Where's the wrath??

[civic]

The Law brings wrath.

Except for Jesus standing in a sinner's place.

Pfff.

You left this out- oops

And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Sin brought forth death.

You miss the entire purpose of the law with your biased and out of context snippet on wrath.

next

 

[atpollard]

The Law brings wrath.

Except for Jesus standing in a sinner's place.

Pfff.

Setting aside the extraction from context of your Biblical Quote and merely focusing on the Biblical Reality presented in your argument (The Law does, indeed, bring both wrath in general [violating Civil Law brings the wrath (angry punishment) of Civil authority] and God's wrath [violating God's moral Law brings God's wrath since "where there is no Law, there is no trespass".]

However, I would point out that it is the VIOLATION of God's Law that brings God's WRATH. The upholding of God's Law does not bring wrath, it brings GOD'S FORGIVENESS. We can both agree that "He who knew no sin, became sin for us". However, was that action a VIOLATION of God's Law (bringing the WRATH of God) or an upholding of God's Law (bringing God's forgiveness)?

In what way was Jesus' atonement ("standing in a sinner's place") a VIOLATION of the Law that it should bring WRATH?
The LAW is not innately evil (Paul makes an effort to be clear on that point).

 

[civic]

Setting aside the extraction from context of your Biblical Quote and merely focusing on the Biblical Reality presented in your argument (The Law does, indeed, bring both wrath in general [violating Civil Law brings the wrath (angry punishment) of Civil authority] and God's wrath [violating God's moral Law brings God's wrath since "where there is no Law, there is no trespass".]

However, I would point out that it is the VIOLATION of God's Law that brings God's WRATH. The upholding of God's Law does not bring wrath, it brings GOD'S FORGIVENESS. We can both agree that "He who knew no sin, became sin for us". However, was that action a VIOLATION of God's Law (bringing the WRATH of God) or an upholding of God's Law (bringing God's forgiveness)?

In what way was Jesus' atonement ("standing in a sinner's place") a VIOLATION of the Law that it should bring WRATH?
The LAW is not innately evil (Paul makes an effort to be clear on that point).

Curious minds want to know how that will be answered.

 

[Diserner]

However, was that action a VIOLATION of God's Law (bringing the WRATH of God) or an upholding of God's Law (bringing God's forgiveness)?

For Jesus to stand in the place of sinners he must in some way bear their guilt.

So you offer a false dichotomy: it is in fact, both, in different senses: Jesus' obedience (upholding) led to his bearing guilt (violation).

In what way was Jesus' atonement ("standing in a sinner's place") a VIOLATION of the Law that it should bring WRATH?

Bearing guilt—he took the wrath you deserved to satisfy justice.

 

[atpollard]

For Jesus to stand in the place of sinners he must in some way bear their guilt.

So you offer a false dichotomy: it is in fact, both, in different senses: Jesus' obedience (upholding) led to his bearing guilt (violation).

Bearing guilt—he took the wrath you deserved to satisfy justice.

Setting aside my false dichotomy (which will just lead to pointless arguments) ...

• Do you have any scripture that says "Jesus bore our guilt" (or some equivalent wording that conveys that message)?
• Do you have any scripture that says "he took the wrath you deserved to satisfy justice" (or some equivalent wording that conveys that message)?

From where I sit, those are conclusions drawn from the ASSUMPTIONS that one enters the scripture with rather than any actual words or message found WITHIN scripture. ["Jesus is the PROPITIATION, therefore wrath MUST be true even if scripture does not say so ..."] To be fair, LIMITED ATONEMENT falls into the same camp. [I believe Limited Atonement is TRUE, but I do not claim that such a teaching is found within scripture. It is a conclusion reached by logic on an area that scripture is silent on.]

So if it is DOGMA not based on scripture, then own that. If it is DOGMA based on scripture, then defend it with scripture. I am asking for the same standard that I would have you hold me to.

Honesty.

 

[civic]

Your comment is a strawman. No one ever implied or said anything close that resembles your comment.

I pray one day that your mind will be opened and that you understand the truth that God did not have to vent anger upon His Son to forgive our sins.

Do you need to vent anger upon someone else to forgive the person you love who wronged you? I would hope not. So why would you place that characterization upon our Father? He is not like that in anyway.

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

So if the above is true, how can PSA be true? PSA has the Father doing the opposite by the Father placing the wickedness of the wicked upon the righteous, and placing the righteousness of the righteous upon the wicked?

The biblical truth is, the Righteous One died for the wicked so that any of the wicked who believed in Him would be forgiven, and by their faith in the Righteous One would "receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness". The wicked receive the forgiveness of sins by faith in what the Righteous One did to purchase them with His own holy and blameless life.

