Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.
- Thread starter ATG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No. The verb in v.6 is the causative Hiphil form of פגע, so it means "to cause a secondary agent to lay/strike". Hence, " וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֺן כֻּלָּנוּ׃ " And-YHWH caused-someone-to-strike upon-him the-iniquity of-us-all. YHWH did not lay all our iniquities on Him, but had all our iniquities laid/struck upon Him (whose "our" is being determined by the context.)
v.12 uses נָשָׂא ; v.11 uses סָבַל
Jer 44:22
“So the LORD could no longer bear (נָשָׂא] it, because of the evil of your doings and because of the abominations which you committed. Therefore your land is a desolation, an astonishment, a curse, and without an inhabitant, as it is this day.
Isa 1:14
Your New Moons and your appointed feasts
My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing (נָשָׂא] them.
NaaSaa' here means put up with/tolerate, and is arguably the same sense as Isaiah is using it in v.12
And this sense, applied to verse 12, in no way undermines the earlier verses that say that Jesus was not imputed by God, but by men, with our sins.
v.11 uses סָבַל, which is also used here
Lam 5:7
Our fathers sinned and are no more,
But we bear ( סָבַל ) their iniquities.
Here, the sense is that they are bearing the consequences of their fathers' sins, not that they are being imputed with their fathers' sins.
And this sense, applied in verse 11, in no way undermines the earlier verses that say that Jesus was not imputed by God, but by men, with our sins.
You're assuming that because הִפְגִּיעַ (hiphgiaʿ) is Hiphil, a secondary human agent must be the focus.
But the text never identifies men as the object of the action.
Isaiah says: "YHWH caused the iniquity of us all to meet upon Him."
The object is "the iniquity of us all", not "false accusations," "the Sanhedrin," or "the Romans."
More importantly, your reading still has to account for the flow of the chapter:
v.4: We esteemed Him (חשב, ḥāshab).
v.6: YHWH caused our iniquity to meet upon Him (פגע, pāgaʿ).
vv.11-12: He bore iniquities and sin (נשא, nāśāʾ).
Those are three different actions.
The chapter moves from human estimation to divine action to the Servant's bearing of sin.
So even if you stress the causative force of Hiphil, the verse still attributes the action to YHWH and the object remains our iniquity, not merely what wicked men did to Him.
That is why Isaiah 53:6 fits naturally with 53:11-12, not with the claim that the entire chapter is only about human accusation.
You're right that I misspoke about verse 11 using נשא. Verse 11 uses סבל (sābal) and verse 12 uses נשא (nāśāʾ). Because I conflated verses 11 and 12 from memory instead of checking the Hebrew text carefully enough.
But that correction does not actually help your argument.
The issue is not whether nāśāʾ and sābal can sometimes mean "endure" or "put up with."
Of course they can.
The issue is how Isaiah uses them here.
Isaiah 53:11 says: "He shall bear (סבל) their iniquities."
Isaiah 53:12 says: "He bare (נשא) the sin of many."
In both verses, the object is not persecution, insults, or false accusations.
The object is iniquities and sin.
Your examples from Isaiah 1:14 and Jeremiah 44:22 involve enduring something objectionable.
But neither passage says: "bear the sin of many."
Nor do they occur in a context where the Servant is simultaneously described as an asham (guilt offering, Isa. 53:10), bearing iniquities (53:11), and bearing sin (53:12).
Likewise, Lamentations 5:7 actually hurts your argument.
The verse says: "We bear their iniquities."
That is precisely the type of construction Isaiah uses.
Whether you define it as bearing guilt, consequences, liability, or burden, the point is that the iniquities of others are being borne.
It is not merely enduring false accusations.
So even granting your lexical observations, the flow of Isaiah 53 remains unchanged:
We esteemed Him stricken (human perception).
The LORD caused our iniquity to meet upon Him (v. 6).
He bears their iniquities (v. 11).
He bears the sin of many (v. 12).
The repeated focus is still on sin and iniquity, not merely on men falsely accusing Him.
That is the point that your word studies never actually remove from the chapter.
Only by the false teachers who are causing people to stumble by getting other to believe they can live in sin and still be saved.
And as a result we see so many Christians today living in sin.
