Featured JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

SBG that verse could have been written like this: Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, Our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, We accounted him Smitten and We accounted him afflicted by God"

The people "accounted" Him as such. Even the text you present shows this.

 

But why does that require PSA?

 

when you can read Hebrew for youself, then post back here!

 

The next most frequent use is in the sense of "making a judgment." This too is employed in reference to both man and God, and it appears in Qal and Niphal. The well-known text, Isa 53:4, uses it: "We did esteem (Judge) him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." God is the subject as Job exclaims, "He counts (judges) me for his enemy" (Job 33:10). The uses in Niphal are simply the passive of Qal. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)

You and Jon have this absurd theory, that somehow Isaiah says, that "we accounted" that God the Father punished Jesus Christ, but it only "seemed" so, but in reality it is not! Then WHY bother to make this statement, when it have NO real meaning?

The Hebrew means that God ACTUALLY DID punish Jesus Christ!

 

Isaiah 53:6, "the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"

God here punishes Jesus Christ for OUR sins

On this verse, the Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch, say

"It was our sins that He bore, and for our salvation that God caused Him to suffer on our account"

Now prove otherwise!

 

First of all Isaiah 53:10 specificaly says that it pleased God to bruise the Son and that He has put Him to gief.
Secondly, verse 4 does not say that the people were wrong in considering the Christ stricken by God. What they didn't realise was that He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities etc.

 

If you are going to use my name, kindly quote what I have written instead of making stuff up about me. In case you do not know, God is omnipresent.
However, Psalms 22:1. 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me and from the words of My groaning?'

 

Your just being arrogant now. By your logic very few people could understand scripture. Do you not agree with what K&D wrote?

 

when people keep on post false information, it is NOT arrogance to correct them!

 

K&D do not seem to agree with your view. And I am just reading what the text says, I am not putting forward any theory but you seem to be doing that.

In Isa_53:4 it is not really sin that is spoken of, but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not always the direct consequence of the sins of individuals (Joh_9:3). But in the fact that He was concerned to relieve this evil in all its forms, whenever it came in His way in the exercise of His calling, the relief implied as a consequence in Isa_53:4 was brought distinctly into view, though not the bearing and lading that are primarily noticed here. Matthew has very aptly rendered נָשָׂא by ἔλαβε, and סָבַל by ἐβάστασε. For whilst סבַל denotes the toilsome bearing of a burden that has been taken up, נָשָׂא combines in itself the ideas of tollere and ferre. When construed with the accusative of the sin, it signifies to take the debt of sin upon one's self, and carry it as one's own, i.e., to look at it and feel it as one's own (e.g., Lev_5:1, Lev_5:17), or more frequently to bear the punishment occasioned by sin, i.e., to make expiation for it (Lev_17:16; Lev_20:19-20; Lev_24:15), and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the purpose of making expiation for it (Lev_10:17). Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Seeing that I do not read Hebrew it then become necessary for me to trust what scholars have said on a subject, and since K&D are considered as such I think I can trust what they say.

 

# 44 and 45 destroys what you and Jon believe in. now show that it does not teach PSA?

 

SBG why are you so angry? Cool down there young man.

All this great multitude of sins, and mass of guilt, and weight of punishment, came upon the Servant of Jehovah according to the appointment of the God of salvation, who is gracious in holiness. The third turn ends here. It was our sins that He bore, and for our salvation that God caused Him to suffer on our account. K&D

Just as it say all the sins were laid on the Son, He bore our guilt. The non-gulity for the guilty. Do you not think this was a plan that God was working out?

 

I am not putting forward any theory, your doing that. If you want to hold to PSA so be it. I am just reading what the bible says and you do not seem to like it, your problem not mine.
Isa 53:4 In fact, it was our diseases he bore, our pains from which he suffered; yet we regarded him as punished, stricken and afflicted by God.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins; the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises [Or: and in fellowship with him] we are healed. Complete Jewish Bible

You for some reason require that God the Father punish the Son. Whereas I see that God the Son bore our sins and appeased God the Father because of that. The Father will punish the actual one that sins and does not repent, that's biblical. What you and others are saying is that He will punish the innocent.

Remember there were three men on those crosses, two were sinners who deserved to be there one went there by His own volition as a sacrifice, He carried our sin. The people of Isaiah would have looked on all as if they were all being punished by God which is just what the text says in Isa 53:4-5.

 

Martin I do not really care what someone calls the action of Christ on the cross be it PSA or just SA. What matters is that He bore our sins. That is what many people seem to miss. Was it a plan of God YES so no surprise the the Son.

K&D say it well:
It was men who inflicted upon the Servant of God such crushing suffering, such deep sorrow; but the supreme causa efficiens in the whole was God, who made the sin of men subservient to His pleasure, His will, and predetermined counsel. The suffering of His Servant was to be to Him the way to glory, and this way of His through suffering to glory was to lead to the establishment of a church of the redeemed, which would spring from Him; in other words, it would become the commencement of that fulfilment of the divine plan of salvation which He, the ever-living, ever-working One, would carry out to completion. K&D

The sacrificial lamb of Leviticus was the substitute for ones sin just as the Son, the lamb of God, was a substitute for all of mans sin. The lamb bore the sin in both cases. Both died, shed their blood, to avert the wrath of God from the sinner.

 

So you do admit that reconciliation is salvation.

 

You argued in another thread that reconciliation is not salvation.

Spiritual Truth and Doctrine II: The Meaning of Reconciliation

 

Yes, you did, by liking posts that said reconciliation was NOT salvation.