Isaiah 53...

[37818]

What is important is whether or not Jesus suffers such penalties/curses justly or unjustly. The Bible is clear he suffers them unjustly.

False. Not according to Romans 3:21-26 or Isaiah 53:1-12.

 

[Aaron]

What does Hebrews 10:1 explain? How would that apply to the ark in light Matthew 25:41 not appling to Christ?

The Ark predates the law. But pictures don't lie. The judgement of God poured out upon the pride and idolatry and violence of man was poured out upon the Ark as well, yet the Ark prevailed.

 

[37818]

1) Physical death is a penalty for sin.

Matthew 10:28, ". . . And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. . . ."
Matthew 25:41, ". . . Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: . . ."

 

[37818]

The Ark predates the law. But pictures don't lie. The judgement of God poured out upon the pride and idolatry and violence of man was poured out upon the Ark as well, yet the Ark prevailed.

Do you deny Genesis to be the first book of the Law? Exodus 20:11, ". . . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. . . ."

 

[tyndale1946]

1) Physical death is a penalty for sin. It is a penalty we will all undergo. Similarly, exile from paradise and the presence of God is a penalty for sin that we suffer, as well as toil (see Genesis 3)

What is important is whether or not Jesus suffers such penalties/curses justly or unjustly. The Bible is clear he suffers them unjustly.

See the words of the penitent criminal next to Jesus on the cross in Luke 23. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stood" but "he and I are both under condemnation, but me justly, him unjustly." Jesus' death is not unique in that he dies, but in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent and divine party. His death therefore merits the reversal of death, hence the resurrection. Justice is satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of his unjust death.

2) See above. But even if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still destroy sinners. Sin is intrinsically destructive as a violation of God's created order. Wrath, therefore, is not the central problem we face as sinners. Sin itself is the central obstacle.

3) Huh? 1 Peter Chapter 2 explicitly states that Jesus' death was unjust. Longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53

4) God is not unjust, nor did he act unjustly in ordaining that Jesus would suffer injustice. God can ordain events in which injustices take place without himself being unjust.

Getting a "presumptuous insect" T-shirt printed for myself right now, haha.

If your getting a insect T-Shirt printed right now... Is it a worm?... Brother Glen

Isaiah 41: 14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

 

[Arthur King]

False. Not according to Romans 3:21-26 or Isaiah 53:1-12.

See my other thread on Romans 3, and my previous post in this thread on Isaiah 53. All your questions are answered.

 

[Arthur King]

That's a lot of verbage to say that the one hanged on a tree is accursed of God.

Hmmm... Stricken of God. Imagine that.

But "stricken of God" doesn't provide sufficient evidence that Jesus is suffering justly as a guilty party. That language is also used of people who are innocent and suffering unjustly. See Psalm 44. We could say Abel was "stricken of God." But we all know that Abel was unjustly murdered. Abel and Jesus are directly correlated in the New Testament.

 

[JonC]

But "stricken of God" doesn't provide sufficient evidence that Jesus is suffering justly as a guilty party. That language is also used of people who are innocent and suffering unjustly. See Psalm 44. We could say Abel was "stricken of God." But we all know that Abel was unjustly murdered. Abel and Jesus are directly correlated in the New Testament.

Also,regarding Christ - the Bible does not say Jesus was stricken of God. It says that those Jews who handed Him over, who rejected Him, who esteemed Him of no value, considered Him to be stricken of God. Then there is a "yet" (or a "but").

 

[Arthur King]

Also,regarding Christ - the Bible does not say Jesus was stricken of God. It says that those Jews who handed Him over, who rejected Him, who esteemed Him of no value, considered Him to be stricken of God. Then there is a "yet" (or a "but").

True regarding Isaiah 53:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
BUT He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

But Zechariah 13:7 says:

“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
And against the man, My Associate,”
Declares the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered;
And I will turn My hand against the little ones.

And Jesus applies this to himself in Matthew 26:31 -

“You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

The key is to read the whole passage in Zechariah 13, which describes everyone either perishing or being brought through fire. The suffering of the Shepherd is not substitutionary. Everyone goes through suffering at the hand of God.

Additionally, as I have said before, language concerning God's "striking" and "crushing" is used of innocent people suffering unjustly, so it doesn't lend any support to the penal substitution position anyway.

