Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA

I read some reviews on the book. They appear to hold my view- There was no wrath from Father to Son on the cross- the wrath came from man. The complaint from those who have read the book is that they didn't talk much about Gods wrath past, present and future. Once a study of Gods wrath is done then it leaves PSA out the door as untrue. Gods wrath always falls upon the wicked, unrighteous, reprobate, ungodly, evil doers etc...... It never once in Scripture falls upon the righteous, godly, Gods chosen, the church, believers and for sure never falls upon Jesus- He is the One who dishes out Gods wrath not the one who receives Gods wrath. @Johann

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
No divine wrath, anger, killing from Father to Son then no PSA. It’s an oxymoron if that is removed from PSA. It’s like removing T or U from tulip.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the book you are recommending?

It appears to agree with me, not you . See this readers review.

death of Jesus was not because of God’s wrath but His love towards mankind.
Reviewed in Canada on 26 March 2021

Quite enlightening. Reveals how sinful we are and how loving our God is. We could not see all this for we were blinded by false doctrines we are fed by those who are not called to preach the gospel. This book makes it crystal clear and helps to understand the scriptures and the doctrine of Christ. God did not murder Jesus Christ!

Another Amazon review

Helpful information
Reviewed in the United States on 22 March 2022

I was happy with the information in this short, easily digested book. I have been rethinking penal substitution and this has been very helpful in showing me the weakness of the penal portion, while showing the strength of substitution. I would recommend this to anyone looking into the issue as an easily understood argument against penal substitution.


The book affirms what I have been teaching.

Thanks for the recommendation I will pick up a copy for myself :)

hope this helps !!!
 
Another review which I have been saying as well. Psalm 22 is a fulfillment He is the Messiah and a proclamation by quoting Ps22:1 on the cross as a declaration.

This book successfully explains 2000 years ago God came into the world to save sinners. (Isaiah 9:6). The religious elite rejected Him, charged Him as King of the Jews, and crucified Him. Sinners killed Jesus, but God raised Him from the dead. Some refuse God would let His son suffer in this way. There is no law against self-sacrificial love. By fulfilling scripture He demonstrated He is the Messiah. See Isaiah 9, Zechariah 9, Daniel 9, Isaiah 53. Psalm 22. Christ’s fingerprints are all over the Old Testament. May God open our eyes to know and love Him more

Thanks again @Johann

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
It never once in Scripture falls upon the righteous, godly, Gods chosen, the church, believers and for sure never falls upon Jesus- He is the One who dishes out Gods wrath not the one who receives Gods wrath. @Johann
Click to expand...
I never once said it-there are many proponents of PSA-I don't believe God "vent His wrath upon Christ" that is why it is Imperative on how we dialogue and choose our words-but I do hold to PSA. God is just and holy.
Another point @civic --it is not all about your view or mine, who is right or who is wrong since both of us are entering into the labors of others-to help us grow and gain a deeper understanding and appreciation re the Scriptures and what Jesus is still doing in our stead.
I sincerely hope you can understand this.
J.
 
Johann said:
I never once said it-there are many proponents of PSA-I don't believe God "vent His wrath upon Christ" that is why it is Imperative on how we dialogue and choose our words-but I do hold to PSA. God is just and holy.
Another point @civic --it is not all about your view or mine, who is right or who is wrong since both of us are entering into the labors of others-to help us grow and gain a deeper understanding and appreciation re the Scriptures and what Jesus is still doing in our stead.
I sincerely hope you can understand this.
J.
Click to expand...
There is no wrath from Father to Son. Jesus never taught it and neither did the Apostles. It was Divine Love demonstrated on the cross for our sin, not divine wrath. God so loved the world that He gave His Son. God demonstrated His love towards us in that while we were still sinner, Christ died for us. No greater love is there than a man who lays down His life for His friends.

Need I go on ?
 
Johann said:
Yes-I have a copy.
Click to expand...
Then if you are recommending it then you agree with me since they remove the penal/wrath aspect and like me affirm the substitution atonement of Jesus Christ.

