To
begin, it's worth noting that the concept of 'penal substitution' (also
known as 'vicarious') as
an atonement theory emerged a mere 500 years ago. Its advocates did not
derive it from the Scriptures or the teachings of the church before the
15th or 16th century. Instead, they applied their theory to the
text
and used it as a framework for interpreting and translating the
Scriptures.
Before delving into the contentious matter of the Penal
Substitution theory and its utilization of Isaiah chapter 53 to bolster
its claims, I'd like to urge the reader to consider the possibility
that Isaiah may not be referring to a forthcoming Messiah, a common
interpretation often associated with Christ. For now, the
discussion that follows will highlight how the various atonement
theories developed over time raise more questions than they provide
answers. They often go against many passages in Scripture and common
sense. I'll conclude by presenting an article that emphasizes the
importance of thoroughly examining Isaiah 53 which is used to bolster
Christ into the passages.
Back to our topic of the Atonement Theory, there have been
many developed throughout the centuries concerning the death of
Christ; however, in the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury introduced a
theory of atonement known as the Satisfaction Theory.
According to this theory, the death of Jesus Christ is seen as a means
to satisfy the justice of God 'Satisfaction', in this sense,
means restitution, the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm
focuses on God's fairness and argues that sin is like an injustice that
needs to be made right. In his satisfaction theory, it essentially
means that Jesus Christ died to fix the wrong caused by human sin and
to make things right with God's fairness.
This theory was created as a response to the old idea that
God paid off the devil with Christ's death, known as the 'Ramson
theory' which Anselm found illogical. Instead, Anselm argued that it's
humans who owe God a debt, not God owing anything to the devil. In this
view, our debt is about wrongdoing, as our actions have taken away from
God's fairness. The satisfaction theory suggests that Jesus Christ
repays this debt to God by dying on the cross. This theory introduces
the idea that God is affected by the Atonement, meaning that Jesus
satisfies God.
Then came the Penal Substitutionary Atonement
which developed during the Reformation, specifically by Calvin and
Luther who built upon Anselm's Satisfaction theory and made a
slight change. They added a legal aspect to the idea of Christ's sacrifice, viewing it as a way to satisfy God's wrath for human sin. In this theory, Jesus takes the punishment in place of sinners. He becomes our substitute,
meeting God's demand for justice. This legal balancing of the scales is
at the core of the theory, asserting that Jesus died for legal
satisfaction. Unfortunately, it includes the false teaching of imputed righteousness.
So in this Atonement theory, God isn't looking for Jesus
to settle a debt, but rather, God is content with Jesus taking the punishment
on our behalf; the idea that the cross affects how God forgives. This
theory is widely accepted today, especially among Reformed and
evangelical Christians. Also note that Substitution Theory is
candidly labeled as a "theory," and is treated as an established doctrine. No one is saved by theories.
Salvation used to be a continuous, life-changing or
transformational experience for people throughout history, but has
evolved into a one-time, transactional event
between Jesus and his Father. As stated by some, if this theory
holds true, only the final three days or even just three hours of
Jesus' life are crucial and of our only concern. All sin is
forgiven - past, present, and future. The wrath of God is
satisfied! FALSE!
We must carefully think, if Jesus had to SETTLE the debt
for sin, then true forgiveness did not occur. It is very inaccurate to
say that Jesus covered our sins with payment. If a debt was
settled, it was not forgiven, as the Bible suggests. Nowhere in the
Bible is it stated that Jesus "Paid" or was "Punished" for our sins.
The Bible often conveys the opposite idea. In Matthew chapter 18
we see where a debt was cancelled without anyone having to make payment
or be punished. If someone has to pay for sin, then sin is not freely
forgiven. All this teaching about Jesus paying for our sins or that He
was our substitute is nothing more than Post-Reformation theology and
not true Biblical teaching. It is called the “Penal
Substitution” theory as stated above.
Some individuals claim that the Penal Substitution theory
includes forgiveness because God can absolve sins by punishing Jesus.
To better understand this concept, let's use the analogy of a traffic
ticket. Imagine receiving a notice from the traffic department stating,
"Your speeding ticket does not need to be paid and is forgiven, as long
as your friend pays the fine on your behalf." In this scenario, it's
evident that the fine isn't truly forgiven but shifted to another
person. Obviously, the traffic department has not cancelled the
debt at all! The traffic department is allowing someone else to pay it.
