Diserner
Well-known member
He's entitled to his opinion on how scholarly something is.
That doesn't give you the right to insult him and accuse his motivations.
Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
He's entitled to his opinion on how scholarly something is.
That doesn't give you the right to insult him and accuse his motivations.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Truth AND Grace, not unnecessarily hurtful "truths" you call opinion.
I see. Only he is entitled to his opinion - no matter how insulting it is. My opinion is deemed "insulting," which removes it as a right or even entitlement. Gotcha!
civic
Well-known member
Let me know what you think about this and pretend for the sake of argument you are a trinitarian reading this
This paper is about the Trinity, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement (e.g., PSA), as it relates to the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.
God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.
We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.
God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.
Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.
Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.
God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.
What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.
God can do anything and everything is what sovereignty means by definition. God will only do what is loving and what is righteousness. Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind?
How does the doctrine of PSA coincide with our God who is love?
Is the doctrine of PSA an expression of Gods love in the atonement?
These are the types of questions we will be examining to see how they line up with what the bible declares God is like in His nature and character. We will be examining the 2 major passages in the O.T. where the doctrine of PSA has its origin that are from Isaiah 53:4 and 53:10 and Psalm 22.
Should this be more condensed ?
Wrangler
Well-known member
You make MASSIVE demands! But I get it. Not every single post has to be in the subject.Let me know what you think about this and pretend for the sake of argument you are a trinitarian reading this
I hope to read your executive summary and reply within the next few hours.
civic
Well-known member
the one place in Scripture where God allegedly appears to want sin to take place, is in the first part of verse 10 of Isaiah chapter 53:
“But the LORD was pleased to crush Him…” (NASB)
“Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him…” (NIV)
I disagree. Now, I would like to present a few points to consider why I do NOT think Isaiah 53:10 is suggesting that God “pulled the trigger”, and why I do not think God hoped for or wanted the killing of Jesus (rather, merely allowed it).
- “Cleanse” or “Crushed”?
“καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν”[12]
“The LXX has the servant’s disability removed by translating 53:10 as “Yet the LORD determined to cleanse him [the servant] of his disease.’ The translation suggests a very different meaning than the Masoretic Hebrew text.[13]
- Meaning of “דכאו” (“crush”)
In Hebrew
While in many cases in Biblical Hebrew, דכא\ו means a negative “oppressed” or “crushed”. It can also mean a positive “cleanse”, “humble” or “meek”.
A good example of this conflict in translation can be found in the way different Bible translations translated “.ד.כ.א” into English. For example:
– Psalm 34:18 (וְאֶת-דַּכְּאֵי-רוּחַ יוֹשִׁיעַ…)
NIV: “…and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English: “…and he saves the meek in spirit.”
Douay-Rheims: “…and he will save the humble of spirit.”.- Jeremiah 44:10 (לֹא דֻכְּאוּ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה…)
NIV: “To this day they have not humbled themselves”.
NASB: “”But they have not become contrite even to this day”.
Douay-Rheims: “They are not cleansed even to this day”In Aramaic
The word דכא in Aramaic and the word דכא in Hebrew appear the exact same way, which most likely means there is a connection between the two, and probably testify of a shared origin. Either way, in contrast to the dual definitions in Hebrew, the word in Aramaic means “to cleanse”, or “to purify”,[14] supporting the view of the LXX. - Translations of דַּכְּאוֹ (Cleanse vs. Crushed)
Most English Bible translations, going with the Masoretic text, choose the word “crushed” for Isaiah 53:10’s “דַּכְּאוֹ“.
However, not all did so. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) which is based on the Septuagint, translated the verse: “And the LORD willed to cleanse him of the beating…” (ABP)
It appears there is a wide semantic range for the word in question (דכאו) appearing in Isaiah 53:10, and therefore one should be careful when developing a world-changing theology, which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, based on one single word.
- Meaning of Isaiah 53:10
But lets us assume that “crush” is indeed the correct translation. What could Isaiah have meant when he declared “the LORD was pleased to crush Him”?
First, we must remember that Isaiah 53 is a metaphorical style of writing, of a prophecy which portrays Israel’s point of view. We should be careful not to take every word literally. After all, there is no hovering arm of God floating from the skies touching people (verse 1), Jesus is not a root (verse 2), we are not sheep (verse 6), Jesus was not always silent (verse 7), and He did not have babies (verse 10). In the same way, we should look at “the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (verse 10) – with the same metaphorical view in mind.
