Featured Isaiah 53 doesn't support penal substitution

“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 upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.”

Let's make sure we define penal substitution. Penal (as in penalty) substitution is the idea that, to quote a popular hymn, “On that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” On the cross “God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.” (Pierced for Our Transgressions). The idea is that humanity’s sin against God deserves the eternal outpouring of God’s wrath (hell), and He must execute this punishment in order to be a perfectly just God. So, in order to save humanity, God becomes human in the person of Jesus Christ and suffers the divine wrath in our place for our sins as our substitute. On penal substitution, salvation is not primarily from sin, or Satan, or ourselves, but from God Himself.

As popular theologian RC Sproul says:

My sin was placed upon him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven — excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say — It was as if Jesus heard the words, ”God damn you.” Because that’s what it meant to be cursed. To be damned. To be under the anathema of the Father.

In sum, penal substitution requires at least two things (1) that Jesus’ death is just, or deserved, that is, to satisfy the wrath of God, to satisfy the retributive demands of God’s justice, and (2) that Jesus dies in our place, as our substitute, taking the punishment upon himself so we won't have to suffer it.

Three comments on Isaiah 53 to show why it doesn't support penal substitution:

First, it is clear from the immediate context, the sacrificial context, and from the commentary on the passage in 1 Peter 2 that the Servant is suffering unjustly, not justly. Concerning the immediate context of Isaiah 53, the prophet makes it clear that the Suffering Servant is “despised and forsaken by men” (v.3), and “they made [the Servant’s] grave with the wicked . . . although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.” These verses make it clear that the Servant was unjustly killed. Concerning the sacrificial context of Isaiah 53, verse 10 says that the Servant was “made a guilt offering.” Recall that a guilt offering is a ritual in which an unblemished animal is killed by a guilty sinner (Lev 5:6). The Servant, also, is a perfectly innocent life that is killed by guilty sinners. Notice that Isaiah 53 is the go-to passage for encouraging people who are unjustly suffering. 1 Peter 2 is the longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53, and it says:

“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds grace with God.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

Again, it is clear from the immediate context, the sacrificial context, and from the commentary in 1 Peter 2 that the Suffering Servant is suffering unjustly, not justly. What is it that finds grace with God? When “for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly (v.19).” It was Jesus’ unjust suffering on the cross that found grace with God to save the whole world.

Second, let’s pay close attention the logic of Isaiah 53:5, that “by his scourging we are healed.” The logic of Penalty Substitution is “Jesus suffered the punishment for our sins in our place so that we would not have to suffer that punishment.” In the language of Isaiah 53, this would be translated “Jesus was wounded so that we would avoid being wounded.” But this is not what Isaiah 53 says. The text says, “By his scourging we are healed,” NOT, “By his scourging we avoid being scourged.” The logic of Isaiah 53 actually runs, “He was wounded so that we could be healed from our wounds.” The suffering servant is wounded so that those who are wounded (by sin) can be healed. Jesus is wounded for our transgressions so that our wounds can be healed by the power of his resurrection. Again, Jesus does not die so that we will not have to die, but Jesus dies so that the dead can die and rise in Him.

Third, many Penal Substitution advocates will cite that Jesus was “smitten of God (v.4)” and “the Lord was pleased to crush him (v.7).” But recall that God’s act of “crushing” people can refer to two different things, both (a) the just punishment of the guilty, or (b) the unjust persecution of the innocent. See Psalm 44, in which the Psalmist says, “Our heart has not turned back, and our steps have not deviated from Your way, yet You have crushed us in a place of jackals (referring to foreign nations) and covered us with the shadow of death (v.18-19).” The Psalmist says that God is crushing him, rejecting him, dishonoring him (v.9), yet he is innocent, so he is clearly referring to unjust persecution at the hands of the wicked, not just punishment at the hands of the righteous, when he says so. Therefore, references to God “striking” and “crushing” the suffering servant fail to show that the suffering servant is justly suffering or “satisfying the wrath” of God. Isaiah 53 is about an innocent person who is crushed by God as he willingly suffers the unjust persecution of wicked humans.

Here is how the atonement actually works, when properly formulated around the injustice of Jesus' death. See this quotation from Caesarius of Arles in the 6th century:

Let us see what the cross might want from itself, how the sin of the world is remitted upon it, how death is destroyed and the Devil triumphed over. The cross is certainly not deserved, insofar as it pertains to the form of justice, unless by sinners; for both the law of God and of the world is recognized to have decreed the cross for guilty men and criminals alone. Therefore with the Devil hurrying about working through Judas, through the kings of the earth and through the princes of the Jews, who “came together as one” to Pilate “against the Lord and against his Christ,” Christ was condemned to death; an innocent man was condemned just as the prophet says in the Psalm: “But the righteous man, what has he done?” And again, “They will seek against the spirit of the righteous and will condemn innocent blood;” the man guilty of not even a trivial sin is condemned, since the serpent was able to leave no trace in this rock. He patiently endured both insults and blows, the thorny crown and scarlet robe, and the other mockeries which are contained in the Gospel. He endured this without any guilt, so that filled with patience, as “a sheep to the sacrifice,” he might come to the cross. He received this in a dignified manner who would have been able to inflict injury upon his enemies . . . But he fulfills the mystery of the cross, for which purpose he also came into this world; so that by means of the cross, by means of a salvific justice and reason, the note of our indebtedness to sin might be canceled, the enemy power be captured after being enticed by the bait of the cross and the Devil lose the prey he used to hold.

