Detailed Walkthrough of Isaiah 52-53 with PSA Commentary

Isaiah 52:13-15

Verse 13: Hebrew: הִנֵּה יַשְׂכִּיל עַבְדִּי יָרוּם וְנִשָּׂא וְגָבַהּ מְאֹד
Translation: “See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.”

Commentary: This verse sets the stage for the servant’s dual experience of suffering and subsequent exaltation. The terms “raised,” “lifted up,” and “highly exalted” (יַרוּם, וְנִשָּׂא, וְגָבַהּ מְאֹד) foreshadow the ultimate glorification of the servant after his suffering, emphasizing his victory and honor.

Verse 14: Hebrew: כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמְמוּ עָלֶיךָ רַבִּים כֵּן מִשְׁחַת מֵאִישׁ מַרְאֵהוּ וְתֹאֲרוֹ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם
Translation: “Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness.”

Commentary: The servant’s extreme suffering and disfigurement (מִשְׁחַת מֵאִישׁ מַרְאֵהוּ) shock many. This sets up the paradox of a figure who is both deeply afflicted and yet crucial to God’s redemptive plan.

Verse 15: Hebrew: כֵּן יַזֶּה גּוֹיִם רַבִּים עָלָיו יִקְפְּצוּ מְלָכִים פִּיהֶם כִּי אֲשֶׁר לֹא סֻפַּר לָהֶם רָאוּ וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁמְעוּ הִתְבּוֹנָנוּ
Translation: “So he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.”

Commentary: There is significant debate over the term “sprinkle” (יַזֶּה) in this verse. Some interpret it as “startle,” but the majority view supports “sprinkle,” especially given its usage in a priestly context.

Debate Over “Sprinkle”:

Sprinkling Interpretation: The term יַזֶּה is often used in the Hebrew Bible to describe ritual purification acts performed by priests, especially in the context of sprinkling blood or water to cleanse or sanctify (e.g., Leviticus 16:14-19). This interpretation fits well within the context of Isaiah 52-53, where the servant’s suffering is seen as a sacrificial act, aligning with the priestly themes of atonement and purification.

Contextual Support: Given the broader context of Isaiah 53, which describes the servant as a figure who bears the sins and iniquities of others, the sprinkling interpretation reinforces the idea of the servant as both a priest and an offering. This dual role emphasizes the atoning and redemptive nature of his suffering.

Supporting Commentary:

Gary Smith: The connection between sickness and sin in Jewish tradition allows for an interpretation that includes both physical and spiritual healing. The term “sprinkle” fits well within this framework, suggesting that the servant’s act of sprinkling is a means of purification and atonement.

William Lane Craig: The context of Isaiah 53 indicates a sacrificial and atoning function, consistent with the priestly practice of sprinkling for purification and atonement.

Additional Insight: It should be mentioned that the majority of times this inflected form of “guilt offering” is used in the Hebrew Bible it evokes the priestly sense of an offering (e.g., Ezekiel 40:39; 43:13; 44:29; 46:20) and even atonement (e.g., Leviticus 5-7; and Numbers 5:8). If Isaiah 53:10 is placed within a priestly context, as it seems it should be based on this analysis, we may be able to even assert, once again, that the servant’s act has atoning effects. In summary, the cultic idea of “sprinkling” in 52:15 and possibly Zion/Jerusalem being the group that makes sacrifice suggests that the events in 53:10 should be understood particularly in light of the cultic and priestly spheres. This presents the option that the servant could be both priest (Isaiah 52:15) and offering (53:10).

---

Isaiah 53:1-3

Verse 1: Hebrew: מִי הֶאֱמִין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ וּזְרוֹעַ יְהוָה עַל מִי נִגְלָתָה
Translation: “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

Commentary: This verse underscores the surprising and often rejected message about the servant. The “arm of the Lord” (זְרוֹעַ יְהוָה) symbolizes God’s power and salvation, revealed in the servant’s work.