The Old Testament describes sacrifices as something in which God takes pleasure in.
A “soothing aroma” that God “smells”.[15]
Let’s consider Isaiah 1:11:
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.”
God is no longer taking pleasure in the aroma coming from Israel’s sacrifices.
That word for “pleasure” (חָפָצְתִּי) in Isaiah 1:11 is the same Hebrew word Isaiah uses in the first line of Isaiah 53:10, “But the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (חָפֵץ).
In other words, God is not taking pleasure in the aroma coming from the sacrifice of animals (Isaiah 1). He does take pleasure however, in the aroma coming from the sacrifice of the righteous, glorified and flawless Messiah. It is not in the death itself that God takes pleasure, but in what that death produces.[16]
God takes pleasure and satisfaction in the fact that the need for atonement (in exchange for our lives) is being met. An atonement that took place thanks to the death of the Messiah.
The point is, that God took pleasure not in the Messiah being rejected, tortured and dying (which would make Him a bullying, angry, harsh, vengeful God) but rather took pleasure in the perfect sacrifice finally being provided. Metaphorically, it is as if Isaiah was saying: “the LORD was pleased to receive Him as sacrifice.”oneforisrael.org
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
This is excellent from one for Israel.org
Golgotha is the peak of humanity’s greatest crimes — pride, rivalry, blame, violence, domination and such, which were met with judgment. Judgment of the human system called “civilization” for what it really is: a war over power and control enforced by violence so corrupted that it is even capable of murdering God Himself – in the name of “truth and justice”.
But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.
The cross is both hideous and glorious, simultaneously ugly and beautiful. It’s as disgusting as human sin and as marvelous as divine love. It is a perfect demonstration of Paul’s line of thought when he claimed, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20).
What the cross is not is a place where an angry God unloaded and discharged His frustrations and anger with humanity. Jesus did not save us from God, but revealed God as a loving Savior willing to lay down His own life so ours can be forgiven.
The understanding that God allowed us to reject, torture and kill His Son, voids the concept of a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano, a baby to be burnt or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree in order to satisfy his wrath and calm him down. Although we met with the depths of human depravity, we also met with the depth of God’s love for us, gaining His forgiveness.
Jesus was “sacrificed by the Father” only in the sense of the Father sending his Son into human civilization in order to reveal to us how corrupt and sinful we are – so sinful that we even murdered God Himself. God did not will the murder of His Son, He simply knew it would occur and allowed it.
Three centuries before Christ, Plato, knowing the human heart and the evil of civilization, predicted exactly that: “our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered…and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”[31]
The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.
The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.
The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath.
The conclusion is this: It was not God who killed Jesus. It was us, human civilization, who killed Jesus. But the all-knowing, all-loving God knew we would reject His Son, yet allowed it in order for Jesus to become the ultimate once and for all sacrifice for our sake.
@sethproton
@dizerner
hope this helps !!!
Golgotha is the peak of humanity’s greatest crimes — pride, rivalry, blame, violence, domination and such, which were met with judgment. Judgment of the human system called “civilization” for what it really is: a war over power and control enforced by violence so corrupted that it is even capable of murdering God Himself – in the name of “truth and justice”.
But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.
The cross is both hideous and glorious, simultaneously ugly and beautiful. It’s as disgusting as human sin and as marvelous as divine love. It is a perfect demonstration of Paul’s line of thought when he claimed, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20).
What the cross is not is a place where an angry God unloaded and discharged His frustrations and anger with humanity. Jesus did not save us from God, but revealed God as a loving Savior willing to lay down His own life so ours can be forgiven.
The understanding that God allowed us to reject, torture and kill His Son, voids the concept of a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano, a baby to be burnt or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree in order to satisfy his wrath and calm him down. Although we met with the depths of human depravity, we also met with the depth of God’s love for us, gaining His forgiveness.
Jesus was “sacrificed by the Father” only in the sense of the Father sending his Son into human civilization in order to reveal to us how corrupt and sinful we are – so sinful that we even murdered God Himself. God did not will the murder of His Son, He simply knew it would occur and allowed it.