Likewise, penal substitution suggests that God will
‘forgive’ so long as there is punishment in full. This is
not true forgiveness. All that has happened is that punishment was
transferred to an innocent person. This is not a picture of a loving
God graciously forgiving repentant sinners. All through the Bible God
freely forgives all those who sincerely repent of their sins. The Penal
Substitution says that forgiveness is not free and is impossible and
that God must punish sin.
If Jesus had to pay for all sin, then salvation cannot be
of grace. The cause of salvation is by the merit of payment. If Jesus
paid for all sins, then logic dictates that there must be universal
salvation and that we must teach Unconditional Eternal Security.
And if Jesus had to pay for all sin, there is no such thing as pardon
or forgiveness!
Such words as propitiation, reconciliation, justification,
redemption, being brought near, putting away sin, suffering, dying for
sin, ransom, and offering oneself up, is not payment.
What happened on the cross is that Jesus SUFFERED;
He was not making a payment or being punished. (Mark 8:31; Luke 22:15;
24:46; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; Heb. 13:12; 1 Peter 1:11; 2:21; 2:23;
3:18; 4:1; 5:1; 2 Cor. 1:5)
Questions: If there is no penal substitution, what about Isaiah 53?
The first part of Isaiah 53 makes it difficult to support the penal substitution. It says in verses 3-4:
He was despised and rejected
by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom
people hide their faces
he was despised, and
we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet
we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
Isaiah stated that the pain, suffering, affliction, and rejection he endured were caused by whom? By people. Isaiah said We were responsible for that. We caused his suffering.
Now notice, Isaiah immediately says YET… WE thought God was punishing him. WE thought God was striking him. The YET indicates that WE were wrong. God didn’t cause this.
The idea of substitution suggests that all my sins, past,
present, and future, were placed on Jesus and forgiven when He was on
the cross. He took the punishment for our sins, and all our guilt was
transferred to Him during that time. Jesus paid all our debts to God on
the cross, so we are no longer held accountable for our sins, owe
nothing to God, and won't face punishment because He took our place
almost two thousand years ago.
The word of God teaches, however, that we are still
accountable for our actions. “He will repay each one according to
his works” (Romans 2:6). “For we will all stand before the
judgment seat of God…. So then, each of us will give an account
of himself to God” (Romans 14:10,12). The word of God says
nothing about Christ acting as our substitute or taking our place. Nor
did Jesus remove the wrath of God against sin. God’s wrath
is still in place against all sinners (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). If the
death of Jesus on the cross appeased and took away the wrath of God
against sin, we would expect that God would no longer have any such
wrath and would render no punishment for sins on anyone.
God's wrath satisfied? I think not. God is
angry with the wicked everyday (Ps. 7:11), that those who are not in
Christ abide under His wrath (John 3:36), that sin leads to God’s
wrath (Eph. 5:5-6), that sinners are storing up wrath in their
unrepentance (Rom. 2:5), that Jesus will return in flaming fire to take
vengeance on the evil and disobedient (1 Thess. 1:9).
Article Concerning Isaiah 53 by Bart Erhman
I wonder if you could talk about Isaiah 53 which I think is also a
later insert by the scribes trying to justify what they had done to
Jesus.
RESPONSE:
Ah, now *this* is a passage that students bring up every
time I teach a class on the New Testament. Hundreds of years
before Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted in detail his crucifixion
for the sins of the world, to be followed by his resurrection.
It’s right there in black and white, in Isaiah 53. Why
don’t Jews SEE that?? It’s in their own
Bible! Are they blind? Can’t they READ????
As it turns out, my students as a rule don’t
understand the issues with Isaiah 53; that’s not particularly
strange – most people don’t! The problem is not
that the passage was a later insertion into the text of Isaiah; it
instead involves what Isaiah was talking about.
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a passage that has long been
cited by Christian interpreters as a virtually infallible prophecy of
the death and resurrection of the messiah – i.e., Jesus.
But that is almost certainly a misreading of the passage, at least as
the author of Isaiah originally intended it. The passage deals
with the “suffering servant” of the LORD. But in its
original context the servant does not appear to be the future messiah.
Of course Jesus is not named in the passage. But
even more surprising to many Christian readers who learn this for the
first time, the word “messiah” never occurs in it
either. There is a good reason for the surprise: it is hard
indeed for Christians to read the chapter and not think that it is
speaking specifically about Jesus.
He was despised and rejected by others;
A man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity…
He was despised, and we held him of no account
Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases…
He was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities.
Upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed. (Isaiah 53:3-5)
Not only did this unnamed servant of the LORD suffer
because of others, he also is vindicated by God. Doesn’t
this refer to the resurrection of Jesus?