I have always said 100's of times remove penal and I'm all in and this is what that book does as I have quoted several reviews.
 
civic said:
There is no wrath from Father to Son. Jesus never taught it and neither did the Apostles. It was Divine Love demonstrated on the cross for our sin, not divine wrath. God so loved the world that He gave His Son. God demonstrated His love towards us in that while we were still sinner, Christ died for us. No greater love is there than a man who lays down His life for His friends.

Need I go on ?
Click to expand...
I never once said it-there are many proponents of PSA-I don't believe God "vent His wrath upon Christ" that is why it is Imperative on how we dialogue and choose our words-but I do hold to PSA. God is just and holy.

Did you miss this?
 
Johann said:
I never once said it-there are many proponents of PSA-I don't believe God "vent His wrath upon Christ" that is why it is Imperative on how we dialogue and choose our words-but I do hold to PSA. God is just and holy.

Did you miss this?
Click to expand...
Then why have you been arguing against me on PSA in all these threads as I affirm what that book teaches on the topic as I have said 1000's of times. Jesus did not suffer Gods wrath on the cross.

That is the very basis of my thesis paper. Psalm 22:1 was a declaration He is the Messiah as the rest of the psalm was being lived out in great detail before their very eyes that day. Its a proclamation that I Am the promised Messiah !

The Trinity- Tri-Unity of God was in perfect fellowship/harmony/unity/oneness in purpose at the cross of calvary. It was Gods plan from eternity past and demonstrated Gods deep love for man by becoming one of us to redeem us from our sins. The greatest act of love as Jesus taught- No greater love is there than a man who lays down his life for his friends.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Romans 5:8
But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 3:16
By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
Then if you are recommending it then you agree with me since they remove the penal/wrath aspect and like me affirm the substitution atonement of Jesus Christ.

I have always said 100's of times remove penal and I'm all in and this is what that book does as I have quoted several reviews.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of fact that I should agree with you- but what stands written-
28. Penal substitution is therefore the nucleus which enables the other images of atonement to become an
organic whole. The suffering servant was promised vindication, precisely because he was willing to lay down
his life for the justification of many others (Isa. 53:10–12). And in fulfilment of this prophecy, Paul proclaimed
that he "was handed over because of our transgressions, and raised because of our justification" (Rom. 4:25).

The cross represents a victory over the evil one and all that stands against us because, as Paul insists, the
triumph of the cross over the powers and authorities is tied to the forgiveness of sins. The cross a cancelled
“the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2: 13–15).

Once this “record of debt” is
cancelled, Satan has no grounds of accusation to demand the sinner’s death, and so he is neutralised (Heb.
2:14–15). Finally, the death of a man on a Roman instrument of torture and execution is a demonstration of
love precisely because this insurrectionist’s death is what we deserve. Yet, Christ has taken it in our place: he
is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).7 The Spirit-wrought awareness of God’s love for us in sending his
Son to die for us, then becomes the enabling power to transform all of life, and the Christian life takes on a
“cruciform” shape (putting off/putting on; dying/rising with Christ). Thus all other images of the atonement (such
as sacrifice, moral example, victory over evil powers) derive their true power from having at their core the fact
that Christ as our representative, became sin for us and bore the wrath of God when he took the penalty of
death, in our place, on our behalf, instead of us, for us.