Motyer: “In Deuteronomy 7:18-19 the acts of the arm were seen while the arm remained invisible, but now it is not a matter of tracing events to an invisible cause but a matter of seeing a person, the Servant, and recognizing that he is the Lord present in power. In Isaiah 51:19 the arm was called to awake; 52:6 pledged the Lord’s own presence; 52:8 foresaw the Lord visibly coming to Zion; 52:10 noted that the arm had been bared in saving action. Now at last the arm has come, not simply a person behind and through whom the Lord’s power is at work, nor just one signally (even uniquely) upheld by the Lord’s power, but ‘the Arm’ himself, the Lord come to save.”

War Imagery: In Isaiah 53:1 and 12 some of the language evokes war imagery. Isaiah 53:1 sets up the way that “Yahweh’s arm” appears or is revealed. The phrase “Yahweh’s arm” is used in Exodus 15:16 to describe Yahweh’s victory over the Egyptians and his future victories over Edom, Moab, and Canaan. Yahweh’s arm is spoken about in descriptions of the Exodus event (e.g., Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 26:8; 2 Kings 17:36); and the same imagery is evoked to describe Yahweh’s plan to be victorious in the battle against other gods for his people (Deuteronomy 4:34). In light of passages like these, it is clear that “Yahweh’s arm” would have evoked images of him battling for his people. Thus, the one through whom his arm is revealed would be viewed as Yahweh’s divine warrior in battle.

Verse 2: Hebrew: וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשֹּׁרֶשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ צִיָּה לֹא־תֹאַר לוֹ וְלֹא הָדָר וְנִרְאֵהוּ וְלֹא־מַרְאֶה וְנֶחְמְדֵהוּ
Translation: “He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”

Commentary: The servant’s humble origins and lack of physical attractiveness (לֹא־תֹאַר לוֹ וְלֹא הָדָר) highlight his unexpected role in God’s plan. His significance lies not in outward appearance but in his mission.

Motyer: “Majesty signifies the outward impressiveness expected of an important person (Psalm 96:6). The Servant was not, therefore, noticeably ‘well-built . . . impressive . . . handsome’. The NIV and RV represent different ways of punctuating the Hebrew text, the latter following the traditional Massoretic punctuation. Nothing depends on this either way and the NIV offers a clearer parallelism. With every appearance of being a man among men, the Servant was inconspicuous.”

Verse 3: Hebrew: נִבְזֶה וַחֲדַל אִישִׁים אִישׁ מַכְאֹבוֹת וִידוּעַ חֹלִי וּכְמַסְתֵּר פָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ נִבְזֶה וְלֹא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ
Translation: “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.”

Commentary: The servant’s rejection and suffering (נִבְזֶה וַחֲדַל אִישִׁים) emphasize his identification with human sorrow and pain. This sets up the context for his redemptive suffering on behalf of others.

David Allen: “Verse 3 spoke of the ‘sickness’ and ‘pains’ of the servant. That which made the people disdain the Servant, his own weakness, suddenly turns out to be the people’s own weakness. As John N. Oswalt correctly pointed out, ‘part of the shock of recognition is due to the typical ancient Near Eastern understanding of the source of suffering: suffering is due to sin.'”

Explanation: This recognition highlights the people’s misunderstanding of the servant’s suffering, reinforcing the idea that his suffering was substitutionary and redemptive.

---

Isaiah 53:4-6

Verse 4: Hebrew: אָכֵן חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא וּמַכְאֹבֵינוּ סְבָלָם וַאֲנַחְנוּ חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ נָגוּעַ מֻכֵּה אֱלֹהִים וּמְעֻנֶּה
Translation: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.”

Commentary: The servant bears the physical and spiritual burdens of others (חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא). The term “yet” (וַאֲנַחְנוּ) contrasts the people’s misunderstanding with the true nature of his suffering, aligning with the PSA interpretation.

J. Alec Motyer: “The ‘yet’ indicates the contrast between what people saw and what was actually happening. They saw the servant as stricken by God, but he was bearing their griefs and sorrows.”

Explanation: Motyer highlights that the observers misunderstood the servant’s suffering. They thought he was being punished by God, but in reality, he was bearing their griefs and sorrows. This misunderstanding underscores the substitutionary nature of the servant’s suffering.

D.A. Carson: “The use of ‘yet’ does not negate the substitutionary aspect but highlights the misunderstanding of the observers about the nature of the servant’s suffering.”

