The Narrow Path Ministries

Most amazing! All the sections of Isaiah 53 where God punishes his suffering servant are totally absent from the Septuagint! Rather the Septuagint indicates that we human beings are responsible for His suffering and death.

The red words from the New King James Version are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, where as the blue words are an English translation of the Greek Septuagint's rendering of the same words.

Note: The New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are based on the Septuagint.

1 ¶ (NKJV) Who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
1 ¶ (LXXE) O lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 (NKJV) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. he has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
2 (LXXE) we brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.

3 (NKJV)He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we did not esteem him.
3 (LXXE) But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.

4 ¶ (NKJV)Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
4 ¶ (LXXE) He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.

5 (NKJV) But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.
5 (LXXE) But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.

6 (NKJV) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
6 (LXXE) All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.

7 (NKJV)He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
7 (LXXE) And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.

8 (NKJV) He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare his generation? for he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people he was stricken.
8 (LXXE) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.

9 (NKJV) And they made his grave with the wicked—but with the rich at his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
9 (LXXE) And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.

10 ¶ (NKJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
10 ¶ (LXXE) The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:

11 (NKJV) He shall see the labor of his soul, and be satisfied. By his knowledge my righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.
11 (LXXE) The Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

12 (NKJV) Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
12 (LXXE) Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

Hi Paidion,

Could you elaborate on what you see as a significant difference? They seem much the same to me.

Homer, are you serious?

Is there anyone else out there who does not see "a significant difference"? To me the difference is so glaring, that I don't know how I can elaborate. Homer, please read the passage again in both translations. If you still don't see a significant difference, I will attempt to spell it out, point by point.

Between the red & the blue? I see no real difference in some, and a little difference in others, but nothing that makes any real theological difference. I'm afraid you're going to have to figure out how to elaborate.

Sorry, Paidion, I'm with Homer and backwoodsman; I don't see what you are clearly seeing.

the different wording doesn't sound as penal substitutionally ? paidion are you more a christus victor thinker of the atonement?

grace and peace...

Friends, I started out with a lot of the same objections I made to Homer, wondering why the differences were not obvious. As I started to explain, I realized that if a person thinks "penal substitution" the differences are not as obvious as they are to me. Please excuse me. Yet if the differences in verse 4 are not obvious even to believers in penal substitution, I cannot understand why.

Verse 4
NKJV (from Masoretic text) we esteemed him stricken, Smitten by God
Although this doesn't directly state that God smote him, it does state that we at least believed that God did so.

LXX we accounted him to be in trouble
This Septuagint translation of the same words does not even suggest that God smote him, or that we believed He did.

Verse 5
NKJV he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities
The words "for our transgressions" is often interpreted as indicative of penal substitution — that Jesus suffered in our place, that God punished him for us sins and let us off the hook.

LXX he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities
These words that he was wounded "on account of" or "because of" our sins seems to indicate that it was we who caused his suffering and death rather than God. I can see that a penal-substituionary believer might agree with the previous statement, thinking we are all responsible for Christ's death in the sense that if we hadn't sinned, his death would have been unnecessary. But the words may simply be saying that we human beings literally caused him to suffer and to be put to death. Those people actually responsible for his pains on the cross and for putting him to death were people — not God.

Verse 6
NKJV the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all
Again, the passage suggests penal substitution.

LXX
the Lord gave him up for our sins
Okay, I can see why a person who believes in penal substitution would think this says the same thing. But the translator of the Septuagint translated the dative case of "our sins" as "for", whereas it is more usual to translate it as "to". I realize that now I should have taken the liberty to do so.

the Lord gave him up to our sins
In other words, the Lord did not prevent us human beings with our murderous hearts from putting to a cruel death the one whom we hated. God gave up His Son to our sinful hateful murder.

Verse 10
NKJV Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief.
This sentence makes it clear that Yahweh, the LORD, was the one who caused his Servant's wounding and agony.

LXX The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke.

This sentence seems entirely different from the Hebrew Masoretic text. I understand that the Septuagint was translated from a different Hebrew from that of the Masoretic text. It seems that the Qumram cave #4 contained Hebrew manuscripts whose meaning read like the Greek Septuagint.

The words clearly say that the LORD purged his Servant rather than bruised him. Whether his "stroke" refers to his punishment or his death, I don't know. But the LORD's purging him from it, suggests to me that he was delivered from it in some sense. Perhaps it refers to the Father raising him to life again, and thus delivering him from suffering.

Paidion wrote:Friends, I started out with a lot of the same objections I made to Homer, wondering why the differences were not obvious. As I started to explain, I realized that if a person thinks "penal substitution" the differences are not as obvious as they are to me. Please excuse me. Yet if the differences in verse 4 are not obvious even to believers in penal substitution, I cannot understand why.

I agree. It was not difficult for me to see the differences. At first I just skimmed the blue and red highlighted portions, but directly afterwards went back and read the entire verses. There are very distinct differences (even beyond the highlighted portions), as Paidion pointed out.

I am still unsure about the exact details of the atonement (since it is quite mysterious), but I have come to the point where I have much trouble accepting penal substitution (also known as "satisfaction theory"). The idea that God would have to satisfy His own anger by shedding someone's blood sounds very brutish to me. I used to think that all the different views of the atonement had value, but I cannot in good conscience continue to say that I think penal substitution is consistent with the character of God revealed in Scripture.