Now, it is necessary for this to be believed to have been done in this way. Christ the Lord without any guilt, without any blame, underwent a penal sentence; the innocent man is crucified without sin. The Devil is made guilty by the death of an innocent man; the Devil is made guilty by bringing the cross upon a righteous man who owed nothing . . . “You are no longer able to hold man in endless death, for he conquered, overcame and crushed you through me. You were not truly conquered through power, but by justice; not by domination, by rather by equity.” Thus the Enemy vomited up what he had gulped down and justly there was taken away from him what he used to hold, since unjustly he dared to infringe upon that which under no arrangement was his concern.

Again, Caesarius says that Jesus underwent a “penal sentence,” but he hammers the point that Jesus suffered this penal sentence unjustly as an innocent person.

 

The logic is clear in all forms of penal substitution that Jesus’ death is just, that is deserved. Penal substitution defender Donald Macleod says, “Christ’s death, despite its dark, horrific backdrop, was just, because it was the death of the voluntary, divine sin-bearer, whose sacrifice satisfied God that it was right for him to forgive the sins of the world.” He says again that at the cross the “penalty was right” and that “it could only be right if it was deserved.” The Catholic poet Dante states in his Paradiso that the cross was God’s “just vengeance” upon human sin, and “Thus was the doom inflicted by the Cross, if measured by the nature so assumed, the most just penalty that ever was.” According to Dante, Jesus on the Cross assumes a fallen, sinful human nature, and suffers the most just penalty that ever was. The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions state that, “God acted justly in punishing him, for he saw him as guilty by virtue of his union with those whose sins he bore” and “Jesus is justly condemned by God for sins imputed to him.” Thus, it is clear that according to penal substitution, Jesus’ death was just. The reason why Jesus died was to satisfy God’s justice, specifically the penal or retributive demands of his justice. This is what it means for Jesus to “satisfy the wrath of God” according to penal substitution.

 

I have quoted Augustine, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Anselm, and CS Lewis to support my view, Clearly it is within the mainstream.

I am a Baptist. Attended Baptist Churches the vast majority of my life. I went to a Presbyterian church for a few years but always disagreed with infant baptism.

Here are 5 illustrations to help you distinguish penal substitution from the Bible:

1) Biblical atonement is like this: you are drowning in a river. Jesus jumps into the river, grabs you, and pulls you out.

But penal substitution is different. According to penal substitution, you are sentenced to be drowned in the river as a future punishment, but Jesus volunteers himself to be drowned in the river instead of you, and the state agrees to the substitution.

The key difference is this: in the Bible, we are dead in sin, and Jesus dies with us in order to raise us from death. But according to penal substitution, we deserve death as a future punishment, and Jesus suffers it instead of us so we won’t have to.

2) Biblical atonement is like this: Jesus’ death is similar to the murder of Abel by Cain, or the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers, or the unjust execution of Naboth in order to steal his vineyard, or the casting of Daniel’s friends into the fiery furnace, or the unjust beheading of John the Baptist, or the unjust execution of Stephen the martyr. Jesus’ death is the unjust death of a righteous person at the hands of sinners. Post-biblical examples of such martyrs would be Joan of Arc, Abraham Lincoln, Sophie Scholl, or Martin Luther King Jr.

But penal substitution is different. According to penal substitution, Jesus’ death is similar to that of the evil Philistine giant Goliath, or the villain Haman in the book of Esther, or King Herod Agrippa I, who died under the curse of God after he killed the apostle James (Acts 12). Jesus’ death is the just, deserved death of a guilty person at the hands of God. Post-biblical examples of deaths we generally consider just in this manner would be those of Ted Bundy or Osama bin Laden.

In the Bible, Jesus’ death is unjust, but according to penal substitution, Jesus’ death is just/deserved.

3) Biblical atonement is like this: A Judge declares that you owe a debt of 1 billion dollars next week. You have no way to pay the debt. But the Judge offers to pay the debt himself on your behalf.

