I agree we are not tied to the LXX. It is still interesting that John uses it to quote Isaiah 53, but that proves nothing. The point, however, is that the LXX does not allow your interpretation while the Hebrew does not dictate it.
At a minimum Isaiah 53:10 states the same as Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (that it was God's will to crush him". I am taking the interpretation at this point (not adding to it "by pouring upon Christ His wrath). In this vein I agree with the LXX (and, coincidentally, the early church). So you could say I am influenced by the LXX, the early church writings, and passages of Scripture denying God could have been wrathful to the Righteous. Guess you could say I'm a minimalist. :)
Penal Substitution and the Trinity
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin Marprelate, Mar 18, 2018.
Page 4 of 8
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The rest of your post is correct. The Jews correctly considered the Lord Jesus smitten by God and afflicted, but 'He was pierced for our transgressions....etc.' That was what they did not realise. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And if God wants to pour out His love on wicked sinners, why does it please Him to crush the sinless Christ, unless He was made sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him? -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
As for my interpretation of v. 10, I'll state it again: I do not think God delights in crushing the Servant, but finds delight in the Servant's sacrifice. But, the meaning of that sacrifice is not left to our imagination. Isaiah 53:4-6 clearly tells us that the servant bears our sin and suffers for them. Isaiah makes this abundantly clear.
I take my understanding of v. 10 from Dr. Peter Gentry, one of my professors in Seminary, who is one of the foremost linguistic scholars in the world. He says: Here “delighted” is being used in the context of a sacrifice. God is delighted or pleased with the sacrifice in the sense that he accepts it as sufficient to wipe away his indignation, his offense and his outrage at our sin." (Gentry, Peter. “The Atonement in Isaiah’s FourthServant Song (Isaiah 52:13-15:12).” SBJT, 11/2 (2007). 20-47. But, in the article, he has already said about the passage (specifically vs. 4-6) "Verse 4 shows that the general population considered him to be punished by God for his own crimes and misdemeanors, but instead, he was paying the penalty of the sins of the people in their place, as a substitute for them" and "This is a perfect picture of the suffering servant. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all so that we might go free." (ibid.).
Of course, other passages tell us that, essentially, God kills Jesus. Even the Acts 2 passage you cite often tells us that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."
Gentry summarizes things quite well:
The “atonement theory”—to employ an anachronistic term—provided by Isaiah’s depiction of the work of the Servant in the Fourth Servant Song is multi faceted and variegated. The Servant is a figure both Davidic and royal. He is Israel and he restores Israel (Isa 49:5). He endures enormous suffering as evil is heaped upon him by his own people and by the world. But the description is more specific than this generality. He dies as a restitution sacrifice to pay the penalty for the offenses, sins, and transgressions of the many. This brings the forgiveness of sins and a right relationship to God. This brings reconciliation with God resulting in a new, ever lasting covenant of peace where faithful loyal love and obedience are maintained in our relationship to God. This also brings redemption in that just as the Exodus delivered Israel from years of slavery to Egypt, so the new Exodus delivers the many from bondage to sin. The Servant is not only the sacrifice, he is also the priest (also clearly expressedin Jer 30:21). He makes the offering. Moreover, he is a super-High Priest. The High Priest sprinkles only Israel, but this priest sprinkles the nations who are also included in the many. His ultimate anointing leads to an ultimate sprinkling on an ultimate day of atonement! And as King, the Servant fights the battle for his people and wins. He conquers not only their sin, but death itself. The many share in the victory of the one just as the one has borne the sins of the many. The broken Mosaic Covenant is replaced by a New Covenant in which all the promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants come to fruition and fulfillment. The Servant does for the nation what it could not do for itself and at the same time brings blessing to all the nations. (Gentry, SBJT, 43).The Archangel
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The Archangel -
To answer your (and @Martin Marprelate ) question, it pleased God to offer Christ as a sin offering on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. You can find this in 2 Corinthians 5 (“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”). This is enough. There is no need to take away from God Himself and make Him wrathful towards the Righteous.
In terms of passages that speak of God not condemning the just or being wrathful to the righteous, why do you think God made an exception with Jesus and how does this act of unfaithfulness (to His word) not damage the doctrine of immutability? -
Your tradition is simply unbiblical. Even throughout the OT God declares forgiveness to the repentant. God forgives our sins as He put Christ forth as the propitiation for the sins of man. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
What is more, if Christ cannot be counted as guilty (for our sin, not His own), we cannot have His righteousness. If our sin cannot be imputed to Christ, His righteousness cannot be imputed to us.