Three centuries before Christ, Plato, knowing the human heart and the evil of civilization, predicted exactly that: “our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered…and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”[31]
The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.
The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.
The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath.
The conclusion is this: It was not God who killed Jesus. It was us, human civilization, who killed Jesus. But the all-knowing, all-loving God knew we would reject His Son, yet allowed it in order for Jesus to become the ultimate once and for all sacrifice for our sake.
@sethproton
@dizerner
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
Looks excellent!
You can also point out what I pointed out earlier about the Greek word βούλεται. The Greek word βούλεται is a volitional word, not an emotive word. Therefore, the word "pleased" is the wrong English word to use.
Isa 53:10 (LXX) καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς· ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον· καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν
The underlined LXX phrase can be literally translated as such: And the Lord willingly cleanse him his wounds. It sounds awkward in English but again the thing to note is that there is no "pleased" in the Greek text. βούλεται denotes volition, not emotion.
Anja
Member
civic
Well-known member
Thanks much appreciated brother!
civic
Well-known member
Read my post after as it summarizes what I believe exactly about the atonement. I might add some of that to my paper and reference it since it was communicated in such a way that the simplest layperson can understand. Post #67
heavenbound
New member
I just read this and for me it was very helpful. I have struggled with trying to understand and make sense about Jesus sacrifice. I had one of those aha moments reading this and it has given me some clarity about Jesus sacrifice for my sins.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Thanks for taking the time to write this Executive Summary. You obviously put a lot of time on this and I appreciate you.
More than read it from the standpoint that I - the audience - am a trinitarian, as you said, my feedback will not be on the doctrine; but only the writing flow. So, in that respect, my feedback is like an editor rather than theological apologist. Sound fair?
Outstanding!
EDIT: In reading it a 2nd time, it does seem like either "the trinity" should be deleted OR replace the comma with "and." I think a basic decision you have to make is in the scope of the book you plan to write:
Perhaps you need to divide your book into 2 parts. Part I being the prerequisite, develop an understanding of and your defense or apology of trinitarianism.
From this framework, Part II emerges; your analysis of PSA.
See summary comment below.
Again, outstanding!
See summary comment below.
I assume you will reconcile the notions of 2nd Death and the Lake of Fire with this last statement in the body of your work?
See summary comment below.
Answering these questions ought to form the bulk of your Executive Summary. Alternatively, expand on why these are the questions to ask.
Condensed in part. Expanded in part
SUMMARY COMMENT:
Very well written! I know you are a devoted trinitarian and certainly appreciate your devotion to our lord. It seems to me that the bulk of your Executive Summary is truly a trinitarian apology rather than a summary explanation of PSA.
You almost immediately deviate from your thesis statement on PSA in defending trinitarianism, then return to PSA at the end. If you want to write a paper or book on defending trinitarianism, that's fine also. But in terms of PSA, these key questions you ask at the end really should form the heart of your PSA Executive Summary. Either answer them in summary fashion or flush out why these are the pertinent questions.
Your writing is so compelling, that I really do want to read your answers to the questions you pose.
Hope this helps, my friend!
More than read it from the standpoint that I - the audience - am a trinitarian, as you said, my feedback will not be on the doctrine; but only the writing flow. So, in that respect, my feedback is like an editor rather than theological apologist. Sound fair?
Outstanding!
EDIT: In reading it a 2nd time, it does seem like either "the trinity" should be deleted OR replace the comma with "and." I think a basic decision you have to make is in the scope of the book you plan to write:
- PSA
- PSA and the trinity
Perhaps you need to divide your book into 2 parts. Part I being the prerequisite, develop an understanding of and your defense or apology of trinitarianism.
From this framework, Part II emerges; your analysis of PSA.
See summary comment below.
Again, outstanding!
I really like this.
See summary comment below.
I assume you will reconcile the notions of 2nd Death and the Lake of Fire with this last statement in the body of your work?
See summary comment below.
Answering these questions ought to form the bulk of your Executive Summary. Alternatively, expand on why these are the questions to ask.
Condensed in part. Expanded in part
SUMMARY COMMENT:
Very well written! I know you are a devoted trinitarian and certainly appreciate your devotion to our lord. It seems to me that the bulk of your Executive Summary is truly a trinitarian apology rather than a summary explanation of PSA.