But penal substitution is different. According to penal substitution, the Judge sentences you to the electric chair. The Judge then volunteers to go to the electric chair instead of you, in your place, so you never have to. Penal substitution advocates will insist that Jesus paying a debt on your behalf and going to the electric chair in your place are equivalent in terms of the priorities of justice being satisfied. But that is not the case in the Bible. The Bible does not equate payment and punishment (restitution and retribution are distinct priorities of justice in the Bible).

4) Biblical atonement is like this: You crash into your neighbor’s car and do $1,000 worth of damage. Your neighbor is angry. Your insurance company, “Jesus Insurance”, pays your neighbor $5,000 on your behalf, and your neighbor is no longer angry (he is propitiated), he fixes his car, and he ends up with a surplus.

But penal substitution is different. According to penal substitution, you crash into your neighbor’s car and do $1,000 worth of damage, your neighbor is angry, but then your neighbor demands that he either do $1,000 of damage to your car, or the insurance company provide a vehicle of equal worth to his own to which he can do $1,000 of damage. His anger can only be propitiated if it is exhausted on your car or a substitute car of equal worth to his own. The neighbor doesn’t just want a debt of restitution, he specifically demands a so-called “debt of punishment” in which he can fully exhaust his anger (even though no such debt of punishment would actually fix his car).

According to penal substitution, Jesus pays our so-called “debt of punishment”. But in the Bible, there is no such thing as a “debt of punishment”, and what Jesus pays is our debt of obedience in order to make restitution to repair what was broken by our sin.

5) Biblical atonement is like this (the following scenario is based on a true story, by the way): You are in jail, and your time in jail is causing you suicidal depression. But then the judge that sentenced you to jail volunteers himself to suffer in jail alongside you. The judge is judged along with the guilty, although he is innocent and his sentence is undeserved. He is numbered with the transgressors (Isa 53:12). He befriends you and comforts you, causing your suicidal depression to go away, and he serves out the remainder of your jail sentence with you.

But penal substitution is different. According to penal substitution, the judge volunteers himself to go to jail instead of you so that you never go to jail. Penal substitution advocates will insist that Jesus suffers our penalty not with us, but instead of us so we won’t have to suffer it.

 

No, it is not a lot of rhetoric. That is an objectively false and substanceless characterization of what I have said. Lying on the internet is still lying.

I gave substantial, concrete examples of how penal substitution works vs how biblical atonement works.

You haven’t provided any rationale for why you think Isaiah 53 supports penal substitution in your last post , just your opinion.

 

I'm not sure what your view is...

After all our exchanges, and all the theologians I have quoted, I have no idea how you could say this. I have been abundantly clear.

You say my illustrations are not good explanations of anything. How could you say that. Do you not understand someone jumping into a river to grab someone and pull them out? This is not complicated. The illustrations I have given are super straightforward.

Aquinas, Luther and Anselm for sure did not support what you have presented so far.

Here are Aquinas, Luther, and Anselm in their own words, supporting my view:

Anselm of Canterbury, properly formulating the atonement around the injustice of Jesus' death.

“That God, in order to set mankind free, was obliged to act against the devil by justice rather than mighty power. We reason that thus the devil, having killed Him in whom there was no guilt deserving death and who was God, would justly lose the power which he used to have over sinners.”

Now, Anselm brings up important and helpful qualifications in his treatise Cur Deus Homo as to how we should think about Jesus’ conflict with the devil, particularly that nothing is owed to the devil, but he never refutes the idea that the devil unjustly killed the Son of God.

Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, affirms the injustice of Jesus’ death as well:

“Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion [the devil] exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor."

Martin Luther, in the 16th century, applies the loss of rights to the Law rather than the devil:

“Thou hearest that Christ was caught in the bondage in which we all were held, was set under the Law, was a man full of all grace, righteousness, etc., full of life, yea, He was even the Life itself; now comes the Law and casts itself at Him and would deal with Him as with all other men. Christ sees this, lets the tyrant perform his will upon Him, lets the reproach of all guilt fall against Himself as one accursed, yea, bears the name that He Himself is the curse, and goes to suffer for this cause, dies, and is buried. Now, thinks the Law, He is overpowered; but it knew not that it had so grievously mistaken itself, and that it had condemned and throttled the Son of God; and since it has now judged and condemned Him, who was guiltless and over whom it had no authority, it must in its turn be taken, and see itself made captive and crucified, and lose all its power, and lie under the feet of Him whom it had condemned.”

Anyone who actually rejects this is truly on the edge of orthodox Christianity.

Hahaha, so Augustine, CS Lewis, Gregory of Nyssa, Anselm, and John of Damascus are "truly on the edge of orthodox Christianity"?

Give me a break.

 

See 1 Peter 2:18-25, the longest NT commentary on Isaiah 53. Peter explicitly states that Jesus' death was unjust.

Also see the words of the penitent criminal on the cross crucified with Christ. His logic is not "in my place condemned he stands," but "he and I are both under the same sentence of condemnation, him unjustly, but me justly."