God Bless

I echo your prayers brother.

 

[Diserner]

Your comment is a strawman. No one ever implied or said anything close that resembles your comment.

You lower the price of sin, and that insults God's character. So I disagree that it's a straw man, and it's telling you did not even attempt to explain why.

I pray one day that your mind will be opened and that you understand the truth that God did not have to vent anger upon His Son to forgive our sins.

I have prayed that you see you have continually resisted the Holy Spirit over and over, and that you do something about it before it's too late.

I know that God is faithful, I know the standard that I hold myself to, and I know the depth of relationship I have with God.

You are the one in error here, and I wonder if you even have the humility to consider it.

Do you need to vent anger upon someone else to forgive the person you love who wronged you? I would hope not. So why would you place that characterization upon our Father? He is not like that in anyway.

Under your logic, there is no need for hell.

No need to make Jesus suffer ANYTHING.

No Blood, no Cross, no Agony, no "if there be any other way."

You want a baby without the travail, you want a Holy God with no judgment on sin.

You want a toothless Deity.

So if the above is true, how can PSA be true? PSA has the Father doing the opposite by the Father placing the wickedness of the wicked upon the righteous, and placing the righteousness of the righteous upon the wicked?

Even those who try to use Eze. 18 in this way have to admit that babies born with tumors are suffering for the sins of the fathers.

So they play cheesy word games and change the word punishment to "consequences."

Consequences for doing something wrong is the very DEFINITION of the word punishment.

The true meaning of Ezekiel 18 is actually encapsulated in the Atonement itself, God is willing to forgive us for ancestral sin through the Cross.

The biblical truth is, the Righteous One died for the wicked so that any of the wicked who believed in Him would be forgiven, and by their faith in the Righteous One would "receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness". The wicked receive the forgiveness of sins by faith in what the Righteous One did to purchase them with His own holy and blameless life.

The truth is, Jesus suffered EXACTLY what our sins deserved for us, and making it less than it is Satanic and selfish and prideful.


JESUS TOOK MY PUNISHMENT FOR ME.

That's what Scripture says, that's what the Spirit says, that's what my conscience says, and that's what justice says.

Don't let the thief come and rob you of this precious truth.

 

[civic]

You lower the price of sin, and that insults God's character. So I disagree that it's a straw man, and it's telling you did not even attempt to explain why.



I have prayed that you see you have continually resisted the Holy Spirit over and over, and that you do something about it before it's too late.

I know that God is faithful, I know the standard that I hold myself to, and I know the depth of relationship I have with God.

You are the one in error here, and I wonder if you even have the humility to consider it.



Under your logic, there is no need for hell.

No need to make Jesus suffer ANYTHING.

No Blood, no Cross, no Agony, no "if there be any other way."

You want a baby without the travail, you want a Holy God with no judgment on sin.

You want a toothless Deity.



Even those who try to use Eze. 18 in this way have to admit that babies born with tumors are suffering for the sins of the fathers.

So they play cheesy word games and change the word punishment to "consequences."

Consequences for doing something wrong is the very DEFINITION of the word punishment.

The true meaning of Ezekiel 18 is actually encapsulated in the Atonement itself, God is willing to forgive us for ancestral sin through the Cross.



The truth is, Jesus suffered EXACTLY what our sins deserved for us, and making it less than it is Satanic and selfish and prideful.


JESUS TOOK MY PUNISHMENT FOR ME.

That's what Scripture says, that's what the Spirit says, that's what my conscience says, and that's what justice says.

Don't let the thief come and rob you of this precious truth.

Jesus tells us who was responsible for His death. Newsflash - it was the devil and the wicked Jews, not God.

John 8:39-44

You like the Pharisees don’t believe Jesus teaching on the atonement and His suffering, persecution and death.

You blame the Father for what the father of lies did by nailing Him to the cross by the hands of wicked men. You mix truth with error just like Calvin did with PSA and augustine did with original sin and paganism marrying it with Christianity.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

Jesus tells us who was responsible for His death. Newsflash - it was the devil and the wicked Jews, not God.

The wicked Jews are not the Holy Judge of all the earth before whom all sin is accountable.

And I don't "blame" the Father for being so ridiculously merciful as to take my punishment for me through his Son, that's nonsensical.

Your points are not even logical, they are nonsensical.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

"The experts all translated it into English incorrectly" is a weak explanation. [Just my opinion.]

What are YOUR credentials that we can compare your retranslation of Isaiah 53:10 to the credentials of the other translation teams?
Do you have another modern English translation that renders it "humble"?