You almost immediately deviate from your thesis statement on PSA in defending trinitarianism, then return to PSA at the end. If you want to write a paper or book on defending trinitarianism, that's fine also. But in terms of PSA, these key questions you ask at the end really should form the heart of your PSA Executive Summary. Either answer them in summary fashion or flush out why these are the pertinent questions.
Your writing is so compelling, that I really do want to read your answers to the questions you pose.
Hope this helps, my friend!
civic
Well-known member
Thanks for the feedback. The major problem I found with PSA has to do with the nature/character of God and it would be true if God was one person or 3, it wouldn't matter. But since I'm a trinitarian my main objection is how the doctrine pits the Father against the Son and this would also be true for unitarianism as well.Thanks for taking the time to write this Executive Summary. You obviously put a lot of time on this and I appreciate you.
More than read it from the standpoint that I - the audience - am a trinitarian, as you said, my feedback will not be on the doctrine; but only the writing flow. So, in that respect, my feedback is like an editor rather than theological apologist. Sound fair?
Outstanding!
EDIT: In reading it a 2nd time, it does seem like either "the trinity" should be deleted OR replace the comma with "and." I think a basic decision you have to make is in the scope of the book you plan to write:
I know trinitarians have a way of connecting everything. Still, it is my view that these need to be somewhat separate in terms of clear stream of analysis.
- PSA
- PSA and the trinity
Perhaps you need to divide your book into 2 parts. Part I being the prerequisite, develop an understanding of and your defense or apology of trinitarianism.
From this framework, Part II emerges; your analysis of PSA.
See summary comment below.
Again, outstanding!
I really like this.
See summary comment below.
I assume you will reconcile the notions of 2nd Death and the Lake of Fire with this last statement in the body of your work?
See summary comment below.
Answering these questions ought to form the bulk of your Executive Summary. Alternatively, expand on why these are the questions to ask.
Condensed in part. Expanded in part
SUMMARY COMMENT:
Very well written! I know you are a devoted trinitarian and certainly appreciate your devotion to our lord. It seems to me that the bulk of your Executive Summary is truly a trinitarian apology rather than a summary explanation of PSA.
You almost immediately deviate from your thesis statement on PSA in defending trinitarianism, then return to PSA at the end. If you want to write a paper or book on defending trinitarianism, that's fine also. But in terms of PSA, these key questions you ask at the end really should form the heart of your PSA Executive Summary. Either answer them in summary fashion or flush out why these are the pertinent questions.
Your writing is so compelling, that I really do want to read your answers to the questions you pose.
Hope this helps, my friend!
I will work on your above suggestions.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Agreed!
Hmmm. I believe the unitarian or trinitarian question is different from PSA. As is the question of does PSA pit or not pit the Father against the Son. So, a 2 x 2 matrix depicts the orientation of analysis.
Delving now into the theology of it ... In my view PSA does NOT pit Father against Son. The figurative expression, "the wages of sin is death" means the penalty for sin is death. Someone has to die for the existence of sin.
The miracle is the device God uses to solve this problem. In the Old Covenant, there was an animal sacrifice. Although not explicitly stated, it is demonstrated that it is not one and done. That is, it is not one animal sacrifice per person. Rather it is closer to one animal sacrifice for each sin each person commits without end.
In the New Covenant, God reveals his sovereign will that one divine sacrifice will cover all sin. The reason that this does not pit Father against Son is precisely because this is the means why which the Son is to be glorified. I draw your attention to John 17. My Study Bible calls this the real Lord's Prayer. It is not intellectual like Matthew 5-6. It is deeply personal and emotionally raw. You can just feel the emotional pain Christ has at the thought of leaving his friends. It always brings tears to my eyes.
Jesus (lifting His face to the heavens): Father, My time has come. Glorify Your Son ...
I will no longer be physically present in this world, but they will remain in this world. As I return to be with You, holy Father, remain with them through Your name, the name You have given Me. May they be one even as We are one. 12 While I was physically present with them, I protected them through Your name ...
John 17:1, 11-12 (VOICE)
I will work on your above suggestions.
Great! If you want, you can send me a PM, then email.
I assume you are using MS Word in writing your book? Do you know there is a fairly good editing (REVIEW) feature in MS Word, where we could exchange ideas? It displays pretty well 3 different editorial revisions:
- Your original draft.
- My suggested changes and comments.
- Your thoughts on my suggested changes.