Matthew 13:41,42 - The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Psalms 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity
You are approaching this incorrectly. You are determining the meaning of a word translated from First Century Greek into English in the 17th Century from the way it is used in the 21st Century after it has been infused with 20 centuries of theological massaging. To understand the biblical meaning intended by first Century authors of the word translated in the 17th century as "impute", one needs to look at the way the Greek word was used in the First Century. That is its true "biblical" meaning.
"What did λογίζομαι logízomai mean in first century Greek extra-biblical writings?"
ervativereformer.com
Meaning of λογίζομαι (logízomai)
In first-century extra-biblical Greek, the term λογίζομαι (logízomai) had several key meanings:Primary Definitions
- To Reckon or Calculate: This was often used in financial or mathematical contexts, indicating the act of counting or enumerating.
- To Consider or Infer: It also conveyed the idea of thoughtful consideration or reasoning based on available information.
Contextual Usage
The word was versatile and could be applied in various scenarios, including:- Financial Calculations: Used to describe the act of running numbers or accounting.
- Thoughtful Reflection: Employed to indicate a process of thinking or inferring conclusions after careful consideration.
Summary of Key Aspects
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Reckoning | Counting or calculating values |
| Consideration | Reflecting on or inferring based on facts |
| Context | Commonly used in both financial and philosophical discussions |
So, it had nothing to do with falsely accusing someone, as it is used today, due to theologians forcing that meaning into the Bible to shore up their theological biases.
No one achieves moral perfection in this life except you (g., cf. Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8-9), but no one who lacks divine love will reap eternal life with God (Gal. 6:7-8). Thus, a person who claims to be godly but who is behaving in an ungodly (unloving, untruthful) manner may be in one of the following categories:
a. a normally loving person observed during a rare moment when he/she acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16),
b. an immature Believer, who is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker who has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9), or
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19), who affirms Jesus as Messiah but rejects His Lordship.
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6), who once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20).
f. An atheist, who may imitate divine love without glorifying the One whose power makes it a golden rule rather than merely a pyrite suggestion.
g. ScooterJackson, sinless.
Of course the persecution, insults, and false accusations were sins committed against Christ.
That's not the issue.
The issue is that Isaiah does not say: "He bore the insults of many."
or "He bore the false accusations of many."
He says: "He shall bear their iniquities" (53:11). "He bare the sin of many" (53:12).
You're changing the object.
The question is not whether the sins of His enemies were involved in His suffering. They certainly were.
The question is why Isaiah repeatedly focuses on the Servant bearing iniquity and sin, rather than merely enduring the criminal acts committed against Him.
Your examples from Lamentations 5:7 actually prove the point.
The text does not say the children merely endured their fathers' insults.
It says they bore the consequences of their fathers' iniquities. The object remains iniquity.
Likewise in Isaiah 53, the repeated object is:
our transgressions (v.5)
our iniquities (v.5)
the iniquity of us all (v.6)
their iniquities (v.11)
the sin of many (v.12)
That is a deliberate theme running through the entire passage.
So yes, the persecution and accusations against Christ were sins.
But Isaiah's emphasis is not simply that men sinned against Him.
His emphasis is that the Servant bears sins and iniquities in some sense.
Redefining every occurrence as merely "people treated Him badly" does not account for the repeated language Isaiah chose to use throughout the chapter.
Now be king. U had a parakeet that talked. For a day or two before it fully learned a new phrase it would spout gibberish, then suddenly come out with a perfect phrase. Some humans just never get past the gibberish phrase. They learn one thing and then force everything else to fit around it, including scripture and facts, no matter how they have to twist them, and they think they are profound, so they keep repeating it.
It's stunning how you can admit that bear is used elsewhere not meaning to be imputed/accredited with responsibility for others' sins, but to bear the consequences of the other persons' sinning, either as the target of that sinning, or as the inheritor of the conditions brought about by their sinning, and yet you cannot or will not admit that this could be the sense in which Jesus was bearing the sins of the people isaiah is identifying with in Ch 53. of his book. It's a special kind of stubbornness and willful blindness.