That is such an ignorant thing to say. Truly it is. And it goes against any concept of studying the Scriptures for yourself and not being held hostage by what some other supposed "expert" or church tradition thinks. That's the whole point of how the roman church got Christianity into the mess it is still in.

 

[atpollard]

That is such an ignorant thing to say. Truly it is.

Perhaps, but it avoids the HUBRIS that inflicts every modern heretical cult like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Latter Day Saints who suddenly believe they have discovered a new meaning and deeper understanding that has thus far eluded every Christian that has read the Bible for the 2000 years before they came along.

If you have found something that NOBODY ever found before in scripture, you are probably incorrect.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Perhaps, but it avoids the HUBRIS that inflicts every modern heretical cult like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Latter Day Saints who suddenly believe they have discovered a new meaning and deeper understanding that has thus far eluded every Christian that has read the Bible for the 2000 years before they came along.

If you have found something that NOBODY ever found before in scripture, you are probably incorrect.

Maybe. Probably. But simply not accepting somebody's observation because he doesn't "have credentials" is the height of ignorance.

 

[atpollard]

Maybe. Probably. But simply not accepting somebody's observation because he doesn't "have credentials" is the height of ignorance.

I rejected his claim that EVERY translation of the Bible into English used the wrong English word to translate a Hebrew word and HE ALONE has discovered the correct English word that all Bibles SHOULD have used … without at least having him present credentials to compare to the people that translated all of the other Bible versions he claims “got it wrong”. If you want to blindly accept his claim and change words in your Bible, then have at it.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I rejected his claim that EVERY translation of the Bible into English used the wrong English word to translate a Hebrew word and HE ALONE has discovered the correct English word that all Bibles SHOULD have used … without at least having him present credentials to compare to the people that translated all of the other Bible versions he claims “got it wrong”. If you want to blindly accept his claim and change words in your Bible, then have at it.

You missed the entire point. I don't need to accept his or anyone's claim without INVESTIGATING their proofs. Simply dismissing him based on "no credentials" is the ignorant and sloppy and elitist reaction. You judge truth by examining for yourself.

 

[Joe]

You lower the price of sin, and that insults God's character. So I disagree that it's a straw man, and it's telling you did not even attempt to explain why.



I have prayed that you see you have continually resisted the Holy Spirit over and over, and that you do something about it before it's too late.

I know that God is faithful, I know the standard that I hold myself to, and I know the depth of relationship I have with God.

You are the one in error here, and I wonder if you even have the humility to consider it.



Under your logic, there is no need for hell.

No need to make Jesus suffer ANYTHING.

No Blood, no Cross, no Agony, no "if there be any other way."

You want a baby without the travail, you want a Holy God with no judgment on sin.

You want a toothless Deity.



Even those who try to use Eze. 18 in this way have to admit that babies born with tumors are suffering for the sins of the fathers.

So they play cheesy word games and change the word punishment to "consequences."

Consequences for doing something wrong is the very DEFINITION of the word punishment.

The true meaning of Ezekiel 18 is actually encapsulated in the Atonement itself, God is willing to forgive us for ancestral sin through the Cross.



The truth is, Jesus suffered EXACTLY what our sins deserved for us, and making it less than it is Satanic and selfish and prideful.


JESUS TOOK MY PUNISHMENT FOR ME.

That's what Scripture says, that's what the Spirit says, that's what my conscience says, and that's what justice says.

Don't let the thief come and rob you of this precious truth.

This is fairly simple. You post the scriptures or teachings from the Apostles about God pouring wrath out upon His Son and you win. You can't. Why is that? Because that is not what happened. You continue to fail to realize this fact. It was the Lord who opened my mind to understand He did not suffer the Father's wrath for our sin.

You hold that God had to kill His Son that He loves because He was mad about us sinning, and the only way to get that anger out of His mind is to pour wrath upon His own Son instead of us. Step back and think about that a minute. Does that even sound right? Would that be acceptable to God if you did that?

And to correct you, our Lord did not suffer EXACTLY what is due a sinner. He is not in eternal death. He tasted death for everyone, not stayed in death, and the Father never judged His Son as a sinner; He offered Him up to save us sinners.

Please stop with the dogmatic replies until you can post the scriptures about our wrath being poured out upon Him by the Father.

God Bless

 

[civic]

This is fairly simple. You post the scriptures or teachings from the Apostles about God pouring wrath out upon His Son and you win. You can't. Why is that? Because that is not what happened. You continue to fail to realize this fact. It was the Lord who opened my mind to understand He did not suffer the Father's wrath for our sin.