Biblical Criticisms
30. Some have argued that a penal substitutionary view of the atonement cannot be found in Scripture and
in fact imposes elements of pagan thinking upon the biblical view of the atonement. However, close
examination of the biblical texts, and especially a sensitivity to the way the New Testament makes use of the
categories provided by the Old Testament in its explanation of the cross of Christ, leads to quite the opposite
conclusion.
31. Firstly, we must heed the warning against an anachronistic reading of modern difficulties back into
biblical times, where they may well not exist. Martin Hengel writes, “When fundamental difficulties in
understanding arise, they are felt not by the audience of ancient times, Jewish or Gentile, but by us, the men
[and women] of today. However, precisely because of this difficulty in understanding today, we must guard
against limiting, for apologetic reasons, the fundamental significance of the soteriological interpretation of the
death of Jesus as vicarious atonement in the context of the earliest Christian preaching.”8
In part, it was the
“pagan notions” of sacrifice that made the message of Christ’s vicarious atonement immediately
understandable to the first-century Graeco-Roman world just as Old Testament categories enabled Jewish
converts to understand the death of Jesus in this way.
32. Secondly, these pagan ideas of sacrifice are nevertheless subverted, not only by the insistence that
love motivates the atonement rather than simply being a consequence of it, but most importantly by the identity
of the one who is the sacrificial “victim”. More pointedly, whilst the categories of the Old Testament sacrificial
system may well be employed at a number of points in the New Testament, at each point they are transcended,
not least by their association with the prophecy of the suffering servant. This substitutionary sacrifice is the
reality to which those shadows were pointing. Each of the elements of penal substitution — notions of sacrifice,
propitiation, the payment of the required penalty — is amply attested in the New Testament (e.g., Luke 22;
Rom. 3:21-31; 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 8-10; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 4:9-10).
33. Attempts have been made to accept as biblical the notion of substitution while denying that the death of
Christ is a specifically penal substitution.9 However, the contexts of those passages which speak of Christ
“bearing sin”, alongside the Old Testament texts which provide their background, make clear that this “bearing
sin” is to be understood as “bearing sin’s curse or penalty” (e.g., Isa. 53:6, 12; Lam. 5:7; Mark 10:45; Gal.
3:13). As the Gospel of Mark, for example, narrates Jesus’ death, it draws upon imagery from the Old
Testament which speaks loudly enough of God’s wrath (e.g., Jesus was “handed over to the nations”; he had
a cup to drink, and a baptism to undergo; he endured mockery and scorn; the darkness at noon; the cry of
dereliction).

We could go further and say that it is a nonsense in biblical thought to speak of non-penal death.

Nor does it take into account the clear sense, to both Jew and Gentile, that Jesus died “under the curse of
God”, because he died upon a cross. For all the world to see, he was “Jesus, accursed” (1 Cor. 12:3). The
explanation of this most fundamental scandal of the earliest Christian preaching was quite simple: the curse
he bore was not his own, but he bore the curse of God for us (Gal. 3:13).

There is just no way we can twist and spin it.
J.
 
Johann said:
It is not a matter of fact that I should agree with you- but what stands written-
28. Penal substitution is therefore the nucleus which enables the other images of atonement to become an
organic whole. The suffering servant was promised vindication, precisely because he was willing to lay down
his life for the justification of many others (Isa. 53:10–12). And in fulfilment of this prophecy, Paul proclaimed
that he "was handed over because of our transgressions, and raised because of our justification" (Rom. 4:25).

The cross represents a victory over the evil one and all that stands against us because, as Paul insists, the
triumph of the cross over the powers and authorities is tied to the forgiveness of sins. The cross a cancelled
“the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2: 13–15).

Once this “record of debt” is
cancelled, Satan has no grounds of accusation to demand the sinner’s death, and so he is neutralised (Heb.
2:14–15). Finally, the death of a man on a Roman instrument of torture and execution is a demonstration of
love precisely because this insurrectionist’s death is what we deserve. Yet, Christ has taken it in our place: he
is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).7 The Spirit-wrought awareness of God’s love for us in sending his
Son to die for us, then becomes the enabling power to transform all of life, and the Christian life takes on a
“cruciform” shape (putting off/putting on; dying/rising with Christ). Thus all other images of the atonement (such
as sacrifice, moral example, victory over evil powers) derive their true power from having at their core the fact
that Christ as our representative, became sin for us and bore the wrath of God when he took the penalty of
death, in our place, on our behalf, instead of us, for us.

