. '.......Your affliction is incurable, your wound is severe. There is no one to plead your cause, that you may be bound up; you have no healing medicines. All your lovers have forgotten you, they do not seek you; for I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement (מוּסָר) of a cruel one , for the multitude of your iniquities, because your sins have increased. Why do you cry about your affliction? Your sorrow is incurable. Because of the multitude of your iniquities, because your sins have increased, I have done these things to you.'

So the semantic range of מוּסָר certainly includes the concept of punishment. You have mentioned Mounce as an authority; I will see your Mounce and raise you a Motyer. Until his recent (2016) death Alec Motyer was regarded as one of the foremost Hebrew scholars in Britain and his commentary, The Prophecy of Isaiah (IVP, 1993. ISBN 0-85110-647-1) is widely regarded as one of the very best. He writes (on Isaiah 53):
'Thus, verse 4 demands the noun 'substitution,' and verse 5 demands the adjective 'penal.' Transgressions (Heb. pela; for the noun cf. 43:25; 44:22; 50:1; for the verb cf. 1:2, 28; 46:8) is the willfulness and rebelliousness of sin, the deliberate flouting of the Lord and His law. Iniquities (Heb. 'awon; 'to bend,' 'bend double;' Psalms 38:6-7) reflects the bentness or pervertedness of human nature, the result of the Fall and the ever-flowing fount of sin. But by His death, the Servant bore our punishment (musar). Dhorme, commenting on Job 4:3 says, "The exact meaning of the verb in the piel is 'to correct' whether by words, whence 'teach' or by chastisement, whence 'punish.' The double meaning... is also found in the noun." Just as 'the covenant of [my] peace' (54:10) expresses the compound thought 'my peace-covenant,' so the 'punishment of our peace' means our peace-punishment.' the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God.'

I have also found what purports to be a 'literal translation' of 53:4-6 by a guy called Otfried Hofius ('The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters). Interestingly, Hofius is something of a liberal and he hates the idea of penal substitution, but he finds he cannot deny its existence in these verses. The italics show where an emphatic personal pronoun occurs in the Hebrew:

'Surely our sicknesses - He bore them,
and our pains - He suffered them.
Yet we considered Him as one stricken,
as one struck down by God and afflicted.
But He was pierced for our transgressions,
and crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment for our salvation lay upon Him,
and by His wounds, healing came to us.
We all have strayed like sheep,
each of us has turned to his own way;
but Yahweh has caused to fall on Him the iniquity of us all.'

Emphatic personal pronouns are also found in verse 11 - their iniquities - He will bear them,' and in v.12 - 'For He - the sins of many, He bore them.' All of this serves to underline the simple fact that the Servant, who is distinct from God's people, suffered in their place, as their substitute.

My comment was that it is in the range of the Greek word μανθάνω as used in Hebrews 5:8 (“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered”). Here the word μανθάνω also points to instruction but as Steve notes we do need to pay attention to context as this is what drives the meaning of words.

The word English word "chastisement" and "chasening" [sic] does not necessitate the idea of "punishment" (obviously, but this is our language and we all have dictionaries so I'm sure we can at least agree here).

I looked up the words 'chasten' and 'chastise' in the Oxford Concise Dictionary:
Chasten: 'Discipline, punish by inflicting suffering, moderate, restrain, subdue.'
Chastise: 'Punish, thrash.'

So the idea is we can look at context to see if "punishment" could be a possible meaning.

He was wounded for our transgressions (not punishment),
He was bruised [or 'crushed'] for our iniquities (not punishment);
The chastisement (not punishment) for our peace was upon Him,,
And by His stripes [or 'cutting blows' - NKJV margin] (not punishment) we are healed.
.........For He was cut off from the land of the living (not punishment);
For the transgression of My people He was stricken (not a punishment),
.........Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him (not punishment);
He has put Him to grief. (not punishment)
(by "punishment" I mean divine punishment, God punishing).

'You have been found guilty of the most heinous crimes. You will be taken from prison to a place of execution and there you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead - but it's not a punishment, so that's OK.'
The meaning of those verses is so staringly obvious that I think you have proved the case for me.
Our transgressions demanded wounding: He was wounded instead of us.
Our iniquities demanded crushing: He was crushed instead of us.
The only way we could get peace with God was through His chastisement: He bore that chastisement.
The only way we could get healing was through His wounding: He received that wounding instead of us.
He was cut off from the land of the living instead of us.
Our transgressions merited being stricken: He was stricken instead of us.
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; why was that? 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:26). The wicked have been punished, but God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ has borne their punishment. 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalms 85:10). Alleluia! I don't know anything more wonderful than that!

I'll deal with your remaining points later; it's supper-time.