Recently, I researched the moral government theory of the atonement. This views seems to make good sense of the need for God to satisfy justice without dismantling His character. All the good points of penal substitution remain, but the bad ones are thrown out (for good reason it appears!).

Here's Wikipedia's explanation of the view:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government ... _atonement

--Note: After researching the different views and thinking they all had some truth in them (known as the kaleidoscopic view of the atonement), I began to realize that some of the views actually do contradict one another. For instance, penal substitution and the moral government theories say that God needed to punish Jesus in order to forgive (although for different reasons). On the other hand, Christus Victor (especially in Eastern Orthodox streams) says that God did not need Jesus to die in order to forgive but in order to cleanse humanity and deliver them from the devil. Two very different reasons. I tend to lean on the moral government view right now, although I'm still unsure. All in all, a purely inclusive kaleidoscopic view is inconsistent since one would have to pick one side or the other on contradictory claims.--

I agree. It was not difficult for me to see the differences. At first I just skimmed the blue and red highlighted portions, but directly afterwards went back and read the entire verses. There are very distinct differences (even beyond the highlighted portions), as Paidion pointed out.

I am still unsure about the exact details of the atonement (since it is quite mysterious), but I have come to the point where I have much trouble accepting penal substitution (also known as "satisfaction theory"). The idea that God would have to satisfy His own anger by shedding someone's blood sounds very brutish to me. I used to think that all the different views of the atonement had value, but I cannot in good conscience continue to say that I think penal substitution is consistent with the character of God revealed in Scripture.








I don't see the differences as significant unless you don't agree with the "penal substitution" view and see some wiggle room in the LXX version to find another train of thought. If the LXX was the only translation that might leave room for arguments but the Masoretic text is what Jewish scholars primarily rely on and it can't be ignored. If the meaning is unclear i think you can use one version to clarify the meaning of the other and IMO the Masoretic text is pretty clear.
Re the "penal substition" being something to satisfy an angry God, i never saw it like that since the text (Isa 53) never mentions God being angry. I see it as in some way satisfying the righteous justice standard of God. It is not explicitly stated this way but to me it is the explanation that make the most sense.

steve7150 wrote:I don't see the differences as significant unless you don't agree with the "penal substitution" view

this was precisely Paidion's point. If you don't have the idea of penal substitution to begin with...it's not required to see it there. You seem to argue that we can only see an alternative because we are more open to it or proactively searching for one. I don't necessarily see this as a dishonest way to hypothesize an interpretation. Sometimes we must force our minds (not dishonestly though) to interpret something outside of the lens we are familiar with. If we did not do this, then we could never change our mind on ambiguous questions!

Re the "penal substition" being something to satisfy an angry God, i never saw it like that since the text (Isa 53) never mentions God being angry.

Many interpret "The LORD was pleased to bruise Him" as a reference to God enjoying the fact that Jesus was crucified (Rob Bell calls this cosmic child abuse) so that He can stop being angry toward sinners. this pleasure that God experienced was a pleasure of 'relief' because now God's anger has been satisfied and He can now look upon sinners with love. This just sounds weird to me. Alternatively, The moral government view does not have Jesus' death as a satisfaction substitute (so that God stops hating people) but as a demonstration of God's desire to convey the seriousness of sin. The cross is rather a demonstration for us to realize on the human level that God takes sin seriously. It was not required for God to love us (even though it is one of the very best expressions of His love), but it was required for God to remain morally just since He cannot merely 'overlook' transgression of His will.

steve7150 wrote:I see it as in some way satisfying the righteous justice standard of God. It is not explicitly stated this way but to me it is the explanation that make the most sense

Your statements would seem to agree more with the moral government view than with the traditional understanding and motivation for penal substitution. The penal substitution view is that God has a certain amount of anger toward sin that He must unleash. That exact quota was unleashed on Jesus instead, because God had to unleash it somewhere on someone. Does this not sound animalistic? Does God require us to unleash our anger in some way if someone wrongs us? No, we are to instantly forgive with no strings attached. Imagine I was at war and caught a spy from the other country who captured my captain and tortured him. I felt the urge to repay him and torture him for justice sake. Imagine that in order to appease these natural reactions for retribution, I proceeded to beat and torture myself in place of the captive.

1) Why would that remedy what the man had done, or how could it teach him that what he did was wrong?
2) Why would torturing myself relieve my own grief or anger? Wouldn't it accentuate it?
3) Why would I be willing to torture the spy later if he wasn't willing to believe that I was willing to forgive him due to my self-flagellation? Wouldn't my anger have been satisfied when I tortured myself?

3a) If #3 is true...In other words, if God's anger toward sin is truly satisfied with unleashing punishment on Jesus, why would He unleash any retributive punishment on anyone else? the Calvinist logic of limited atonement makes sense here. If Jesus took the exact substitute for sin, then He cannot have died for those He did not love enough to predestine for salvation (or else there would be no wrath to pour out).

3b) If He did die for all people, and penal substitution is true, then He has no anger to unleash on those who willingly reject Him either. Therefore, no one should go to hell for punitive retribution, since all of that retribution was placed upon Christ preemptively. (although one might justifiably go to hell for other reasons, i.e. restoration/purging, despite the wrath problem being dealt with)