The Nature of God in the Atonement

Wrangler said:
I agree with your assessment. Just pointing out a basis to improve your thesis statement. GIVEN that no watch was poured out on the Son from the Father, what was the dynamic? Are you saying you are unable to state your theology in positive terms?
Click to expand...
The atonement was a ransom, forgiveness of sins, Passover, Substitution not penal from God. God did not need or require to be appeased of His wrath from His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. He was not angered which is what penal substitution teaches.
 
Last edited:
This was so good I had to post it here taken from one for Israel.org in my next 2 posts

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).
  1. “Cleanse” or “Crushed”?
The LXX’s translation of Isaiah 53:10 renders “cleanse” instead of “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]
  1. 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 דֻכְּאוּעַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה…)
    NIV: “To this day they have not humbledthemselves”.
    NASB: “”But they have not become contriteeven 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
 
Continued :

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
 
Back to one of the most used passages to support PSA.

Is 53:10 which can also mean meek , humble not not just crushed . See Brown Driver and Briggs OT lexicon for proof .

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand

Below we see the same Hebrew word has various meanings.

Psalm 34:18
The LORD is near to the brokenhearted; He saves the contrite in spirit.

Jeremiah 44:10
To this day they have not humbled themselves or shown reverence, nor have they followed my law and the decrees I set before you and your ancestors.

The word means humbled, contrite, meek see BDB- Brown Driver Briggs lexicon of the O.T.

So Isaiah 53:10 can read it was the Lords will to humble him and cause him to suffer.


The fact is the Father did not kill the Son nor was He responsible . The NT evidence from Jesus and the Apostle’s say otherwise.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
The atonement was a ransom, forgiveness of sins, Passover, Substitution not penal from God. God did not need or require to be appeased of His wrath from His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. He was not angered which is what penal substitution teaches.
Click to expand...
I haven't read through all the LONG explanations. But this statement caught my attention. You make a strawman statement that is not at all true. "
He was not angered which is what penal substitution teaches.
Click to expand...
The issue is not one of "anger". The issue is one of absolute holiness. A true understanding of exactly what sin does is required for an accurate understanding of this issue.
 
EclipseEventSigns said:
I haven't read through all the LONG explanations. But this statement caught my attention. You make a strawman statement that is not at all true. "

The issue is not one of "anger". The issue is one of absolute holiness. A true understanding of exactly what sin does is required for an accurate understanding of this issue.
Click to expand...
This is just your opinion void of biblical truth and references to prove your assertion is true. My OP stands irrefutable when tested with scripture. I have defined biblical words in their context in great detail with the atonement. So your above comments are nothing but empty claims which you cannot prove.
 
civic said:
This is just your opinion void of biblical truth and references to prove your assertion is true. My OP stands irrefutable when tested with scripture. I have defined biblical words in their context in great detail with the atonement. So your above comments are nothing but empty claims which you cannot prove.
Click to expand...
Ya, well you have 40 years invested in your point of view. Not going to change a closed mind.
 
EclipseEventSigns said:
Then you'd better correct your statements or be more clear.
Click to expand...
They are clear as there have been over 20 pastors from different denominations, theologians, scholars who have read my paper and critiqued it for me and have encouraged me to continue in this study. In fact one of them teaches Aramaic, Hebrew. Greek in seminary and peaks those languages fluently along with several others. He was very encouraging with my thesis paper.
 
civic said:
They are clear as there have been over 20 pastors from different denominations, theologians, scholars who have read my paper and critiqued it for me and have encouraged me to continue in this study. In fact one of them teaches Aramaic, Hebrew. Greek in seminary and peaks those languages fluently along with several others. He was very encouraging with my thesis paper.
Click to expand...
LOL. Consensus does not determine truth. Never has. Your attempts to be "right" don't matter to me in the least. My compass for truth is Scripture itself.
 
EclipseEventSigns said:
I did. Romans 9. But you reinterpret to mean what you want it to me. The words there are pretty clear on a simple reading of the text.
Click to expand...
You have yet to explain Roman’s 9. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

Maybe you could explain Romans 9 like you do with Daniels 70 weeks. You give your “ opinion “ with that in great detail.

hope this helps !!!
 

Similar threads

MTMattie
Jimmy says... so it must be true? Or What effect does this have to make some believe there was no trinity?
Replies
1
Views
37
101G
101G
civic
The Love of God covers sin, forgives sin, atones for sin
Replies
9
Views
187
civic
civic
Rowan
The Gift of Grace
2 3
Replies
56
Views
627
civic
civic
civic
Atonement Theories
Replies
2
Views
159
Bob Carabbio
Bob Carabbio
civic
Replacement Theology
Replies
1
Views
248
civic
civic
Back
Top Bottom