It is obvious that Isaiah could be making the point that "we" (Israel or Messiah's contemporaries or all men) abused Jesus, but God intended to let that happen, and was pleased to do so, because it was the way He was going to bring sinners to their senses. But you insist that there can be ONLY ONE WAY of interpreting the text.
I have no problem admitting that one possible sense of bearing sin can involve bearing the consequences of another's sin.
I've already acknowledged that from passages like Lamentations 5:7.
The question is not whether that sense is possible in Hebrew.
The question is whether that sense alone explains all of Isaiah 53.
What I see in your argument is that you take a possible meaning of sābal and nāśāʾ and then treat it as the required meaning everywhere in the chapter.
But Isaiah does not simply say men sinned against the Servant.
He repeatedly ties the Servant's suffering to our transgressions (v.5), our iniquities (v.5), the iniquity of us all (v.6), their iniquities (v.11), and the sin of many (v.12).
That language is far more extensive than merely saying He was the victim of sinful treatment.
And no, I am not claiming there is only one imaginable interpretation.
I am claiming that an interpretation must account for the whole chapter.
Your reading explains very well how wicked men abused Christ and how God intended good from their evil.
I agree with all of that.
What I do not think your reading adequately explains is why Isaiah keeps returning to the specific theme of the Servant bearing sins and iniquities rather than simply describing Him as suffering from sinners.
So the issue is not stubbornness.
The issue is which reading best accounts for all the language Isaiah chose to use.
I agree that men abused Christ and that God permitted it for a redemptive purpose.
The remaining question is whether Isaiah's repeated references to bearing sin and iniquity are exhausted by that fact alone.
That is the point still under debate.
Thanks, I think.... For now, I'll trust a verifiable dictionary definition over the exegetical prowess that you've displayed in correcting the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Full disclosure: I've been translating Scripture from its original languages for more than three decades. But if your preacher says this is reference to a financial agreement, I'm not here to debate or clash personalities.
I'll leave before I say something else that someone thinks needs to be corrected.
G'day.
Is that true of all such biblical words?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
1. Define the word "earth" as used in Scripture. What is "earth?"
If you believe it to be a reference to the entire planet Earth, then you are guilty of what you've accused me of doing.
Yes, I do etymological studies as well. Our planet was not named Earth, until the thirteenth century a.d. Any biblical reference is simply referring to a region or territory, if not just a "piece of land."
Do you believe that to be exempt because it doesn't follow the Young Earth narrative, or your chosen doctrinal position?
I'm a new member on this site, and it is really discouraging that I've been wrong about everything I've ever said on here. The only responses I've received are to tell me I'm wrong about the dumbest things.
Either my 157 IQ is below the standards on this forum, or you people have presented to me the most consistently arrogant attitudes I've ever encountered.
I think I'll abandon fruitless biblical discussions on here and troll everybody's comments to see if there's something I can point our that's wrong... (seems to be the most frequently used style of communication, so it must be allowed)
I'm not the one saying your reading is impossible. I am simply saying that your proof texting is fictitious. Your reading is not the only viable reading, so cannot be a proof text for your reading. That something can be read into a text grammatically and semantically, does not prove that it was intended to be a layer of meaning one should take from that text.
God can redeem us from sin without Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) coming into play at all. Justice does not require PSA. If God can command us to forgive without us practising PSA and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault, then neither does God need to do so. PSA seems to me to make God into a vindictive victim who must have His pound of flesh before He will let go of resentment over offences against Him. That does not fit with the character Jesus displayed, through whom we see exactly the Father's character.
The reason Isaiah keeps returning to the specific theme of the Servant bearing sins and iniquities rather than simply describing Him as suffering from sinners could be that he is underscoring Messiah's continuing to take the abuse without breaking, without reviling back, without calling down curses on His adversaries, and continuing to extend grace and forgiveness to them.That was the test He needed to pass to be the perfect human being who would be eligible to inherit headship of the human race and the planet given to us. Bear all things without sinning against anyone or against God, who had commanded Him in the garden to submit to the coming abuse to which God was going to abandon Him and from which God was not going to protect Him.
I think "earth" would have been to the writer of Genesis 1 what existed as dry land under the space demarcated as the heavens, as opposed to that which existed in the space demarcated as the heavens.
Gen 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw thatit was good.