You hold that God had to kill His Son that He loves because He was mad about us sinning, and the only way to get that anger out of His mind is to pour wrath upon His own Son instead of us. Step back and think about that a minute. Does that even sound right? Would that be acceptable to God if you did that?

And to correct you, our Lord did not suffer EXACTLY what is due a sinner. He is not in eternal death. He tasted death for everyone, not stayed in death, and the Father never judged His Son as a sinner; He offered Him up to save us sinners.

Please stop with the dogmatic replies until you can post the scriptures about our wrath being poured out upon Him by the Father.

God Bless

Ditto- check out the new thread on Isaiah 53:10- the main/only passage that PSA adherents can allude to in support of their theory.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/isaiah-53-10-and-the-lxx.1095/#post-35749

 

[Johann]

"The experts all translated it into English incorrectly" is a weak explanation. [Just my opinion.]

What are YOUR credentials that we can compare your retranslation of Isaiah 53:10 to the credentials of the other translation teams?
Do you have another modern English translation that renders it "humble"?

-or "redefinition"

 

[civic]

-or "redefinition"

I didn't know you rejected Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon the gold standard in seminary. Good to know.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[דָּכָא] verb crush, poetic (Assyrian dakû, crush, Muss-ArnHebraica. Oct. 1890, 66) not in
Qal; —

Niph`al Participle נִדְכָּאִים Isaiah 57:15; — crushed, figurative = contrite ones.

Pi`el Perfect דִּכָּא Psalm 143:3; 2masculine singular דִּכִּאתָ Psalm 89:11; Imperfect וִידַכֵּא Psalm 72:4; 2masculine singular תְּדַכֵּא Proverbs 22:22 (juss); יְדַכְּאוּ Psalm 94:5, תְּדַכְּאוּ Isaiah 3:15; suffix וִידַכְּאֵנִי Job 6:9, יְדַכְּאוּם Job 4:19; 2masculine plural וּתְדַכּאוּנַּנִי Job 19:2 (so Baer, see his edition p. 44, compare Norzi); Infinitive לִדַכֵּא Lamentations 3:34; suffix דַּכְּאוֺ Isaiah 53:10; — crush, (figurative) with accusative one's life to the earth Psalm 143:3, Egypt Psalm 89:11 (compare De Che; ׳י subject), servant of Yahweh Isaiah 53:10 (׳י subject), Job 6:9 ׳וְיֹאֵל אֱלוֺהַּ וִיד; oppressor Psalm 72:4, God's people Psalm 94:5 ("" יְּעַנּוּ), Isaiah 3:15, compare Proverbs 22:22 illegally in tribunal, Lamentations 3:34 תחת רגליו ׳ד (in all human oppressor subject); crush me בְּמִלִּים Job 19:2 (Job's friends, subject; "" תּוֺגְיוּן נַפְשִׁי); never literal, not even Job 4:19 (יְדַכְּאוּם, with indefinite subject), for suffix reference not to בָּֽתֵּיחֹֿמֶר, but rather to שֹׁכְנֵי, i.e. men inhabiting the clay houses, bodies, compare Di.

Pu`al Perfect דֻּכְּאוּ Jeremiah 44:10; Imperfect יְדֻכָּא Job 22:9; Participle מְדֻכָּא Isaiah 53:5, מְדֻכָּאִים Isaiah 19:10; — crushed, broken in pieces, shattered Job 22:9 with object feminine זרועות; Isaiah 19:10 subject שָׁתוֺת (here metaphor. for nobles); figurative of servant of ׳י Isaiah 53:5; made humble, contrite Jeremiah 44:10.

Hithpa`el Imperfect יִדַּכְּאוּ Job 5:4, יִדַּכָּ֑אוּ Job 34:25; — must let themselves be crushed, i.e. maltreated Job 5:4 (in court בשׁער, compare

Pi`el Proverbs 22:22); are crushed Job 34:25 (the mighty, by God).

Same word below translated into English @atpollard

Isaiah 57:15
HEB: וּֽלְהַחֲי֖וֹת לֵ֥ב נִדְכָּאִֽים׃
NAS: the heart of the contrite.
KJV: the heart of the contrite ones.
INT: revive the heart of the contrite

Jeremiah 44:10
HEB: לֹ֣א דֻכְּא֔וּ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם
NAS: But they have not become contrite even to this
KJV: They are not humbled [even] unto this day,
INT: nor become against day

 

[Johann]

I didn't know you rejected Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon the gold standard in seminary. Good to know.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[דָּכָא] verb crush, poetic (Assyrian dakû, crush, Muss-ArnHebraica. Oct. 1890, 66) not in
Qal; —

Niph`al Participle נִדְכָּאִים Isaiah 57:15; — crushed, figurative = contrite ones.