The Archangel -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The word translated "put him to grief" in the ESV is hifil and, as such, it means God (YHWH), who is the object of the sentence, is doing the action--just as in the crushing (which is piel).
I understand that people want to wiggle out of this, and I understand it's quite the chic in today's evangelicalism to try to do so, but Isaiah 53 does not appear apart from the Old Testament, especially the Law.
The Archangel -
-
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The Archangel -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The Archangel -
My comment is that the LXX denies the theory that God was wrathful towards Christ in Isaiah 53:10 while the Hebrew neither confirms or denies the theory. Your theory depends on abandoning the LXX as flawed, but even in so doing the Hebrew fails to prove your presupposition (it only allows it as a possibility, along side the LXX). When we add to this the idea that it is an abomination to God to convict the just, it seems more likely that your idea is flawed.
-
God laid on Christ our iniquities. He bears our sins. He makes our sins His own by taking us (flawed as we are) unto Himself. As man He suffered as we suffer and took upon Himself our curse (as one member suffers so does the whole body). Jesus took upon Himself the suffering of man and made our sickness His. And He was chastened on our behalf and suffered a penalty He did not owe but which we owed because of our sins. In this way Christ became the source of our forgiveness – because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the suffering which was due us.
If God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain forgiveness, someone must merit this for me because I cannot do it myself. God cannot remit the wrath towards me unless amends is made (God does not simply ignore unrighteousness). Scripture tells us that Christ mediates on our behalf. Christ became our Advocate by his own blood – His suffering and death – as He lay down His life as a sacrifice for us. His own life, His holiness and righteousness, overshadowed all of the sin and wrath He bore on behalf of mankind because He is God (Hebrews 4-5). Sin and death was swallowed up and by His stripes we are healed.
This is the biblical doctrine of penal substitution, but not the Theory of Penal Substitution. Scripture simply does not have God pouring out His wrath upon Christ. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
@johnc,
In response to my post:
"Mankind was under a curse as evidenced by our disobedience to God and magnified by the Law. The Father gave His Son for the human race, that Christ would take upon Himself our curse, knowing that He would raise Him up from the dead. The Cross was the preordained and foreknown will of God.
God laid on Christ our iniquities. He bears our sins. He makes our sins His own by taking us (flawed as we are) unto Himself. As man He suffered as we suffer and took upon Himself our curse (as one member suffers so does the whole body). Jesus took upon Himself the suffering of man and made our sickness His. And He was chastened on our behalf and suffered a penalty He did not owe but which we owed because of our sins. In this way Christ became the source of our forgiveness – because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the suffering which was due us.
If God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain forgiveness, someone must merit this for me because I cannot do it myself. God cannot remit the wrath towards me unless amends is made (God does not simply ignore unrighteousness). Scripture tells us that Christ mediates on our behalf. Christ became our Advocate by his own blood – His suffering and death – as He lay down His life as a sacrifice for us. His own life, His holiness and righteousness, overshadowed all of the sin and wrath He bore on behalf of mankind because He is God (Hebrews 4-5). Sin and death was swallowed up and by His stripes we are healed."
Although it falls some way short of full Biblical truth and does not answer my post, this statement seems to be an advance on anything you have written before. I think it may be possible to use it to develop our discussion.
But before I go into the statement in detail, may I ask, Do you stand by that statement as being your understanding of the truth of the atonement? In other posts you have declared a liking for other doctrines, such as the Satisfaction theory and Christus Victor. Is this statement something we can take as a basis for discussion or are you likely to back off it at some stage? -
No one is arguing against the fact that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon him. You are introducing passages we have both affirmed to create the illusion our disagreement is in those texts. Your tradition - that God poured His wrath upon Christ is simply false. It is something you assume (you read it into those passages). -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
[QUOYE]
Your tradition is simply unbiblical.[/QUOTE]
If it is, you have certainly not demonstrated it. It is always a sure sign of someone losing an argument when he has to resort to cheap shots and insults. :Rolleyes
-
Scripture teaches that God loved the world by sending His Son. I do not see how you missed this point, but it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us.so yes, the Cross is God pouring out His love for us.
The evidence, of course, is that your theory exists not in Scripture but in your reading of it. And yes, Christ is the sacrifice that turns away wrath.
Page 4 of 8