Biblical Criticisms
30. Some have argued that a penal substitutionary view of the atonement cannot be found in Scripture and
in fact imposes elements of pagan thinking upon the biblical view of the atonement. However, close
examination of the biblical texts, and especially a sensitivity to the way the New Testament makes use of the
categories provided by the Old Testament in its explanation of the cross of Christ, leads to quite the opposite
conclusion.
31. Firstly, we must heed the warning against an anachronistic reading of modern difficulties back into
biblical times, where they may well not exist. Martin Hengel writes, “When fundamental difficulties in
understanding arise, they are felt not by the audience of ancient times, Jewish or Gentile, but by us, the men
[and women] of today. However, precisely because of this difficulty in understanding today, we must guard
against limiting, for apologetic reasons, the fundamental significance of the soteriological interpretation of the
death of Jesus as vicarious atonement in the context of the earliest Christian preaching.”8
In part, it was the
“pagan notions” of sacrifice that made the message of Christ’s vicarious atonement immediately
understandable to the first-century Graeco-Roman world just as Old Testament categories enabled Jewish
converts to understand the death of Jesus in this way.
32. Secondly, these pagan ideas of sacrifice are nevertheless subverted, not only by the insistence that
love motivates the atonement rather than simply being a consequence of it, but most importantly by the identity
of the one who is the sacrificial “victim”. More pointedly, whilst the categories of the Old Testament sacrificial
system may well be employed at a number of points in the New Testament, at each point they are transcended,
not least by their association with the prophecy of the suffering servant. This substitutionary sacrifice is the
reality to which those shadows were pointing. Each of the elements of penal substitution — notions of sacrifice,
propitiation, the payment of the required penalty — is amply attested in the New Testament (e.g., Luke 22;
Rom. 3:21-31; 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 8-10; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 4:9-10).
33. Attempts have been made to accept as biblical the notion of substitution while denying that the death of
Christ is a specifically penal substitution.9 However, the contexts of those passages which speak of Christ
“bearing sin”, alongside the Old Testament texts which provide their background, make clear that this “bearing
sin” is to be understood as “bearing sin’s curse or penalty” (e.g., Isa. 53:6, 12; Lam. 5:7; Mark 10:45; Gal.
3:13). As the Gospel of Mark, for example, narrates Jesus’ death, it draws upon imagery from the Old
Testament which speaks loudly enough of God’s wrath (e.g., Jesus was “handed over to the nations”; he had
a cup to drink, and a baptism to undergo; he endured mockery and scorn; the darkness at noon; the cry of
dereliction).

We could go further and say that it is a nonsense in biblical thought to speak of non-penal death.

Nor does it take into account the clear sense, to both Jew and Gentile, that Jesus died “under the curse of
God”, because he died upon a cross. For all the world to see, he was “Jesus, accursed” (1 Cor. 12:3). The
explanation of this most fundamental scandal of the earliest Christian preaching was quite simple: the curse
he bore was not his own, but he bore the curse of God for us (Gal. 3:13).

There is just no way we can twist and spin it.
J.
Click to expand...
Who are you quoting above ?

So now you disagree with the book.

hmmmm
 
Johann said:
It is not a matter of fact that I should agree with you- but what stands written-
28. Penal substitution is therefore the nucleus which enables the other images of atonement to become an
organic whole. The suffering servant was promised vindication, precisely because he was willing to lay down
his life for the justification of many others (Isa. 53:10–12). And in fulfilment of this prophecy, Paul proclaimed
that he "was handed over because of our transgressions, and raised because of our justification" (Rom. 4:25).

The cross represents a victory over the evil one and all that stands against us because, as Paul insists, the
triumph of the cross over the powers and authorities is tied to the forgiveness of sins. The cross a cancelled
“the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2: 13–15).

Once this “record of debt” is
cancelled, Satan has no grounds of accusation to demand the sinner’s death, and so he is neutralised (Heb.
2:14–15). Finally, the death of a man on a Roman instrument of torture and execution is a demonstration of
love precisely because this insurrectionist’s death is what we deserve. Yet, Christ has taken it in our place: he
is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).7 The Spirit-wrought awareness of God’s love for us in sending his
Son to die for us, then becomes the enabling power to transform all of life, and the Christian life takes on a
“cruciform” shape (putting off/putting on; dying/rising with Christ). Thus all other images of the atonement (such
as sacrifice, moral example, victory over evil powers) derive their true power from having at their core the fact
that Christ as our representative, became sin for us and bore the wrath of God when he took the penalty of
death, in our place, on our behalf, instead of us, for us.

Biblical Criticisms
30. Some have argued that a penal substitutionary view of the atonement cannot be found in Scripture and
in fact imposes elements of pagan thinking upon the biblical view of the atonement. However, close
examination of the biblical texts, and especially a sensitivity to the way the New Testament makes use of the
categories provided by the Old Testament in its explanation of the cross of Christ, leads to quite the opposite
conclusion.
31. Firstly, we must heed the warning against an anachronistic reading of modern difficulties back into
biblical times, where they may well not exist. Martin Hengel writes, “When fundamental difficulties in
understanding arise, they are felt not by the audience of ancient times, Jewish or Gentile, but by us, the men
[and women] of today. However, precisely because of this difficulty in understanding today, we must guard
against limiting, for apologetic reasons, the fundamental significance of the soteriological interpretation of the
death of Jesus as vicarious atonement in the context of the earliest Christian preaching.”8
In part, it was the
“pagan notions” of sacrifice that made the message of Christ’s vicarious atonement immediately
understandable to the first-century Graeco-Roman world just as Old Testament categories enabled Jewish
converts to understand the death of Jesus in this way.
32. Secondly, these pagan ideas of sacrifice are nevertheless subverted, not only by the insistence that
love motivates the atonement rather than simply being a consequence of it, but most importantly by the identity
of the one who is the sacrificial “victim”. More pointedly, whilst the categories of the Old Testament sacrificial
system may well be employed at a number of points in the New Testament, at each point they are transcended,
not least by their association with the prophecy of the suffering servant. This substitutionary sacrifice is the
reality to which those shadows were pointing. Each of the elements of penal substitution — notions of sacrifice,
propitiation, the payment of the required penalty — is amply attested in the New Testament (e.g., Luke 22;
Rom. 3:21-31; 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 8-10; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 4:9-10).
33. Attempts have been made to accept as biblical the notion of substitution while denying that the death of
Christ is a specifically penal substitution.9 However, the contexts of those passages which speak of Christ
“bearing sin”, alongside the Old Testament texts which provide their background, make clear that this “bearing
sin” is to be understood as “bearing sin’s curse or penalty” (e.g., Isa. 53:6, 12; Lam. 5:7; Mark 10:45; Gal.
3:13). As the Gospel of Mark, for example, narrates Jesus’ death, it draws upon imagery from the Old
Testament which speaks loudly enough of God’s wrath (e.g., Jesus was “handed over to the nations”; he had
a cup to drink, and a baptism to undergo; he endured mockery and scorn; the darkness at noon; the cry of
dereliction).

We could go further and say that it is a nonsense in biblical thought to speak of non-penal death.

Nor does it take into account the clear sense, to both Jew and Gentile, that Jesus died “under the curse of
God”, because he died upon a cross. For all the world to see, he was “Jesus, accursed” (1 Cor. 12:3). The
explanation of this most fundamental scandal of the earliest Christian preaching was quite simple: the curse
he bore was not his own, but he bore the curse of God for us (Gal. 3:13).

There is just no way we can twist and spin it.
J.
Click to expand...
I will quote @Joe below:

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15)

"...you are not under law but under grace." (Rom 6:14)

(Rom 3:19-26, NLT) Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. (20) For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. (21) But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. (22) We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. (23) For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. (24) Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. (25) For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, (26) for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

The Law reveals we are guilty of sin, and it also reveals how God ultimately deals with our sin; the sacrificial death of a spotless-unblemished lamb that dies for the sins of the people. In the Law we can see both the righteousness of God that we fall short, and the grace of God that removes our shortcoming. What we do not see is any wrath poured out upon the sacrifices. What we see is a quick death of an unblemished animal that is holy to the Lord and dies for one purpose, for the sins of the people. The people placed their hands upon the animal and confessed their sins. This was not imputation of sin, but a declaration of their own sins and the realization the spotless-guiltless animal was dying on their behalf so they could live. And so it is with our declaration of belief in Jesus Christ. We are water baptized to associate ourselves with His death for us on a cross, where He willingly took the judgement of death for our sins. We realize that our sinless Lord died for sins so we can live a newness of life, and we publicly declare that in water baptism (Rom 6:3-7).

Jesus Christ is God's Lamb that He sent into this world to exchange His sinless-spotless, unblemished human life for our freedom from sin and death (Heb 9:15). His death was purposed. It was for putting an end to sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness, and making reconciliation for our iniquity (ref, Dan 9:24). God initiated His new covenant with the blood of His own Son, "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."(Mat 26:27-28), and with His death the old covenant that brings wrath upon us is obsoleted, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." (Heb 8:13) And in speaking of the new covenant, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Heb 8:10-12)

The central theme of the Lord's death was for purifying us of sin. It was not about God pouring wrath out upon Him. There is no record of any NT author in the bible expressing God pouring wrath upon His Son. What we do read from the Apostle Paul is quite the opposite. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, "But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2Co 5:18-19). When did reconciliation-atonement happen? It happened when our Lord died on the cross for our sins. God was in Him when that happened. What is the ministry that Paul stated God gave him to minister? "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses".

Our Lord Himself made this statement to the disciples the night of His arrest, "Behold, the time is coming, yes, and has now come, that you will be scattered, everyone to his own place, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me." (Joh 16:32) And we know when our Lord gave up His life unto death He said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46)

The death of the Lord was a mission of love and mercy. God was in His Son and never left Him alone; this is what we read in the bible. God was not pouring wrath upon His Son, as I once thought too. Instead, "God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ: (2 Cor 5:21, NLT)

It is true "the Law brings wrath", but it is also true "grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:17)

Our Lord died as a ransom to set us free from sin, and He arose to give us eternal life. His death was explicitly for the removal-purification of our sins and the enactment of the new covenant; and all of this by God's loving and merciful grace. Our Lord Jesus Christ bought us out of the first contract and put us under a new better one...one that lasts forever! (Heb 8 and 9)

God Bless
 
And once again @Joe captures the heart of God and the gospel below :

The Hebrew word מוּסָר mûsâr (moo-sawr) is used in Isa 53:5 and means chastisement, which in Hebrewmeans instruction, training, correction given by parents upon their children to perfect-to complete them. Chastisement includes learning by suffering. One can chasten his son by causing him to suffer to one degree or another with the purpose to teach him something that he might otherwise not learn. This is called discipline as well.

Now that Isa 53:5 has been fulfilled, we know God told man ahead of time He would perfect His Son to be the Author of Salvation through the sufferings that brought us peace with Him. Our Lord's real experiences of humbling Himself to come into our form and living in our human weakness, suffering and giving up His life unto death on account of our sins is what purifies us of our sins and reconciled-restored our relationship to God.

Here we are informed that God made our Lord, the Author of our salvation "perfect" through suffering.
"For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the Author of their salvation perfect through suffering." (Heb 2:10)

Again, we are informed that our Lord "learned obedience through what He suffered", and was "made perfect" by it, becoming the source of salvation.
"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek." (Heb 5:7-10)

Here we are informed the oath of God "appoints a Son forever who has been perfected".
"For such a high priest was fitting for us: holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who doesn’t need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. For he did this once for all, when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men as high priests who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the law appoints a Son forever who has been perfected." (Heb 7:26-28)

The Hebrew understanding of chastisement does not mean penal punishment like us westerners have been led to think. It means instruction, training, or correction to perfect a person, to make them complete.

The suffering and death that Jesus our Lord experienced taught Him in all ways what it was to be in the weakness of humanity, so that He could fully sympathize with us; this being what He learned that qualifies Him to be "the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him". This chastisement-being perfected through suffering-was upon Him for our peace, for our sakes ulitmately.

God Bless
 
civic said:
Who are you quoting above ?

So now you disagree with the book.

hmmmm
Click to expand...
I am busy reading the book-does it mean I should take it as infallible?
We all have our biases and here is a quote from Got Questions--
In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.
www.gotquestions.org

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? | GotQuestions.org

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? What is the penal substitution understanding of the atonement?
www.gotquestions.org
 

Similar threads

civic
Origin of PSA
Replies
17
Views
446
101G
101G
civic
Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX
7 8 9
Replies
179
Views
3K
praise_yeshua
P
Johann
Why I hold to PSA.
Replies
5
Views
129
TomL
T
civic
PSA is necessary for the U and L in TULIP
2 3
Replies
54
Views
758
TomL
T
The Rogue Tomato
Isaiah 53 from the dead sea scrolls
Replies
2
Views
313
Johann
Johann
Back
Top Bottom