Pi`el Perfect דִּכָּא Psalm 143:3; 2masculine singular דִּכִּאתָ Psalm 89:11; Imperfect וִידַכֵּא Psalm 72:4; 2masculine singular תְּדַכֵּא Proverbs 22:22 (juss); יְדַכְּאוּ Psalm 94:5, תְּדַכְּאוּ Isaiah 3:15; suffix וִידַכְּאֵנִי Job 6:9, יְדַכְּאוּם Job 4:19; 2masculine plural וּתְדַכּאוּנַּנִי Job 19:2 (so Baer, see his edition p. 44, compare Norzi); Infinitive לִדַכֵּא Lamentations 3:34; suffix דַּכְּאוֺ Isaiah 53:10; — crush, (figurative) with accusative one's life to the earth Psalm 143:3, Egypt Psalm 89:11 (compare De Che; ׳י subject), servant of Yahweh Isaiah 53:10 (׳י subject), Job 6:9 ׳וְיֹאֵל אֱלוֺהַּ וִיד; oppressor Psalm 72:4, God's people Psalm 94:5 ("" יְּעַנּוּ), Isaiah 3:15, compare Proverbs 22:22 illegally in tribunal, Lamentations 3:34 תחת רגליו ׳ד (in all human oppressor subject); crush me בְּמִלִּים Job 19:2 (Job's friends, subject; "" תּוֺגְיוּן נַפְשִׁי); never literal, not even Job 4:19 (יְדַכְּאוּם, with indefinite subject), for suffix reference not to בָּֽתֵּיחֹֿמֶר, but rather to שֹׁכְנֵי, i.e. men inhabiting the clay houses, bodies, compare Di.

Pu`al Perfect דֻּכְּאוּ Jeremiah 44:10; Imperfect יְדֻכָּא Job 22:9; Participle מְדֻכָּא Isaiah 53:5, מְדֻכָּאִים Isaiah 19:10; — crushed, broken in pieces, shattered Job 22:9 with object feminine זרועות; Isaiah 19:10 subject שָׁתוֺת (here metaphor. for nobles); figurative of servant of ׳י Isaiah 53:5; made humble, contrite Jeremiah 44:10.

Hithpa`el Imperfect יִדַּכְּאוּ Job 5:4, יִדַּכָּ֑אוּ Job 34:25; — must let themselves be crushed, i.e. maltreated Job 5:4 (in court בשׁער, compare

Pi`el Proverbs 22:22); are crushed Job 34:25 (the mighty, by God).

Same word below translated into English @atpollard

Isaiah 57:15
HEB: וּֽלְהַחֲי֖וֹת לֵ֥ב נִדְכָּאִֽים׃
NAS: the heart of the contrite.
KJV: the heart of the contrite ones.
INT: revive the heart of the contrite

Jeremiah 44:10
HEB: לֹ֣א דֻכְּא֔וּ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם
NAS: But they have not become contrite even to this
KJV: They are not humbled [even] unto this day,
INT: nor become against day

I'm afraid Dr. Brown disagrees with your Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon the gold standard in seminary.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.
Isa 53:11 He [Hashem] shall see of the travail of his [Moshiach's] nefesh, and shall be satisfied; by knowledge of him [Moshiach] shall Tzadik Avdi ["My Righteous Servant," Moshiach, Zecharyah 3:8, Yirmeyah 23:5; Zecharyah 6:11-12, Ezra 3:8 Yehoshua, Yeshua shmo] justify many (Ro 5:1); for he [Moshiach] shall bear their avon (iniquities).
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his nefesh unto mavet (death); and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he nasah (Lv 16:22, carried) (like the Yom Kippur scapegoat) the sin of many, and made intercession [did the work of a mafgi'a, intercessor] for the transgressors [see Lk 23:34 OJBC].


