It seems, with your second sentence above, you have nearly demolished your argument. For if Isaiah 53 is all about the substitutionary death of Christ, then "by his wounds you are healed" would mean that physical healing is in the atonement (as many Pentecostal types affirm). But, as you said, Matthew applied the words to Jesus healing people here on earth BEFORE His sacrifice on the cross.Steve 7159 wrote:According to Isaiah 53 it sounds like sins do have to be paid for "he was pierced for our transgressions , he was crushed for our iniquities , the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed" 53.5
Matthew thought Isa 53 was speaking of Jesus as he references it concerning Jesus healing people, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah , He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases" Matt 8.17.
In any case, do you really think Jesus was punished in order to bring us shalom (well-being)? Who punished Him? The Father? Was the Father really "satisfied" concerning mankind's sin by punishing His innocent son and letting the wicked world off the hook? Again I ask, would you be satisfied in punishing your innocent son in place of the guilty one who rebelled against you? Would you feel that justice had been done? What would you think of a human father who did such a thing to his son? Would he have treated his son justly? Isn't justice one of God's main attributes? If we do not see justice in punishing the guilty in place of the innocent, then how can we accept God's doing so to His innocent Son? Is it clear that this is the correct interpretation of Isaiah 53? Or have we simply accepted the message which our preachers have preached to us?
It is assumed by these preachers that verse 5 is declaring that the suffering servant is wounded "to pay for" our transgressions. I don't know Hebrew. But I know that according to the Septuagint translation, he was wounded "δια τας ανομιας" (because of our lawlessnesses) and bruised "δια τας αμαρτιας ημων" (because of our sins). It was lawless, sinful mankind that wounded and bruised him. The Jewish understanding is that the suffering servant is Israel. Indeed, Yahweh calls this very individual "My servant" in Isaiah 52:13 and 53:11. Of course, I realize that the NT writers apply many OT passages to Christ, which seem to be directly referring to something else, and so I cannot argue against that. Yet, accepting this as directly referring to Jesus, we have to ignore verse 10, "He shall see his offspring." For Jesus had no natural offspring. Nor did He have "spiritual" offspring. For in the New Testament, disciples of Christ are called "brothers of Christ", and "sons of God", but never "sons of Christ."
Understand, that I am just thinking my thoughts into this post. I'm not arguing against Isaiah 53 applying to Christ. But I think the "iffiness" of doing so will not suffice to prove penal substitution.
Okay, let's assume that "the idea of a substitutionary sacrifice originated with the tabernacle which had 50 chapters reference it". That does not require that it carries over into the new order. Indeed the book of Hebrews contrasts the old order with the new many times. One example:I certainly agree with regeneration and sanctification but the idea of a substitutionary sacrifice originated with the tabernacle which had 50 chapters reference it whereas the creation of the universe had two chapters.
The OLD: Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22)
The NEW: But as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)
Under the old sacrificial order God forgave their sins when they sacrificed, a concession to their imitation of the heathen who sacrificed to their gods to avert punishment from their gods. For example, the ancient Sumerians in their liturgy explained substitutionary sacrifice: "The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he hath given up a lamb for his life; he hath given up the lamb's head for the man's head." The Sumerians by C. Leonard Woolley p.126 In the Sumerian system a lamb could be offered in place of a human being who was to be sacrificed to appease the malignant spirits so that they wouldn't harm people,
But Christ's sacrifice of Himself wasn't merely for the forgiveness of sins, but for their elimination.