Explanation: Carson points out that “yet” emphasizes the observers’ misunderstanding. They saw the servant as stricken by God, but he was actually suffering on their behalf, which aligns with the concept of substitutionary atonement.

Motyer’s Structure Analysis: Motyer emphasizes the alternating ‘we’ and ‘he’ sections, showing the contrast between the Servant before God and before people, reinforcing that the knowledge of the Servant is only through revelation.

Steve Hays: “Guilty Israel can’t be a guilt offering.”

Verse 5: Hebrew: וְהוּא מְחֹלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵינוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא לָנוּ
Translation: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

Commentary: This verse explicitly connects the servant’s suffering with the substitutionary bearing of punishment for others’ sins (מְחֹלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵינוּ, מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ). The healing (נִרְפָּא) is both physical and spiritual, resulting from his wounds.

Gary Smith: “The connection between sickness and sin in Jewish tradition allows for an interpretation that includes both physical and spiritual healing. The healing mentioned is a result of the servant’s vicarious suffering.”

Explanation: Smith emphasizes the Jewish tradition that links sickness and sin, suggesting that the servant’s suffering brings both physical and spiritual healing, which aligns with the PSA interpretation.

William Lane Craig: “The context of Isaiah 53 indicates a sacrificial and atoning function, which is understood by New Testament writers as referring to Christ’s substitutionary death.”

Explanation: Craig points out that the context of Isaiah 53 supports a sacrificial and atoning interpretation, reinforcing the idea that the servant’s suffering and death were substitutionary.

David Allen: “The Hebrew word translated ‘crushed’ connotes ‘breaking in pieces’ or ‘pulverizing.’ Not only does the Servant substitute himself for the people, but also the Servant’s actions bring positive benefits to the people: ‘by his scourging we are healed.’ The Hebrew word translated ‘chastening’ frequently connotes punishment. The phrase ‘chastening of our well-being’ is rendered literally by J. Alec Motyer as ‘our peace-punishment,’ which semantically conveys the meaning ‘the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God.'”

Explanation: This analysis emphasizes the substitutionary and penal nature of the servant’s suffering, bringing peace and healing to the people.

Verse 6: Hebrew: כֻּלָּנוּ כַצֹּאן תָּעִינוּ אִישׁ לְדַרְכּוֹ פָּנִינוּ וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֺן כֻּלָנוּ
Translation: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Commentary: The universal scope of human sin (כֻּלָּנוּ כַצֹּאן תָּעִינוּ) is contrasted with the servant bearing the collective iniquity (עֲוֺן כֻּלָנוּ), reinforcing the substitutionary nature of his suffering.

---

Biblical Usage of “Musar”

To demonstrate that “musar” (מוּסָר) in Isaiah 53:5 implies punitive action, we can examine its usage across different contexts in the Hebrew Bible. This analysis will show that “musar” often conveys the idea of corrective or disciplinary action that includes punishment.

Isaiah 26:16:
“O Lord, in distress they sought you; they poured out a whispered prayer when your discipline (מוּסָר, musar) was upon them.”
Explanation: Here, “musar” refers to God’s discipline upon Israel, indicating corrective action in response to their behavior. This discipline involves suffering and is therefore punitive.

Jeremiah 2:30:
“In vain I have struck your children; they took no correction (מוּסָר, musar); your own sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion.”
Explanation: The term is used to describe God’s punitive actions intended to correct Israel’s waywardness, showing that “musar” includes elements of punishment.

Jeremiah 5:3:
“O Lord, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction (מוּסָר, musar). They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.”
Explanation: This passage illustrates God’s punitive measures to lead Israel to repentance, indicating that “musar” includes elements of punishment meant to correct.

Jeremiah 7:28:
“And you shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, and did not accept discipline (מוּסָר, musar); truth has perished; it is cut off from their lips.'”
Explanation: “Musar” is associated with God’s disciplinary actions, which are punitive in nature.

Jeremiah 10:24:
“Correct me, O Lord, but in justice; not in your anger, lest you bring me to nothing.”
Explanation: The term “correct” here is “musar,” and Jeremiah is asking for correction with justice, not out of anger, indicating the punitive aspect of God’s discipline.