1080) Kd% (Kd% DK) ac: Crush co: Mortar ab: ?: The pictograph d is a door representing the idea of moving back and forth. The k is a picture of the palm of the hand representing a bowl from its shape. Combined these pictures mean "the moving back and forth in a cup". Seeds are placed in a stone mortar, a stone cup, the stone pestle is moved around the cup to crush the seeds into a powder.
A) Kd% (Kd% DK) ac: Crush co: Mortar ab: ?
Nm) Kd% (Kd% DK) - I. Crush: II. Small: Something that is crushed thin or into smaller pieces. [df: qd] [freq. 18] |kjv: oppressed, afflicted| {str: 1790, 1851}
fm) Ikd% (Ikd% D-KY) - Wave: Wave A crushing of the surf. [freq. 1] |kjv: wave| {str: 1796}
B) Kkd% (Kkd% DKK) ac: ? co: Powder ab: ?: The fine dust created in the mortar by crushing something.
V) Kkd% (Kkd% D-KK) - Small: To crush or beat something into small pieces. [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: qqd] [freq. 23] (vf: Paal, Hiphil, Hophal) |kjv: beat small, powder, stamp, bruise, small, dust, beat in pieces, break in pieces| {str: 1854, 1855}
E) Akd% (Akd% DKA) ac: Break co: ? ab: ?
V) Akd% (Akd% D-KA) - Break: To break something by beating it. [freq. 18] (vf: Niphal, Hitpael, Pual, Piel) |kjv: break, break in pieces, crush, bruise, destroy| {str: 1792}
Nm) Akd% (Akd% D-KA) - Broken: Something that is broken into pieces. [freq. 3] |kjv: contrite, destruction| {str: 1793}
F) Kde% (Kde% HDK) ac: Trample co: ? ab: ?: Walking over something to trample on it as with a pestle in a mortar.
V) Kde% (Kde% H-DK) - Trample: [freq. 1] (vf: Paal) |kjv: tread down| {str: 1915}
H) Ekd% (Ekd% DKH) ac: ? co: Bruise ab: ?: Something that is bruised by beating it.
V) Ekd% (Ekd% D-KH) - Bruise: [freq. 5] (vf: Paal, Niphal, Piel) |kjv: break, contrite, crouch| {str: 1794}
Nf1) Ekd% (Ekd% D-KH) - Bruised: [freq. 1] |kjv: wounded| {str: 1795}
J) Kfd% (Kfd% DWK) ac: Beat co: Mortar ab: ?: A beating as with a mortar in a pestle.
V) Kfd% (Kfd% DWK) - Beat: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: qwd] [freq. 2] (vf: Paal) |kjv: beat, break into pieces| {str: 1743, 1751}
kf1) Ekfdm% (Ekfdm% M-DW-KH) - Mor [freq. 1] |kjv: mortar| {str: 4085}
M) Kid% (Kid% DYK) ac: Beat co: Siege works ab: ?
Nm) Kid% (Kid% DYK) - Siege works: Engines of war constructed next to a city wall for the purpose of battering it into pieces to allow entry into the city. [df: qyd] [freq. 6] |kjv: fort| {str: 1785}
AHLB
דּכא
dâkâ'
daw-kaw'
A primitive root (compare H1794) to crumble; transitively to bruise (literally or figuratively): - beat to pieces, break (in pieces), bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress, smite.

LXX Related Word(s)
G5011 tapeinos
G5014 tapeinosis
G3642 oligopsuchos
G4937 sun tribo
G91 adikeo
G818 atimazo
G2507 kath aireo
G3817 paio
G5013 tapeinoo
G2559 kakoo
G5013 tapeinoo

BDB Definition:
1) to crush, be crushed, be contrite, be broken
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be crushed
1a2) to be contrite (figuratively)
1b) (Piel) to crush
1c) (Pual)
1c1) to be crushed, be shattered
1c2) to be made contrite
1d) (Hithpael) to allow oneself to be crushed
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root (compare H1794)
More in OTW: H40427




Hebrew Word: daka
Strong's Reference: H1792, H1793,
Definition: be crushed, contrite, broken.

OTW Number: 427 a
Transliteration: dakka'
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: I, contrite, crushed.

OTW Number: 427b
Transliteration: dakka'
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: II, dust (that which is crushed). According to Psa_90:3, God turns man back into dust.

daka' is used in the Piel and Pual, and twice in the Hithpael (Job_5:4; Job_34:25). This verb is used only in poetry. (Cf. dakak, daka, and Akkadian dakaku.) .

daka' and its derivatives are applied only to people except for Psa_89:10 [H11], which mentions the crushing of Rahab, probably a reference to God's victory over Egypt. God is frequently the subject of the verb. He is the one who crushes the oppressor (Psa_72:4) and the wicked (Job_34:25), but he does not crush the prisoner underfoot (Lam_3:34). Job requests God to crush him and put an end to his misery (Job_6:9). According to Isa_53:10, God did crush his servant. Verse 5 indicates that he "was crushed for our iniquities." This emphasizes the emotional and spiritual suffering of the Savior as he became sin for us (cf. Psa_51:8 [H101). .