 

[Episkopos]

Emphatic personal pronouns are also found in verse 11 - their iniquities - He will bear them,' and in v.12 - 'For He - the sins of many, He bore them.' All of this serves to underline the simple fact that the Servant, who is distinct from God's people, suffered in their place, as their substitute.

Jesus suffered because people dumped their sins on Him. Jesus didn't come looking to take sins upon Himself. Jesus was without sin. And that's the problem for mankind. People judged Jesus as if He was just a man...and a false prophet.

So He bore with the condemnation of people.

So you are seeing this religiously rather than realistically and spiritually.

People always persecuted the prophets. Was it God who poured out His wrath on the prophets of old? No, it was mankind who did that!

So if you can think that God was angry at His Son...then He would also have been angry with all His servants.

I think that many have God all wrong.

 

[Steve Owen]

So if you can think that God was angry at His Son

I absolutely don't think that God was ever angry with His Son. He was angry at sin and at sinners, and the Lord Jesus willingly bore God wrath against, not Himself, but sin.

I think many have God all wrong.

 

[Episkopos]

I absolutely don't think that God was ever angry with His Son. He was angry at sin and at sinners, and the Lord Jesus willingly bore God wrath against, not Himself, but sin.

I think many have God all wrong.

You have been programmed to believe a lie about God. God's wrath stems from His burning anger. (look up the word wrath) And the world will soon experience this. It is a fearful thing indeed. But Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath...but the anger and wrath of mankind...for being too perfect...too right...too true...and too authorative in the truth.

People have always hated the truth. Just look at these threads...people love the lie.

 

[Episkopos]

12 Then He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. 2 At harvest time he sent a slave to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from the farmers. 3 But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent another slave to them, and they hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; they beat some and they killed some.


6 “He still had one to send, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’


7 “But those tenant farmers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’ 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.


9 “Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the farmers and give the vineyard to others.

So who killed the Son in this parable of Jesus? And the servants of the Lord...who poured out wrath on them? Was it God...or the wicked husbandmen? Only the wicked would push that back on God.

 

[John Caldwell]

Our transgressions demanded wounding: He was wounded instead of us.

Scripture states that Christ was wounded for our transgressions. But you add "instead of us" and claim that this is "punishment".

The issue is not Scripture or what it obviously states. The issue is these little additions you slip in (perhaps without even realizing it) to change the meaning to suit Penal Substitution Theory.

This is dishonest and dangerous because were you teaching others they may not know that Scripture does not actually contain those things you add. Perhaps you should consider the warning that God gives to teachers before you decide it is acceptable to alter Scripture to your liking.

 

[Episkopos]

Scripture states that Christ was wounded for our transgressions. But you add "instead of us" and claim that this is "punishment".

The issue is not Scripture or what it obviously states. The issue is these little additions you slip in (perhaps without even realizing it) to change the meaning to suit Penal Substitution Theory.

This is dishonest and dangerous because were you teaching others they may not know that Scripture does not actually contain those things you add. Perhaps you should consider the warning that God gives to teachers before you decide it is acceptable to alter Scripture to your liking.

Wishful thinking and truth don't mix. God will add to the troubles of they who add to His words.

 

[amadeus]

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?

Indeed, our God has always been a merciful God. King David was guilty under the written laws given to Moses of adultery and murder... yet God looked beyond the black and white letter of the His own law as it was written and spared David's natural life. How does that relate to you and to me today? The mercy He shows and has shown to us when we have been similarly guilty is available according to our hearts. Too many people looking at the letter still. Never mind, because God is still looking at the heart. No one's heart was automatically changed when Jesus died on the cross... but without a doubt He opened the Way.

"Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." John 11:9-10

When and how can a man walk in the day always?

 

[John Caldwell]

I absolutely don't think that God was ever angry with His Son. He was angry at sin and at sinners, and the Lord Jesus willingly bore God wrath against, not Himself, but sin.

I think many have God all wrong.

LOL..... "God was punishing sinful acts and Jesus just got in the way."

The problem is that sin cannot be punished. Sinners can, but not sin (by definition).

We can punish a thief and we say we punished the crime, but really we punished the criminal.

God will not acquit the guilty or condemn the righteous. Period. The "solution" was never finding someone to punish in order to aquit the guilty but men dying to sin in the act of divine recreation.

 

[Nondenom40]

Opinion? The bible is clear that the wages of sin is death...not eternal torment.

Death simply means separation, not annihilation. The first death, our spirit from our bodies. The second death, the spirit from God...for eternity.

 

[John Caldwell]

Death simply means separation, not annihilation. The first death, our spirit from our bodies. The second death, the spirit from God...for eternity.

Where do you get this definition?

 

[Steve Owen]

So who killed the Son......?

Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28.

 

[John Caldwell]

Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28.