Out of his anguish he shall see light;
He shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
Yet he bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12)
The main reason it
is so difficult for Christian readers to see these words and not think
“Jesus” is because for many centuries theologians have
indeed argued that the passage is a messianic prophecy looking forward
to the Christian savior. Anyone who is first shown this
passage and told it is about Jesus will naturally always read it that
way. Of course it’s about Jesus! Who else could it be
about? This is surely a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion and
resurrection made centuries before the fact.
Still, it is important to note that the passage never uses
the term “messiah” or explicitly indicates it is talking
about a messiah, but also that we have no evidence that any Jew prior
to Christianity ever thought it was about the messiah. There is a
good reason for that: before the birth of Christianity, no one
thought the messiah would be someone who would die and be raised from
the dead.
That may seem both weird and counterfactual to many
Christian readers today. But historically it is almost
certainly the case: the idea of a suffering messiah is not found
in any Jewish texts prior to Christianity. The idea that
the messiah had to suffer and die for others was first espoused by
Christians on the basis of two facts that they “knew” about
Jesus: he was the messiah and he had been crucified. Their
conclusion: the messiah had to suffer and die.
But not in traditional Judaism. Instead, Jews
consistently believed the messiah would be the great and powerful ruler
who delivered Israel from its oppressors. He would be a mighty
general, or a powerful cosmic judge come from heaven. Different
Jews had different views of who or what the messiah might be, but all
these views had one thing in common: they all thought of the messiah as
a future figure of grandeur and might who would rule the nation with
justice and power.
And who was Jesus? An
itinerant preacher who got on the wrong side of the law and was
arrested by the enemies of Israel, tried, and publicly tortured to
death by crucifixion. This was just the opposite of what the
messiah would be.
Christians nonetheless came to believe he was the messiah,
and, naturally, started looking for proofs from the Bible that could
support the idea — passages that, contrary to what everyone had
previously thought, might indicate that the messiah was to suffer and
be raised from the dead. Isaiah 53 was a natural choice.
Christian thinkers picked up the passage, promoted it as a messianic
text, and that has influenced its interpretation ever since.
But there are solid reasons for thinking the passage is
about something else. To begin with, it is important to
stress the historical context within which the passage was
written. This part of Isaiah was produced after the Babylonian
armies had destroyed Jerusalem and taken large numbers of the Jewish
people into captivity in Babylon. These exiles were
suffering, and the prophet was writing in order to give them
hope. Those in captivity were suffering for the sins of the
people, which had led to God’s punishment of the nation; but they
would be returned to their land and good things would come. These
suffering ones are talked about as God’s “servant”:
they are serving God’s purposes.
Some readers think the servant has to be a single person
since, after all, he is described as an individual, God’s
servant. But it is important to realize that throughout the
Hebrew Bible, groups of people could be, and often are, described as
individuals. Nations are named after people. Thus the
Southern nation after the civil war dividing Israel is named
“Judah” – after one of the sons of Jacob; it is
obviously a group but it is named after a person. So too with
“Gog and Magog” in Ezekiel 38-39 and the fierce
“beasts” that Daniel sees as ruling the earth in Daniel
7. Each is described as an individual animal, but it represents
an entire national group.
Another reason for thinking Isaiah 53 does not refer to
just one person, the future messiah who would die for sins, is that the
passage describes the suffering of the servant as a past event, not future (he was despised and rejected; he has borne our infirmities; he was
wounded for our transgressions). On the other hand –
this is a key point – his vindication is described as a future event (He shall see light; he shall find satisfaction; he shall
divide the spoil). The author thus is referring to someone
(as a metaphor for a group of people) who has already suffered but will
eventually be vindicated.
And who is that someone, that “servant of the
LORD”? The historical context of the author’s
writing is obviously an important factor in deciding, but there is a
clincher to the argument. The author of Isaiah explicitly tells
us who the servant is. Most readers don’t notice this
because they do not read the passage in its literary context. But
as biblical scholars have long known, there are four distinct passages
in Isaiah that talk about this servant. And they tell us
who he is. This is most clear in Isaiah 49:3, where God directly
addresses the servant: “And he said to me, ‘You are
my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’”
The suffering servant is Israel.
In short, Isaiah 53 is not originally about a future
messiah. It is about the nation of Israel taken into
captivity. Some of the people were suffering horribly because of
the sins of others. But God would restore them, raise them from
the dead as it were, bringing them back to the land and allowing them
to live again after their national destruction.
________________________________________________
The Book of Isaiah consistently identifies the Servant as Israel:
Isaiah 41:8-10, Isaiah 44:1-9, 21, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3