Several times it is the wicked or the enemies who are crushing the righteous (Psa_94:5; Psa_143:3). Even the leaders of Israel were guilty of crushing their people (Isa_3:15). The poor and needy were sometimes crushed in court (Pro_22:22; cf. Job_5:4).

Man's frailty is seen in the brevity of life, as he returns to the dust (Psa_90:3). Job_4:19 contrasts man with the angels and notes that he is crushed more easily than a moth. .

dakka' 1. Contrite, crushed. "Crushed" can also have the positive nuances of "humble, contrite." God is close to those who are brokenhearted and contrite (Isa_57:15; Psa_34:18 [H19]). He condemns Israel for her failure to humble herself even after Jerusalem's collapse (Jer_44:10). H. W.


53:10 "But the Lord was pleased

To crush Him, putting Him to grief"

YHWH was pleased (lit. "it was the will of" ‒ BDB 342, KB 339, Qal perfect). This verb means "to delight in" (cf. Isa. 58:2; 62:4) or "desire" (55:11). It is even used of YHWH's pleasure to put someone to death in 1 Sam. 2:25.

It is shocking to use a verb like this in connection with the unfair, painful treatment of the righteous Servant. YHWH had an eternal redemptive plan!

YHWH's will and purpose was "to crush" (Piel infinitive construct, cf. Isa. 53:5) and "put to grief" (Hiphil perfect, BDB 317, KB 311). The verb means "to make sick" (JPSOA) or "sore by hitting." There was a high and costly price to pay for human redemption (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)! YHWH and His Servant paid it fully and freely!

Hope this helps.

 

[civic]

I'm afraid Dr. Brown disagrees with your Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon the gold standard in seminary.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.
Isa 53:11 He [Hashem] shall see of the travail of his [Moshiach's] nefesh, and shall be satisfied; by knowledge of him [Moshiach] shall Tzadik Avdi ["My Righteous Servant," Moshiach, Zecharyah 3:8, Yirmeyah 23:5; Zecharyah 6:11-12, Ezra 3:8 Yehoshua, Yeshua shmo] justify many (Ro 5:1); for he [Moshiach] shall bear their avon (iniquities).
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his nefesh unto mavet (death); and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he nasah (Lv 16:22, carried) (like the Yom Kippur scapegoat) the sin of many, and made intercession [did the work of a mafgi'a, intercessor] for the transgressors [see Lk 23:34 OJBC].


1080) Kd% (Kd% DK) ac: Crush co: Mortar ab: ?: The pictograph d is a door representing the idea of moving back and forth. The k is a picture of the palm of the hand representing a bowl from its shape. Combined these pictures mean "the moving back and forth in a cup". Seeds are placed in a stone mortar, a stone cup, the stone pestle is moved around the cup to crush the seeds into a powder.
A) Kd% (Kd% DK) ac: Crush co: Mortar ab: ?
Nm) Kd% (Kd% DK) - I. Crush: II. Small: Something that is crushed thin or into smaller pieces. [df: qd] [freq. 18] |kjv: oppressed, afflicted| {str: 1790, 1851}
fm) Ikd% (Ikd% D-KY) - Wave: Wave A crushing of the surf. [freq. 1] |kjv: wave| {str: 1796}
B) Kkd% (Kkd% DKK) ac: ? co: Powder ab: ?: The fine dust created in the mortar by crushing something.
V) Kkd% (Kkd% D-KK) - Small: To crush or beat something into small pieces. [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: qqd] [freq. 23] (vf: Paal, Hiphil, Hophal) |kjv: beat small, powder, stamp, bruise, small, dust, beat in pieces, break in pieces| {str: 1854, 1855}
E) Akd% (Akd% DKA) ac: Break co: ? ab: ?
V) Akd% (Akd% D-KA) - Break: To break something by beating it. [freq. 18] (vf: Niphal, Hitpael, Pual, Piel) |kjv: break, break in pieces, crush, bruise, destroy| {str: 1792}
Nm) Akd% (Akd% D-KA) - Broken: Something that is broken into pieces. [freq. 3] |kjv: contrite, destruction| {str: 1793}
F) Kde% (Kde% HDK) ac: Trample co: ? ab: ?: Walking over something to trample on it as with a pestle in a mortar.
V) Kde% (Kde% H-DK) - Trample: [freq. 1] (vf: Paal) |kjv: tread down| {str: 1915}
H) Ekd% (Ekd% DKH) ac: ? co: Bruise ab: ?: Something that is bruised by beating it.
V) Ekd% (Ekd% D-KH) - Bruise: [freq. 5] (vf: Paal, Niphal, Piel) |kjv: break, contrite, crouch| {str: 1794}
Nf1) Ekd% (Ekd% D-KH) - Bruised: [freq. 1] |kjv: wounded| {str: 1795}
J) Kfd% (Kfd% DWK) ac: Beat co: Mortar ab: ?: A beating as with a mortar in a pestle.
V) Kfd% (Kfd% DWK) - Beat: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: qwd] [freq. 2] (vf: Paal) |kjv: beat, break into pieces| {str: 1743, 1751}
kf1) Ekfdm% (Ekfdm% M-DW-KH) - Mor [freq. 1] |kjv: mortar| {str: 4085}
M) Kid% (Kid% DYK) ac: Beat co: Siege works ab: ?
Nm) Kid% (Kid% DYK) - Siege works: Engines of war constructed next to a city wall for the purpose of battering it into pieces to allow entry into the city. [df: qyd] [freq. 6] |kjv: fort| {str: 1785}
AHLB
דּכא
dâkâ'
daw-kaw'
A primitive root (compare H1794) to crumble; transitively to bruise (literally or figuratively): - beat to pieces, break (in pieces), bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress, smite.

