Penal Substitution Theory and the presupposed (eisegesis) definition of מוּסָר in Isaiah 53:5

[Episkopos]

I thought for a minute you might be right; but then I opened up the context, and believe the "sons of the Kingdom" at that time was Israel.

Matthew 8:
10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.

I also do not see a correlation in Jude. They are the "ungodly."

Wisdom says that we should learn from the mistake of others. The present day sons of the kingdom are Christians....same sins...same outcome.

 

[CharismaticLady]

That's not what atoning is for...and no one suffers in hell forever for a life lived in this flesh. God KILLS both the body and the soul in hell fire...reserved for the wicked.

But many will be cast into outer darkness...some think that a fate worse than death. This is reserved for the religious hypocrites. They who call light darkness and darkness light.

Personally, I believe "outer darkness" is where the unrighteous go after death, but before the second coming, whereas the saints go to be present with the Lord, and will return with Him.

1 Thessalonians 4:
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

This should give those who believe the alive raptured will also return with Christ. There is only one second coming.

 

[CharismaticLady]

That is about maturity...learning to remain in the grace of God. We can pn;u stay in the Spirit as long as we love none other than God. So then our maturity is to love as God loves.


This is about righteousness not holiness. There is no sin in holiness...so then no need for more forgiveness. Only they who sin need forgiveness.

Go back and read the additional edit I put from 2 Peter 1. That is to be holy. In heaven will be two categories: righteous and holy. Revelation 22:11

 

[CharismaticLady]

Wisdom says that we should learn from the mistake of others. The present day sons of the kingdom are Christians....same sins...same outcome.

The ungodly are not Christians.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Opinion? The bible is clear that the wages of sin is death...not eternal torment.

And after death? Sinners do not go to heaven.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Where do you get this definition?

I agree with him. What's not to get?

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'd say the absence of life. Physical death is the absence of physical life, spiritual death is the absence of spiritual life.

I just never heard it defined as "separation". Where does that come from?

Okay, sin while we are living does put a separation between us and God - we cannot hear His voice. I'm talking about physical death, and I believe that is what Non was referring to.

 

[Nondenom40]

There are a lot of things associated with Penal Substitution Theory and this thread. You are right, one thing leads to another.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on worldly philosophy (on 16th century humanism dealing with retribitive justice). Basically, the Theory holds that "simple forgiveness" is impossible for God. God cannot forgive someone upon repentance because the sin has created a debt that must be paid. For God to forgive sin this "sin debt" (the demands of retribitive justice") must be satisfied. Do God transfered our sins to Christ and punished Him in our place (punished our sins in Christ) thus making forgiveness possible.

It has to do with worldly philosophy (Scripture states that God is just to forgive the repentant).

Penal substitution isn't a philosophy, its a very basic biblical principal that goes back to the garden. God is just, and the demands law requires is that someone pay for the law being broken. No one has dropped the charges. I think i saw that somewhere else here. God doesn't simply wipe the slate clean as though it never happened. Someone will be held accountable for every sin ever committed. Either the person that committed them or Jesus. There is simply no getting around this. If Jesus, then He paid the debt you owe. If the unredeemed, they pay their debt for eternity in hell.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You think this means death means "separation"?

Sinners do not go to God, but to outer darkness until the resurrection. The righteous Israelites of Ecc. go to Abraham's bosom - or God.

 

[Nondenom40]

Only they who reject Him willfully are under wrath. There are other possibilities for mercy and kindness other than to cast everyone that doesn't believe yet into the fire. Perhaps you have read about the mercy of God? ;)

Gods mercy doesn't overrule Gods justice. He doesn't just look the other way because someone was ignorant of God. Read Romans 1.

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree with him. What's not to get?

I was not disagreeing. I just had not heard death being defined as separation.

I also agree (death is a separation from life.... which works with the physical or spiritual). It just seems an awkward definition to me as I have not encountered that explanation as a definition.

 

[Episkopos]

Gods mercy doesn't overrule Gods justice. He doesn't just look the other way because someone was ignorant of God. Read Romans 1.