In writing scholarly papers as @Johann referenced earlier, there were times that #2 and #3 were a lot more words than the original draft for a given sentence or paragraph. (Obviously, in the final draft, all our exchanges would be deleted.)
If you want, we could practice the capability of MS Word using text other than your current draft just to exercise the capability of the software. Let me know how I can help.
Make a Blessed Day!
Wrangler
Well-known member
The more I think about this, the more I think it's been done to death. What can you possibly add new to the Pantheon of trinitarian apologies that have not been made over the last 1600 years?
Instead, consider Part I being an anthology, paying homage to the great defenses of trinitarianism of the past. I'm not sure this has been done before. Any good academic paper has uber references. You can present a cream of the crop, pointing the reader to an ocean of more material, authors and Christian heritage.
I personally would like to see a background biography of the trinitarian you are paying homage to. I love that sort of thing! It humanizes the man rather than present him as a 2D philosophical treaty. Person X said XX. Why should I care? When you make them a real person the reader can care, which only strengthens your position.
In listening to a podcast today by Wild At Heart, John Eldredge talked about how Christianity is both intellectual but also highly experiential. What convinced these wayward men of old to turn to the trinitarian God? Good, good stuff!
My friend on another forum Trevor posted this as his reasons against PSA.
I have addressed all of you as each of you have affirmed PSA but possibly not in the very strong terms as quoted above. I suggest that PSA is either correct or wrong and I can understand the strong feelings expressed by those who have held this view and consider it an essential doctrine. I have been interested in the subject of the Atonement and in my own fellowship this has been a subject that has been discussed over many years with a range of opinions. I encountered a different view and this seemed to me strange at the time when I was 16, over 60 years ago, and since then I have heard this subject discussed and documented many times, and I have gradually formed what I consider to be a reasonable assessment of the Bible teaching.
To state my position very clearly, I find the concept of PSA very difficult to accept and some reasons for this is the result of the other doctrines that I espouse, and these are possibly different from what most on this thread accept. The first of these I have explained in Posts #46 and #47 that I do not believe in the immortality of the soul. Now I have a problem with PSA here on this aspect as I believe that Adam was sentenced to die, and to return to the dust and as such he would cease to exist. Now if Jesus is our substitute and has taken our punishment, then he should have died instead of us, and not be raised from the dead. But Jesus died and was resurrected and we still die.
Not only is there a problem as a result of the anticipated death of Adam in Genesis 3:19 as the punishment upon Adam, there is also mentioned in the same passage that Adam would be subject to suffering:
Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
The subject of suffering is wide ranging, but again I cannot understand how PSA applies here. Jesus suffered, but the descendants of Adam including the faithful still suffer. Mankind in general have come under this curse upon the earth, possibly relieved in some countries by mechanisation, but this is not a direct result of the sacrifice of Christ. Also many of the faithful have suffered before the crucifixion, Abel. Job and Joseph and many others, and this did not change after the crucifixion, for example Stephen, James, Paul, Peter and John suffered. So as such, the sufferings of Christ is not a substitute in order that the faithful do not suffer, but instead these ALL suffered after the same pattern of Christ's suffering. Thus here we are moving away from PSA concepts, and start revealing that Jesus is our representative.
Also the whole Book of Job considers the subject of "Why does a righteous man suffer" and a consideration of this subject helps to understand the sufferings of Christ. One of our expositors suggested that one of the main themes is to answer the faulty syllogism:
Suffering is the result of sin; Job is a great sufferer; therefore Job must be a great sinner.
A proper study and understanding of the Book of Job lays a proper basis to better understand the sufferings of Christ, and this also moves away from PSA concepts and comes closer to the belief that Jesus suffered as our representative.
Then there is the concept that PSA claims, that God punishes the innocent so that the guilty can go free. This is simply a travesty of justice, and does not in any way declare God's righteousness or justice. Also PSA cannot speak about the forgiveness of sins, if the penalty has been paid.
I have addressed all of you as each of you have affirmed PSA but possibly not in the very strong terms as quoted above. I suggest that PSA is either correct or wrong and I can understand the strong feelings expressed by those who have held this view and consider it an essential doctrine. I have been interested in the subject of the Atonement and in my own fellowship this has been a subject that has been discussed over many years with a range of opinions. I encountered a different view and this seemed to me strange at the time when I was 16, over 60 years ago, and since then I have heard this subject discussed and documented many times, and I have gradually formed what I consider to be a reasonable assessment of the Bible teaching.