LXX Related Word(s)
G5011 tapeinos
G5014 tapeinosis
G3642 oligopsuchos
G4937 sun tribo
G91 adikeo
G818 atimazo
G2507 kath aireo
G3817 paio
G5013 tapeinoo
G2559 kakoo
G5013 tapeinoo

BDB Definition:
1) to crush, be crushed, be contrite, be broken
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be crushed
1a2) to be contrite (figuratively)
1b) (Piel) to crush
1c) (Pual)
1c1) to be crushed, be shattered
1c2) to be made contrite
1d) (Hithpael) to allow oneself to be crushed
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root (compare H1794)
More in OTW: H40427




Hebrew Word: daka
Strong's Reference: H1792, H1793,
Definition: be crushed, contrite, broken.

OTW Number: 427 a
Transliteration: dakka'
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: I, contrite, crushed.

OTW Number: 427b
Transliteration: dakka'
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: II, dust (that which is crushed). According to Psa_90:3, God turns man back into dust.

daka' is used in the Piel and Pual, and twice in the Hithpael (Job_5:4; Job_34:25). This verb is used only in poetry. (Cf. dakak, daka, and Akkadian dakaku.) .

daka' and its derivatives are applied only to people except for Psa_89:10 [H11], which mentions the crushing of Rahab, probably a reference to God's victory over Egypt. God is frequently the subject of the verb. He is the one who crushes the oppressor (Psa_72:4) and the wicked (Job_34:25), but he does not crush the prisoner underfoot (Lam_3:34). Job requests God to crush him and put an end to his misery (Job_6:9). According to Isa_53:10, God did crush his servant. Verse 5 indicates that he "was crushed for our iniquities." This emphasizes the emotional and spiritual suffering of the Savior as he became sin for us (cf. Psa_51:8 [H101). .

Several times it is the wicked or the enemies who are crushing the righteous (Psa_94:5; Psa_143:3). Even the leaders of Israel were guilty of crushing their people (Isa_3:15). The poor and needy were sometimes crushed in court (Pro_22:22; cf. Job_5:4).

Man's frailty is seen in the brevity of life, as he returns to the dust (Psa_90:3). Job_4:19 contrasts man with the angels and notes that he is crushed more easily than a moth. .

dakka' 1. Contrite, crushed. "Crushed" can also have the positive nuances of "humble, contrite." God is close to those who are brokenhearted and contrite (Isa_57:15; Psa_34:18 [H19]). He condemns Israel for her failure to humble herself even after Jerusalem's collapse (Jer_44:10). H. W.


53:10 "But the Lord was pleased

To crush Him, putting Him to grief"

YHWH was pleased (lit. "it was the will of" ‒ BDB 342, KB 339, Qal perfect). This verb means "to delight in" (cf. Isa. 58:2; 62:4) or "desire" (55:11). It is even used of YHWH's pleasure to put someone to death in 1 Sam. 2:25.

It is shocking to use a verb like this in connection with the unfair, painful treatment of the righteous Servant. YHWH had an eternal redemptive plan!

YHWH's will and purpose was "to crush" (Piel infinitive construct, cf. Isa. 53:5) and "put to grief" (Hiphil perfect, BDB 317, KB 311). The verb means "to make sick" (JPSOA) or "sore by hitting." There was a high and costly price to pay for human redemption (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)! YHWH and His Servant paid it fully and freely!

Hope this helps.

Dr Brown who is my friend in not the final authority. He would not disagree with BDB. This is the fallacy known as quote mining. Its what unitarians do all of the time against trinitarians.