Close but no cigar (you came in a bit too late)

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

It was by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God that the Jews killed Jesus by the hands of godless men.

 

[Nondenom40]

Where do you get this definition?

Do you think death is something else? I'd love to hear your definition.

 

[John Caldwell]

Do you think death is something else? I'd love to hear your definition.

I'd say the absence of life. Physical death is the absence of physical life, spiritual death is the absence of spiritual life.

I just never heard it defined as "separation". Where does that come from?

 

[Steve Owen]

LOL..... "God was punishing sinful acts and Jesus just got in the way."

If you really think I mean that you are showing that you understand absolutely nothing. But I knew that anyway.

The problem is that sin cannot be punished. Sinners can, but not sin (by definition).

We can punish a thief and we say we punished the crime, but really we punished the criminal.

Exactly. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' The sins for which we deserve punishment have been laid upon the sinless Christ and He has borne the penalty for them. That is what 'He was pierced for our transgressions' means, however much you may try to obfuscate. I quote Alec Motyer again. 'For' is the preposition 'min' meaning 'from,' hence 'arising from, 'resulting from,' 'because of.' Delitzsch says the Hebrew word, "Does not answer to the Greek hypo but to apo......not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him.....but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins.....ours, which He had taken upon Himself......that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death."'

God will not acquit the guilty or condemn the righteous. Period. The "solution" was never finding someone to punish in order to acquit the guilty but men dying to sin in the act of divine recreation.

This airy-fairy language is symptomatic of the teaching of a number of sub-evangelical writers. Stephen Travis, speaking of 2 Corinthians 5:21 in Atonement Today (SPCK, 1995), wrote, "The essential point is that Christ has experienced the sinner's estrangement from God, he has absorbed and thereby taken away sin, so that we might be brought into a right relationship with God." But why 'experience' when Paul says 'death' (verse 14f)? And why estrangement when Paul thinks in terms of imputation (verse 19). How did Christ 'absorb' sin? How did that supposed 'absorption' cancel the spiritual realities of sin? And where is 'absorption' in the Bible?

The question is exactly how can God punish sin without punishing sinners; how can He be just and yet justify the guilty (Romans 3:26)? How can He be faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9)? And He has answered the question by taking our sins, the guilt and the curse of then upon Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ and paying the penalty for them in full, the penalty we should have paid. Christ was made the very essence of sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) by having all the sins of God's elect laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6) and He paid the penalty for them in full. "It is paid!" He cried (John 19:30), and if you think that is a strange translation of teleo, check out Matthew 17:24. All around the Mediterranean, bills of sale or lading have been discovered with tetelestai written on them: 'Paid in full.'

 

[Steve Owen]

I just never heard it defined as "separation". Where does that come from?

Ecclesiastes 12:7.

 

[John Caldwell]

If you really think I mean that you are showing that you understand absolutely nothing. But I knew that anyway.

Exactly. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.' The sins for which we deserve punishment have been laid upon the sinless Christ and He has borne the penalty for them. That is what 'He was pierced for our transgressions' means, however much you may try to obfuscate. I quote Alec Motyer again. 'For' is the preposition 'min' meaning 'from,' hence 'arising from, 'resulting from,' 'because of.' Delitzsch says the Hebrew word, "Does not answer to the Greek hypo but to apo......not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him.....but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins.....ours, which He had taken upon Himself......that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death."'

This airy-fairy language is symptomatic of the teaching of a number of sub-evangelical writers. Stephen Travis, speaking of 2 Corinthians 5:21 in Atonement Today (SPCK, 1995), wrote, "The essential point is that Christ has experienced the sinner's estrangement from God, he has absorbed and thereby taken away sin, so that we might be brought into a right relationship with God." But why 'experience' when Paul says 'death' (verse 14f)? And why estrangement when Paul thinks in terms of imputation (verse 19). How did Christ 'absorb' sin? How did that supposed 'absorption' cancel the spiritual realities of sin? And where is 'absorption' in the Bible?

The question is exactly how can God punish sin without punishing sinners; how can He be just and yet justify the guilty (Romans 3:26)? How can He be faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9)? And He has answered the question by taking our sins, the guilt and the curse of then upon Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ and paying the penalty for them in full, the penalty we should have paid. Christ was made the very essence of sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) by having all the sins of God's elect laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6) and He paid the penalty for them in full. "It is paid!" He cried (John 19:30), and if you think that is a strange translation of teleo, check out Matthew 17:24. All around the Mediterranean, bills of sale or lading have been discovered with tetelestai written on them: 'Paid in full.'

I do not think you mean many of the repercussions of your theories. (I say this to your credit)

 

[John Caldwell]

Ecclesiastes 12:7.

You think this means death means "separation"?