To state my position very clearly, I find the concept of PSA very difficult to accept and some reasons for this is the result of the other doctrines that I espouse, and these are possibly different from what most on this thread accept. The first of these I have explained in Posts #46 and #47 that I do not believe in the immortality of the soul. Now I have a problem with PSA here on this aspect as I believe that Adam was sentenced to die, and to return to the dust and as such he would cease to exist. Now if Jesus is our substitute and has taken our punishment, then he should have died instead of us, and not be raised from the dead. But Jesus died and was resurrected and we still die.
Not only is there a problem as a result of the anticipated death of Adam in Genesis 3:19 as the punishment upon Adam, there is also mentioned in the same passage that Adam would be subject to suffering:
Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
The subject of suffering is wide ranging, but again I cannot understand how PSA applies here. Jesus suffered, but the descendants of Adam including the faithful still suffer. Mankind in general have come under this curse upon the earth, possibly relieved in some countries by mechanisation, but this is not a direct result of the sacrifice of Christ. Also many of the faithful have suffered before the crucifixion, Abel. Job and Joseph and many others, and this did not change after the crucifixion, for example Stephen, James, Paul, Peter and John suffered. So as such, the sufferings of Christ is not a substitute in order that the faithful do not suffer, but instead these ALL suffered after the same pattern of Christ's suffering. Thus here we are moving away from PSA concepts, and start revealing that Jesus is our representative.
Also the whole Book of Job considers the subject of "Why does a righteous man suffer" and a consideration of this subject helps to understand the sufferings of Christ. One of our expositors suggested that one of the main themes is to answer the faulty syllogism:
Suffering is the result of sin; Job is a great sufferer; therefore Job must be a great sinner.
A proper study and understanding of the Book of Job lays a proper basis to better understand the sufferings of Christ, and this also moves away from PSA concepts and comes closer to the belief that Jesus suffered as our representative.
Then there is the concept that PSA claims, that God punishes the innocent so that the guilty can go free. This is simply a travesty of justice, and does not in any way declare God's righteousness or justice. Also PSA cannot speak about the forgiveness of sins, if the penalty has been paid.
civic
Well-known member
Those are excellent reasons to reject PSA. I knew him from another forum years ago. He is a unitarian and a very good one. We use to have some great and friendly discussions. Let him know that civic welcomes him to come join us here.
civic
Well-known member
my point it an entire doctrine comes from 2 single verses in Isaiah 53. Those 2 verses are not mentioned in the N.T. but there are plenty of other verses from Isaiah 53 quoted in the NT several times.
If those 2 verses which are the foundation for PSA are so essential God sure didn't think so since He left them completely out of the N.T. You see PSA is unbiblical and Jesus nor the Apostles never mentioned anything about wrath from Father to Son and the Savior who made Atonement said just the opposite it was done out of Love with the Father/Son not out of anger/wrath, retribution,vengeance etc........
Within the study of the doctrine on PSA, the central O.T. passage it comes from is found in Isaiah 53. Let us look at how the N.T. quotes Isaiah 53 and see how the N.T. writers viewed the passages and used them in the N.T. and what language from Isaiah 53 they applied to Jesus in the N.T. regarding suffering.
In doing so, a few things stand out.
There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution.
Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God.
The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25.
Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53. In the New Testament those 2 verses are not once mentioned or alluded to at all. Shaky ground to build an entire systematic theology upon. Its sinking sand as a foundation.
It has been said that Isaiah 53 is directly quoted or alluded to in the N.T. close to 85 times.
Below is a chart for those who are interested.
Isaiah in the New Testament - Quotations Chart - In Isaiah Order
Isaiah is frequently quoted in the New Testament, and this page gives you the references by the order in which they occur in Isaiah.
www.simplybible.com
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
This is from Ralph Wilson
It's difficult to count the exact number of quotations from the Old Testament, because often the New Testament reference will be an incomplete quotation or an allusion (but not a direct quotation) of a verse in the Old Testament. But the following tables will give you an idea of these quotations.
You will note that Isaiah is quoted (or alluded to) in the Gospels approximately 21 times, 25 times in Paul's letters, 6 times in 1 Peter, 5 times in Acts, 4 times in Revelation, and once in Hebrews.