 

[JonC]

True regarding Isaiah 53:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
BUT He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

But Zechariah 13:7 says:

“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
And against the man, My Associate,”
Declares the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered;
And I will turn My hand against the little ones.

And Jesus applies this to himself in Matthew 26:31 -

“You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

The key is to read the whole passage in Zechariah 13, which describes everyone either perishing or being brought through fire. The suffering of the Shepherd is not substitutionary. Everyone goes through suffering at the hand of God.

Additionally, as I have said before, language concerning God's "striking" and "crushing" is used of innocent people suffering unjustly, so it doesn't lend any support to the penal substitution position anyway.

I agree. There is an old saying that Christ had to take upon Himself what He was redeeming. He had to "share in our infirmities".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To prove penal substitution, you have to prove that Jesus died (1) justly, that is, to satisfy the demands of retributive justice,

Isaiah 53:10. ''Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Are you suggesting that God acted unjustly?

and (2) in our place so we wouldn't have to suffer what he suffered. If Jesus dies unjustly, and if he dies with/alongside us, then that refutes penal substitution.

Isaiah 53:5, ESV: 'Upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace.' His was the chastisement (NIV, 'punishment'); ours was the peace.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:10. ''Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Are you suggesting that God acted unjustly?

Isaiah 53:5, ESV: 'Upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace.' His was the chastisement (NIV, 'punishment'); ours was the peace.

It has been pointed out before (many times) that Christ being "bruised" and "put to grief" pleased God as it was (according to Scripture) by God's predetermined plan that His Christ die by the power of the wicked.

You are assuming that because this pleased God He joined in the abuse.

Nobody is denying that it pleased God to crush Him, or that the chastening which fell upon Him brought us peace.

IMHO, it would be better simply to stick with what the disagreement is....and that is adding to Scripture that God bruised Him, that God punished Him instead of us. That would be an honest disagreement.

 

[Arthur King]

Isaiah 53:10. ''Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Are you suggesting that God acted unjustly?

Isaiah 53:5, ESV: 'Upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace.' His was the chastisement (NIV, 'punishment'); ours was the peace.

Does the text say "by his wounds we are healed" or does it say "by his wounds we avoid being wounded"? Which does it say?

Does the Bible say "by Jesus' death we avoid dying" or does it say "By Jesus' death and resurrection, the dead will rise from death?" See Ephesians 2:1-10.

 

[Aaron]

Do you deny Genesis to be the first book of the Law? Exodus 20:11, ". . . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. . . ."

Of course not, but it was delivered at Sinai. Not in the days of Noah.

 

[Aaron]

But "stricken of God" doesn't provide sufficient evidence that Jesus is suffering justly as a guilty party.

Being hanged on the tree does. He took on our guilt, as is clearly portrayed in the sacrifices, and as plainly stated by the prophet.

 

[Aaron]

If your getting a insect T-Shirt printed right now... Is it a worm?... Brother Glen

Isaiah 41: 14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

I'd buy one.

 

[tyndale1946]

I'd buy one.

Yeah this worm puts on the Whole Armor Of God!... Everyday... Brother Glen

 

[Aaron]

I would like to point out here that neither proponent of the anti-sub view has denied the rewrite of Isaiah 53 in the OP to be an accurate summary of the meaning they're attaching to the jargon.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It has been pointed out before (many times) that Christ being "bruised" and "put to grief" pleased God as it was (according to Scripture) by God's predetermined plan that His Christ die by the power of the wicked.

You are assuming that because this pleased God He joined in the abuse.

Nobody is denying that it pleased God to crush Him, or that the chastening which fell upon Him brought us peace.

IMHO, it would be better simply to stick with what the disagreement is....and that is adding to Scripture that God bruised Him, that God punished Him instead of us. That would be an honest disagreement.

It has been pointed out to you (many times) that you are ignoring what the Scripture says: 'He has put Him to grief.' Now since @Arthur King seems unwilling to answer my question, perhaps you will. Are you suggesting that God acted unjustly?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does the text say "by his wounds we are healed" or does it say "by his wounds we avoid being wounded"? Which does it say?

Does the Bible say "by Jesus' death we avoid dying" or does it say "By Jesus' death and resurrection, the dead will rise from death?" See Ephesians 2:1-10.

I didn't ask you about that. What I asked was:

Isaiah 53:10. ''Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' Are you suggesting that God acted unjustly?

When you answer my question, I will be happy to answer yours.