That cuts both ways...read Romans 2. They who do what is right are deemed righteous whether they know God or not. God judges us fairly. Righteous is as righteous does.

 

[Steve Owen]

I never said that I was withdrawing from the thread. I said that I was opting out of discussing the topic with you with the knowledge you would respect that choice.

I did so via PM because I thought that the most appropriate method of communication (as it was not technically about the subject of the OP)

The title of you PM was 'bowing out.' But I have no desire to exchange PMs with you. If you want to call me a heretic you should have the courage to do so on the open board.

I never said that מוּסָר cannot mean “punishment”. I never said that no lexicons offer that possibility. This was dishonest misdirection on your part (a smoke screen).

Post #1.

There are several Hebrew words that point to punishment, but the one we are dealing with here does not.

Post #8.

You stated that מוּסָר‎ in Isaiah 54:5 means "punishment".

In fact I did no such thing. I stated, with evidence, that 'punishment' is within the semantic range of musar.

It is used 50 times in Scripture, 39 times to mean "instruction". It has been translated chastening, chastisement, discipline, instruction.... but rarely has [sic] any Hebrew scholars translated the word [as?] "punishment". Mounce offers a list of entirely different Hebrew words that can be translated "punishment" (מוּסָר‎ not among ).

Post '45.

You have not yet offered any reference that states מוּסָר to be defined as "punishment".

Post #47.

There is absolutely nothing "academic" about your refusal to explain how you arrive at your theories or your treatment of your unlisted secret lexicons as a smorgasbord from which to choose a meaning you like.

At this point @David Taylor posted several lexions in support of 'punishment' as a possible rendering of musar. Post #59.

When asked how you get from Scripture to your theory you only provide verses and say your theory is correct. That is not what I have been asking. The proof is on this thread.

If you disagree with my use of Scripture, you need to say why and explain what you believe those Scriptures mean. This you have signally failed to do. But the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is all over the Bible. I started a thread on the subject and gave my understanding in considerable depth. Here it is : The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution But your approach to Scripture is like a monkey playing with one of those old-fashioned watches. You pull a cog out, the thing stops working, and you throw it aside.

I said that if we use the word to mean “punishment” then we need to explain why just as I explained why I believe the word refers to “chastening”. I explained my reasoning (that I believe this to be referring to the same thing as Christ "learning obedience" and being perfected from the things He suffered - a notion you have rejected but was never able to offer a reason).

I have explained why 'chastening' or 'chastisement in Isaiah 53:5 must have reference to punishment -the context demands it - and you have only been able to say, 'tain't so! Now Hebrews 5:8-9 is fascinating and if you want to discuss how the One who knows all things (John 2:24-25; 21:17) needed to learn, and how He who was obedient from childhood (Luke 2:51) and always did the things that pleased His Father (John 5:30; Philippians 2:8) needed to learn obedience, then we can discuss it. I have a view on what the verses mean which I'm perfectly willing to share, but I want to know how you get from your view of what Heb 5:8 means (whatever that may be) to Isaiah 53:5.

I agree that Christ was pierced for our transgressions. I do not agree that this means that God pierced Jesus instead of piercing us in order to pay our sin debt.

But you have said neither what you think 'pierced for our transgressions' means, nor how you believe God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus unless divine justice is satisfied. The problem is that you have proved inept at defending your own view. You just say that I am wrong and the words (insofar as you have given any) mean what you want them to mean.

I am not very familiar with the UK. What seminary did you attend?

I gave you an account of my Christian life and education a while back on another board. I am not the least bit ashamed of it and am willing to tell it to anyone else, but not to you. I will only add that British pulpits are full of men and women with theology degrees who don't know the Lord.[/QUOTE]

 

[John Caldwell]

The title of you PM was 'bowing out.' But I have no desire to exchange PMs with you. If you want to call me a heretic you should have the courage to do so on the open board.

Post #1.
Post #8. In fact I did no such thing. I stated, with evidence, that 'punishment' is within the semantic range of musar.
Post '45.
Post #47.
At this point @David Taylor posted several lexions in support of 'punishment' as a possible rendering of musar. Post #59.

If you disagree with my use of Scripture, you need to say why and explain what you believe those Scriptures mean. This you have signally failed to do. But the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is all over the Bible. I started a thread on the subject and gave my understanding in considerable depth. Here it is : The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution But your approach to Scripture is like a monkey playing with one of those old-fashioned watches. You pull a cog out, the thing stops working, and you throw it aside.

I have explained why 'chastening' or 'chastisement in Isaiah 53:5 must have reference to punishment -the context demands it - and you have only been able to say, 'tain't so! Now Hebrews 5:8-9 is fascinating and if you want to discuss how the One who knows all things (John 2:24-25; 21:17) needed to learn, and how He who was obedient from childhood (Luke 2:51) and always did the things that pleased His Father (John 5:30; Philippians 2:8) needed to learn obedience, then we can discuss it. I have a view on what the verses mean which I'm perfectly willing to share, but I want to know how you get from your view of what Heb 5:8 means (whatever that may be) to Isaiah 53:5.

But you have said neither what you think 'pierced for our transgressions' means, nor how you believe God can be just and the justifier bof the one who believes in Jesus unless divine justice is satisfied. The problem is that you have proved inept at defending your own view. You just say that I am wrong and the words (insofar as you have given any) mean what you want them to mean.
I gave you an account of my Christian life and education a while back on another board. I am not the ,east bit ashamed of it and am willing to tell it to anyone else, but not to you. I will only add that British pulpits are full of men and women with theology degrees who don't know the Lord.

[/QUOTE]

I have also found what purports to be a 'literal translation' of 53:4-6 by a guy called Otfried Hofius ('The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters). Interestingly, Hofius is something of a liberal and he hates the idea of penal substitution, but he finds he cannot deny its existence in these verses. The italics show where an emphatic personal pronoun occurs in the Hebrew:

'Surely our sicknesses - He bore them,
and our pains - He suffered them.
Yet we considered Him as one stricken,
as one struck down by God and afflicted.
But He was pierced for our transgressions,
and crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment for our salvation lay upon Him,
and by His wounds, healing came to us.
We all have strayed like sheep,
each of us has turned to his own way;
but Yahweh has caused to fall on Him the iniquity of us all.'

Emphatic personal pronouns are also found in verse 11 - their iniquities - He will bear them,' and in v.12 - 'For He - the sins of many, He bore them.' All of this serves to underline the simple fact that the Servant, who is distinct from God's people, suffered in their place, as their substitute.

I looked up the words 'chasten' and 'chastise' in the Oxford Concise Dictionary:
Chasten: 'Discipline, punish by inflicting suffering, moderate, restrain, subdue.'
Chastise: 'Punish, thrash.'

'You have been found guilty of the most heinous crimes. You will be taken from prison to a place of execution and there you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead - but it's not a punishment, so that's OK.'
The meaning of those verses is so staringly obvious that I think you have proved the case for me.
Our transgressions demanded wounding: He was wounded instead of us.
Our iniquities demanded crushing: He was crushed instead of us.
The only way we could get peace with God was through His chastisement: He bore that chastisement.
The only way we could get healing was through His wounding: He received that wounding instead of us.
He was cut off from the land of the living instead of us.
Our transgressions merited being stricken: He was stricken instead of us.

Steve,

All that I have asked here was that those who believe "chasten" Isaiah 53:5 means "punishment" explain why.

For example, I believe the word refers to a type of instruction/ discipline The reason I believe this is twofold. 1) Out of the 50 times the word appears in the Old Testament, 76% of the times the word is used it means a type of instruction/ discipline. 4% of the time it can mean "punishment". This is excluding usage in this passage. 2) I believe Isaiah 53 is referring to the same suffering discussed in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8 with τελειόω and μανθάνω (made perfect and learned). I believe that Isaiah 53:5 is speaking of the same thing - Christ being made perfect and "learning obedience" through suffering.

What this means is your reply should have been "I believe the word means "punishment" because (whatever reason you hold). Instead you and @David Taylor kept insisting the interpretation "punishment" is a possible definition of the word and you believe the verse says Christ was punished (no reason except you believe it to be the proper definition).

You have said that words like "wound", "crush", and "stripe" means "punishment". But we all know that is foolishness. I'm a retired combat soldier so I can also tell you that "shot", "pierced", "stabbed", and "stubbed toe" also does not mean "punishment".

This is the reason I had said I'd rather withdraw from our discussion. You decide words mean whatever you want them to mean (as long as you can find a commentator to agree) and that's your "proof". I just did not see any reason to continue a discussion because until you can articulate how you get from Scripture to your interpretation there is nothing to debate.

I told you what I believe and why I believe it. It is thus far all subjective on your end. A hint for your belief (as I once held it anyway) may be found in the sacrifice system and the nature of the law. But you do not seem to even know that.

 

[Nondenom40]

That cuts both ways...read Romans 2. They who do what is right are deemed righteous whether they know God or not. God judges us fairly. Righteous is as righteous does.

Where does Romans 2 say what i bolded? Not adding to Gods word are you?

 

[John Caldwell]

Penal substitution isn't a philosophy, its a very basic biblical principal that goes back to the garden. God is just, and the demands law requires is that someone pay for the law being broken. No one has dropped the charges. I think i saw that somewhere else here. God doesn't simply wipe the slate clean as though it never happened. Someone will be held accountable for every sin ever committed. Either the person that committed them or Jesus. There is simply no getting around this. If Jesus, then He paid the debt you owe. If the unredeemed, they pay their debt for eternity in hell.

Penal Substitution Theory is not a philosophy. I agree there. What I said is that is based on humanistic judicial philosophy. That us true. The theory itself goes back to the 15th century, but you are right that the philosophy behind the theory goes back to the Garden.

 

[Enoch111]

For as long as we agree to His conditions of who from then on are we going to obey? Romans 6:16

If you are suggesting that God's gift of eternal life is based upon obedience (other than obedience to the Gospel) you are introducing "another Gospel. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work of redemption. PLUS NOTHING.

 

[Enoch111]

The theory itself goes back to the 15th century, but you are right that the philosophy behind the theory goes back to the Garden.

More NONSENSE from JC. Gospel Truth goes back to Christ and His apostles, and there is absolutely no philosophy involved in divine revelation. Philosophy is from man, revelation is from God.

But it is probably too late for you to get back on track. You will now continue to promote heresy regardless.

 

[John Caldwell]

More NONSENSE from JC. Gospel Truth goes back to Christ and His apostles, and there is absolutely no philosophy involved in divine revelation. Philosophy is from man, revelation is from God.

But it is probably too late for you to get back on track. You will now continue to promote heresy regardless.

You believe God revealed Penal Substitution Theory to you as a special revelation? Did you get gold tablets and magic glasses or was this in some type of dream or vision.... perhaps your favorite pastors speaking as God's vicor?

I do not believe in continued special revelation (I believe Scripture is complete and we should not add to it).

Your explanation of special revelation for your interpretation is too subjective and almost gnostic. We have Scripture so that we do not need your theories and additions.

Your reply was a very poor attempt to hide the fact you have not (probably cannot) explain how you get from Scripture to your theory because most likely you did it the other way around.

 

[CharismaticLady]

If you are suggesting that God's gift of eternal life is based upon obedience (other than obedience to the Gospel) you are introducing "another Gospel. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work of redemption. PLUS NOTHING.

Yes, we are at opposite ends of interpretation. Our assurance is based on our keeping the commandments of Jesus, and being pleasing in His sight, not disobeying the commandments of Jesus and being unpleasing in His sight. 1 John 3:18-24

Also, we need to make our call and election sure:

2 Peter 1:
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That means if you do stumble and fall into sin, your call and election is NOT sure.