It's difficult to count the exact number of quotations from the Old Testament, because often the New Testament reference will be an incomplete quotation or an allusion (but not a direct quotation) of a verse in the Old Testament. But the following tables will give you an idea of these quotations.
You will note that Isaiah is quoted (or alluded to) in the Gospels approximately 21 times, 25 times in Paul's letters, 6 times in 1 Peter, 5 times in Acts, 4 times in Revelation, and once in Hebrews.
| 1:9 | Romans 9:29 |
| 7:14 | Matthew 1:23 |
| 8:12 | 1 Peter 3:14 |
| 8:14; 28:16 | Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6; 1 Peter 2:8 |
| 9:1-2 | Matthew 4:15-16 |
| 10:22-23 | Romans 9:27-28 |
| 11:10 | Romans 15:12 |
| 22:13 | 1 Corinthians 15:32 |
| 22:22 | Revelation 3:7 |
| 25:8 | 1 Corinthians 15:54 |
| 28:11-12 | 1 Corinthians 14:21 |
| 29:13 | Matthew 15:8,9; Mark 7:6,7 |
| 29:14 | 1 Corinthians 1:19 |
| 29:16 | Romans 9:20 |
| 35:3 | Hebrews 12:12 |
| 40:13-14 | Romans 11:34,35; 1 Corinthians 2:16 |
| 40:3-5 | Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23. |
| 40:6-8 | 1 Peter 1:24-25 |
| 41:4 | Revelation 1:17 |
| 42:1-4 | Matthew 12:18-21 |
| 42:6 | Acts 13:47 |
| 44:6 | Revelation 1:17 |
| 45:9 | Romans 9:20 |
| 45:23 | Romans 14:11 |
| 45:23 | Philippians 2:10-11 |
| 49:6 | Acts 13:47 |
| 49:10 | Revelation 7:16 |
| 49:8 | 2 Corinthians 6:2 |
| 52:11 | 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 |
| 52:15 | Romans 15:21 |
| 52:5 | Romans 2:24 |
| 52:7 | Romans 10:15 |
| 53:1 | John 12:38; Romans 10:16 |
| 53:12 | Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37 |
| 53:4 | Matthew 8:17 |
| 53:5 | 1 Peter 2:24 |
| 53:7-8 | Acts 8:32-33 |
| 53:9 | 1 Peter 2:22 |
| 54:1 | Galatians 4:27 |
| 54:13. | John 6:45 |
| 55:3 | Acts 13:34. |
| 56:7 | Matthew 21:13 |
| 59:20-21 | Romans 11:26-27 |
| 6:9-10 | Matthew 13:14,15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27 |
| 60:1 | Ephesians 5:14 |
| 60:20-21 | Revelation 21:23 |
| 61:1-2 | Luke 4:18-19 |
| 64:4 | 1 Corinthians 2:9 |
| 65:1-1 | Romans 10:20-21 |
| 66:1-2 | Acts 7:49-50 |
| 66:24 | Mark 9:44 |
101G
Well-known member
not haven't read all the post, that's easy, Matthew 8:16 "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:" Matthew 8:17 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."
and Romans 15:3 "For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."
and 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."
now, the term "smitten", Isaiah 53:4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."
H5221 נָכָה nakah (naw-kaw') v.
to strike.
{lightly or severely, literally or figuratively}
[a primitive root]
KJV: beat, cast forth, clap, give (wounds), X go forward, X indeed, kill, make (slaughter), murderer, punish, slaughter, slay(-er, -ing), smite(-r, -ing), strike, be stricken, (give) stripes, X surely, wound.
if one would just look up words one will know. Listen, when used as a Verb, "Past participle for to kill, especially with godly force" it means to, "finished or neutralized". to finish or neutralized WHAT? sin. the strike was on SIN.
what did the Lord Jesus say on the cross? John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." DIVINE JUSTICE HAS BEEN MADE.
for all those who said "did we see a hammer, or spear in God's hands to "strike" the Lord Jesus. 101G know you cannot see, because you're blind guides. ditch dwellers.
101G.
Oh P.S. this definition, "smitten" when used as a verb, "Past participle for to kill, especially with godly force" can be found here at.... https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/smitten.html#C0-6
Last edited:
