Penal Substitution and the Trinity

I agree we are not tied to the LXX. It is still interesting that John uses it to quote Isaiah 53, but that proves nothing. The point, however, is that the LXX does not allow your interpretation while the Hebrew does not dictate it.

At a minimum Isaiah 53:10 states the same as Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (that it was God's will to crush him". I am taking the interpretation at this point (not adding to it "by pouring upon Christ His wrath). In this vein I agree with the LXX (and, coincidentally, the early church). So you could say I am influenced by the LXX, the early church writings, and passages of Scripture denying God could have been wrathful to the Righteous. Guess you could say I'm a minimalist.

 

I don’t understand your reasoning that the LXX supports the Lord being wrathful towards the Servant. “The Lord desires to cleanse him from his affliction”. While the idea of suffering and substitution is present in the LXX, the idea of God being wrathful towards the Servant is not. I think it also a bit precarious to base your theory here on the Hebrew word דָּכָא (crush) when several have noted that it most likely a textual error for זָכָה (purify), which agrees with the LXX. Regardless, even using the NASB translation (but the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand” the verse does not demand God as being wrathful towards Christ. It may very well simply mean what it says – it pleased the Lord to “crush Him”, to “put Him to grief”, to offer Him as a guilt offering, to have foreordained His suffering.

To answer your (and @Martin Marprelate ) question, it pleased God to offer Christ as a sin offering on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. You can find this in 2 Corinthians 5 (“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”). This is enough. There is no need to take away from God Himself and make Him wrathful towards the Righteous.

In terms of passages that speak of God not condemning the just or being wrathful to the righteous, why do you think God made an exception with Jesus and how does this act of unfaithfulness (to His word) not damage the doctrine of immutability?

 

If by "cute and cuddly" you mean biblical, you are right. Those same passages tell you that it is an abomination to God to convict the innocent. And then we read God will not condemn the just, or visit His wrath on the righteous. Guess what? Jesus is, was, and always will be innocent of sin, just, and righteous.

Your tradition is simply unbiblical. Even throughout the OT God declares forgiveness to the repentant. God forgives our sins as He put Christ forth as the propitiation for the sins of man.

 

I already argued from the LXX, which has the Lord cleansing or purifying Christ from sickness. I do not know of a competing translation of Isaiah 53:10 from the LXX (I'm not arguing my premise from the LXX but stating the text and the word is not arguing about cleansing from moral uncleanness but from physical affliction), but if you do then please enlighten us. What source will you provide interpreting the LXX differently (my Greek is rusty so I'm open to suggestions).

 

Under your presuppositions Christ has to be condemned by God as a sinner (a stark departure from several passages that deny God will convict the righteous).Your theory seems to indicate that God does not offer Christ as a sin offering but has to consider Christ as having sinned (as if He committed the sins that we have committed). I find the theory unbiblical.

 

I'm not claiming that the LXX does supersede the Hebrew text (although a strong case can be made that the Apostle John understood the Cross on the grounds of it's interpretation of Isaiah 53 as he quoted the LXX version of the passage).

My comment is that the LXX denies the theory that God was wrathful towards Christ in Isaiah 53:10 while the Hebrew neither confirms or denies the theory. Your theory depends on abandoning the LXX as flawed, but even in so doing the Hebrew fails to prove your presupposition (it only allows it as a possibility, along side the LXX). When we add to this the idea that it is an abomination to God to convict the just, it seems more likely that your idea is flawed.

Yes, God does put Christ forward as an offering. In fact, God put's Christ forward as a propitiation for our sins (which has wrath in view). Jesus Christ lay down His own life as a sin offering and He bore our sins in His flesh. On this we can agree. On God being wrathful towards Christ we cannot because the idea that God poured His wrath upon Christ is theoretical and foreign to Scripture. It is, however, a popular view I believe feeds into "easy believism" (a topic for another time).

 

Mankind was under a curse as evidenced by our disobedience to God and magnified by the Law. The Father gave His Son for the human race, that Christ would take upon Himself our curse, knowing that He would raise Him up from the dead. The Cross was the preordained and foreknown will of God.

God laid on Christ our iniquities. He bears our sins. He makes our sins His own by taking us (flawed as we are) unto Himself. As man He suffered as we suffer and took upon Himself our curse (as one member suffers so does the whole body). Jesus took upon Himself the suffering of man and made our sickness His. And He was chastened on our behalf and suffered a penalty He did not owe but which we owed because of our sins. In this way Christ became the source of our forgiveness – because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the suffering which was due us.

If God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain forgiveness, someone must merit this for me because I cannot do it myself. God cannot remit the wrath towards me unless amends is made (God does not simply ignore unrighteousness). Scripture tells us that Christ mediates on our behalf. Christ became our Advocate by his own blood – His suffering and death – as He lay down His life as a sacrifice for us. His own life, His holiness and righteousness, overshadowed all of the sin and wrath He bore on behalf of mankind because He is God (Hebrews 4-5). Sin and death was swallowed up and by His stripes we are healed.

This is the biblical doctrine of penal substitution, but not the Theory of Penal Substitution. Scripture simply does not have God pouring out His wrath upon Christ.

 

It does not say God treated Christ as a sinner either. Unless you are claiming that God literally made Christ sin, evil, unholy, and unrighteous so that He could punish him your argument fails.

No one is arguing against the fact that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon him. You are introducing passages we have both affirmed to create the illusion our disagreement is in those texts. Your tradition - that God poured His wrath upon Christ is simply false. It is something you assume (you read it into those passages).

 

You are a grown man - don't be silly. I have not resorted to "cheap shots" by calling your tradition "unbiblical". You have claimed several times the same if my position. That's the reason we are arguing- we each believe the other to be departing from Scripture.

Scripture teaches that God loved the world by sending His Son. I do not see how you missed this point, but it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us.so yes, the Cross is God pouring out His love for us.

The evidence, of course, is that your theory exists not in Scripture but in your reading of it. And yes, Christ is the sacrifice that turns away wrath.