Proverbs 3:11-12:
“My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline (מוּסָר, musar) or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.”
Explanation: This verse connects “musar” with the loving correction of a father, which includes punitive elements aimed at improvement.

Theological Interpretation:

J. Alec Motyer: “Motyer highlights that the term ‘musar’ in Isaiah 53:5 encompasses both correction and punishment, as it is meant to bring about peace through the servant’s suffering. The term implies that the servant endures a punitive measure that others deserve, aligning with the concept of penal substitution.”

Gary Smith: “Smith supports the view that ‘musar’ involves punitive action, noting that the servant bears the punishment that brings peace to others. This correction is not merely instructional but includes suffering in place of others, emphasizing the punitive aspect.”

William Lane Craig: “Craig explains that the use of ‘musar’ in Isaiah 53:5 indicates a penal substitution where the servant takes on the punishment due to others. This understanding aligns with the broader biblical context of ‘musar’ as involving correction through punitive means.”

Conclusion: The term “musar” (מוּסָר) in Isaiah 53:5 should be understood as involving punitive action, as evidenced by its usage throughout the Hebrew Bible. It consistently refers to disciplinary measures that include punishment, often from God, to correct and restore the people. This supports the interpretation of the servant’s suffering as a form of penal substitutionary atonement.

---

Isaiah 53:7-9

Verse 7: Hebrew: נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה וְלֹא יִפְתַּח־פִּיו כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל וּכְרָחֵל לִפְנֵי גֹזְזֶיהָ נֶאֱלָמָה וְלֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו
Translation: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

Commentary: The servant’s willing submission to suffering (כַּשֶּׂה לַטֶּבַח יוּבָל) evokes sacrificial imagery, emphasizing his voluntary acceptance of his role as a sacrificial offering.

Verse 8: Hebrew: מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת־דוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַּע לָמוֹ
Translation: “By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.”

Commentary: The servant’s unjust treatment and death (נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים) serve a greater purpose, bearing the transgressions of others, which aligns with the idea of substitutionary atonement.

David Allen: “Isaiah 53:7–9 makes use of terminology indicating that the Servant suffered to the point of death. Verse 8 speaks of him being ‘cut off out of the land of the living.’ Verse 9 states, ‘His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death.’ There are those who deny that the language of Isaiah 53 refers to literal death. But the language of the passage on a natural reading clearly refers to literal death, and this has seldom been questioned among Jewish or Christian interpreters. As Oswalt noted, even the Targum understands the passage to be speaking of actual death.”

Steve Hays: “Some scholars think the innocent victim was the prophet or some long-forgotten individual. However, Isaiah depicts the servant in Yahwistic terms, indicating that the Suffering Servant is no less than Yahweh in disguise (Isa 52:13; cf. 6:1; 33:10; 57:15).”

Verse 9: Hebrew: וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים קִבְרוֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁיר בְּמֹתָיו עַל לֹא־חָמָס עָשָׂה וְלֹא מִרְמָה בְּפִיו
Translation: “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.”

Commentary: Despite his innocence (עַל לֹא־חָמָס עָשָׂה), the servant suffers the fate of the wicked, highlighting the injustice of his suffering and further supporting the PSA framework where the innocent suffers for the guilty.

---

Isaiah 53:10-12

Verse 10: Hebrew: וַיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי אִם־תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים וְחֵפֶץ יְהוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח
Translation: “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”

Commentary: The servant’s suffering is divinely ordained (חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ) for a redemptive purpose, making his life an offering for sin (אָשָׁם), a key element of the PSA interpretation. This is consistent with the priestly context where offerings are made to atone for sin. The phrase “he will see light” (יִרְאֶה אוֹר) is understood as a reference to the servant’s resurrection, affirming his victory over death. The phrase “he will see his offspring and prolong his days” (יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים) indicates that the servant will have a postmortem life, suggesting resurrection.

Gary Smith: “The term ‘guilt offering’ (אָשָׁם) is used in the Hebrew Bible to evoke the priestly sense of an offering for atonement. This fits within Isaiah 53:10, where the servant’s act is seen as having atoning effects.”

Explanation: Smith’s insight into the priestly context emphasizes that the servant’s suffering and death fulfill the role of a sacrificial offering, which aligns with the concept of substitutionary atonement.

William Lane Craig: “The servant’s suffering is seen as a necessary and divinely ordained means to achieve reconciliation. The term ‘offering for sin’ (’āšām) aligns with the sacrificial system, emphasizing substitutionary atonement.”

Explanation: Craig highlights that the servant’s role as an offering for sin aligns with the sacrificial system in the Hebrew Bible, reinforcing the PSA interpretation.

Steve Hays: “This doesn’t mean every Jew will be saved. And it’s not restricted to Jews. Rather, it’s what Israel represents in this passage. Israel stands for sinners, whom the Messiah redeems. Of course, someone can evade this by denying the prophetic character of the text, but that’s a separate issue.”

Steve Hays: “In the Assyrian deportation and Babylonian Exile, Israel did suffer for her sins, so this oracle has reference to a different kind of suffering: Israel wasn’t spared historical judgment, but due to the actions of the Redeemer, will be spared eschatological judgment (i.e., damnation).”

Verse 11: Hebrew: מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע בְּדַעְתּוֹ יַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי לָרַבִּים וַעֲוֺנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל
Translation: “After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.”

Commentary: The servant’s suffering leads to the justification of many (יַצְדִּיק צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי לָרַבִּים), bearing their iniquities (עֲוֺנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל), which aligns with the PSA model of vicarious suffering and atonement.

Verse 12: Hebrew: לָכֵן אֲחַלֵּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים וְאֶת־עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְאֶת־פֹּשְׁעִים נִמְנָה וְהוּא חֵטְא־רַבִּים נָשָׂא וְלַפֹּשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ
Translation: “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Commentary: The servant’s reward (אֲחַלֵּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים) follows his sacrificial death (הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ) and his bearing of the sins of many (חֵטְא־רַבִּים נָשָׂא). His intercession for transgressors (לַפֹּשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ) underscores the substitutionary and redemptive nature of his suffering.

Gary Smith: “The servant’s suffering brings a reconciled relationship with Yahweh, represented by the division of the bounty. This imagery of spoils from a battle highlights the victory achieved through the servant’s sacrifice.”

Explanation: Smith’s commentary ties the servant’s sacrificial death to the concept of a victorious battle, where the spoils (a reconciled relationship with God) are shared, reinforcing the PSA interpretation.

William Lane Craig: “Ezekiel’s bearing Israel’s sin foreshadows the suffering servant’s role in Isaiah 53. Just as Ezekiel symbolically bore the iniquities of Israel, the servant literally bears the sins of many.”

Explanation: Craig draws a parallel between Ezekiel’s symbolic act of bearing Israel’s sin and the servant’s literal bearing of many’s sins in Isaiah 53, supporting the substitutionary atonement interpretation.

---

Supporting Insights

Steve Hays: “Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Israel as a nation because the servant is depicted as completely righteous and suffers for the sins of others. The nation of Israel, in contrast, is often depicted as sinful. This supports the individual and Messianic interpretation of the servant.”

Michael L. Brown: “Historical Jewish interpretations, including those of Talmudic rabbis and medieval scholars, often saw Isaiah 53 as referring to an individual, often the Messiah. This undermines McGrew’s argument that the passage refers to the nation of Israel.”

Conclusion: By incorporating these insights, we see that the context, language, and traditional interpretations of Isaiah 52-53 support the PSA framework, where the servant’s suffering and death are understood as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of many.


Critique of Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi’s Arguments

1. Isaiah 53:4 – The Use of “Yet”

Argument:

• Misunderstanding of the Servant’s Condition:
  • McGrew and Vendredi argue that the use of “yet” (וַאֲנַחְנוּ) in Isaiah 53:4 indicates a misunderstanding by the onlookers of the servant’s condition. The onlookers perceived the servant as being punished by God, but this perception was incorrect.
• Antithetic Parallelism:
  • They point out that Isaiah 53 employs antithetic parallelism, contrasting the servant’s actual suffering with the people’s perception of it. This parallelism highlights the misunderstanding rather than confirming the concept of substitutionary atonement.
• Implication:
  • The misunderstanding of the servant’s suffering implies that the verse does not support substitutionary atonement.

Critique:

• Nature of the Misunderstanding:
  • While it is true that the onlookers misunderstood the nature of the servant’s suffering, this misunderstanding does not negate the concept of substitutionary atonement. Instead, it highlights the irony and tragedy of the situation: the servant was indeed suffering for others’ sins, but the people misinterpreted this suffering as divine punishment for the servant’s own sins.
• Revelatory Insight:
  • The verse, when read in full, actually reveals the true nature of the servant’s suffering: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.” The revelation here is that the servant was bearing the pain and suffering of others, which aligns with the substitutionary atonement model. The misunderstanding by the people serves to underscore the servant’s innocent and vicarious suffering.
• Literary Context:
  • The use of antithetic parallelism can actually support the idea of substitutionary atonement by drawing a stark contrast between the people’s incorrect assumptions and the servant’s true role. The servant’s suffering is presented as unjust from the perspective of the people, thereby highlighting the servant’s role as a substitute for the sins of others.

2. Healing vs. Pardon in Isaiah 53:5

Argument:

• Emphasis on Healing:
  • McGrew and Vendredi emphasize that Isaiah 53:5 speaks of healing: “with his stripes we are healed.” They argue that this focus on healing suggests a medical or restorative interpretation rather than a judicial one.
• Medical Healing vs. Judicial Pardon:
  • They assert that the verse’s emphasis on healing indicates a concern with physical and spiritual restoration, not with judicial pardon or substitutionary atonement.
• Implication:
  • This focus on healing supports the interpretation that the servant’s suffering leads to restoration and wholeness for the people rather than serving as a judicial substitute to bear their punishment.

Critique:

• Holistic Interpretation:
  • The concept of healing in biblical literature often encompasses both physical and spiritual dimensions. The Hebrew term “healed” (נִרְפָּא, nirpa) can refer to spiritual restoration as well as physical healing. Therefore, the mention of healing does not exclude the idea of substitutionary atonement but rather complements it.
• Context of Suffering and Sin:
  • Isaiah 53:5 explicitly connects the servant’s suffering with the transgressions and iniquities of others: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.” The context clearly indicates that the servant’s suffering is due to the sins of others, which is the essence of substitutionary atonement.
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement:
  • The terms “pierced” and “crushed” (מְחֹלָל, מחֹץ) indicate a violent and punitive suffering. The phrase “the punishment that brought us peace was on him” (מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו) explicitly frames the servant’s suffering as a form of penal substitution, where the servant endures punishment on behalf of others to bring them peace and healing.
• Complementary Concepts:
  • The notions of healing and pardon are not mutually exclusive. In the context of Isaiah 53, the servant’s vicarious suffering provides both the legal basis for pardon (by bearing the punishment) and the means for spiritual and physical restoration (healing). This dual aspect strengthens the argument for substitutionary atonement rather than weakening it.

Conclusion

McGrew and Vendredi’s arguments rely on a narrow interpretation of specific terms and literary devices, which do not necessarily exclude the broader theological concept of substitutionary atonement. By examining the full context of Isaiah 53, it becomes evident that the servant’s suffering is portrayed as both substitutionary and atoning, providing both healing and pardon for the sins of others. This holistic understanding supports the traditional interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a prophecy of the suffering servant who bears the iniquities of many, aligning with the concept of penal substitutionary atonement.

Exodus 24:1-8

In response to McGrew’s critique, it is essential to delve into the rich theological and ritualistic context of Exodus 24:1-8, which provides a profound understanding of covenant ratification that aligns with Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Exodus 24 describes the covenant ceremony between God and Israel, involving several significant elements: the building of an altar and twelve stone pillars, representing the twelve tribes and their collective dedication to God; the reading of the Book of the Covenant by Moses and the people’s affirmation to obey God’s commands, emphasizing their acceptance of the covenant’s terms; and the offering of burnt offerings and peace offerings, which symbolize total dedication and communion with God.

Detailed Commentary on Exodus 24:1-8

1. Building of the Altar and Twelve Pillars:
   • Altar: The altar represents the presence of God and His acceptance of sacrifices. The act of building an altar and making sacrifices on it symbolizes the people’s desire to connect with God and seek His favor.
   • Twelve Pillars: These pillars symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, representing their unity and collective commitment to the covenant. The use of stone pillars as a memorial is a tangible reminder of the covenant made between God and His people.
2. Reading of the Book of the Covenant:
   • Moses’ Role: Moses, acting as a mediator between God and the people, reads the Book of the Covenant aloud. This book likely includes the laws and commandments given from Exodus 20:22 to 23:33, encompassing the moral, social, and ceremonial laws.
   • People’s Response: The people’s affirmation, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey,” demonstrates their willing acceptance of the covenant’s terms and their commitment to live in obedience to God.
3. Sacrifices and Sprinkling of Blood:
   • Burnt Offerings and Peace Offerings: The burnt offerings (ʿōlōt) are wholly consumed by fire, symbolizing total dedication to God. The peace offerings (zĕbāḥîm šĕlāmîm) involve shared meals between the worshippers and the priests, symbolizing peace and communion with God. These sacrifices demonstrate the vassal relationship between Israel and God, where Israel, the vassal, offers homage and honor to God, the suzerain.
   • Division of Blood: The blood from these sacrifices is divided into two portions: one part is sprinkled on the altar, and the other part on the people. This act has a dual significance:
     • Blood on the Altar: Symbolizes God’s forgiveness and acceptance of the offering. It indicates that the sacrifice has been accepted by God as a means of atonement, satisfying His justice and wrath against sin.
     • Blood on the People: Represents the people’s binding commitment to the covenant and their consecration to God. It signifies that the people are now set apart as holy and dedicated to God, entering into a solemn agreement to obey His laws. This act of sprinkling blood on the people is akin to signing a contract, signifying a binding agreement and covenant of life and death.

Additional Symbolic Aspect: Polemical Use Against Egyptian Gods

Some commentators propose that the sprinkling of blood in Exodus 24 could also have a polemical aspect, symbolically representing the defeat and rejection of the Egyptian gods. If the blood of the sacrificed animals, potentially associated with the gods of Egypt, was sprinkled on the Israelites, it would signify their complete break from the religious practices of Egypt and their exclusive dedication to Yahweh. This interpretation, while adding another layer of meaning, does not negate the atonement aspects of this passage but rather enriches the understanding of the covenant’s depth and significance.

Analysis of Key Elements in Light of PSA

1. Sacrificial System and Atonement:
   • Ritual Significance: The sacrificial system in Exodus 24 involves the shedding of blood, which is essential for atonement. Leviticus 17:11 emphasizes that “it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” The sacrifices represent the substitutionary death of an innocent victim on behalf of the guilty, prefiguring Christ’s sacrificial death.
   • Symbolic Representation: The altar, where the blood is sprinkled, symbolizes God’s presence and His acceptance of the sacrifice as a means of atonement. This parallels the New Testament understanding of Christ’s sacrifice, where His bloodshed is seen as an atonement for humanity’s sins.
2. Covenant Ratification and Obedience:
   • Dual Role of the Blood: The blood on the altar symbolizes God’s acceptance and forgiveness, while the blood on the people represents their commitment to uphold the covenant. This dual role mirrors the dual aspects of Christ’s sacrifice in PSA: it satisfies God’s justice (His need for a righteous atonement for sin) and it establishes a new covenant of obedience for believers.
   • Binding Agreement: The people’s affirmation of obedience upon hearing the covenant read aloud demonstrates their acceptance of the covenant’s terms. This act of hearing and responding to the covenant parallels the believer’s response to the gospel, where faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice brings about a commitment to live according to God’s commands.
3. Purification and Consecration:
   • Purifying Act: The sprinkling of blood on the people signifies purification and consecration. In the context of PSA, Christ’s blood purifies believers from sin, setting them apart as holy and consecrated to God. Hebrews 9:22 underscores this, stating, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
   • Covenantal Inclusion: By sprinkling the blood on both the altar and the people, the covenant ceremony in Exodus 24 symbolizes the uniting of God and His people through a binding agreement. This inclusion is echoed in the New Testament through the blood of Christ, which unites believers into a new covenant with God.

Theological Implications and Support for PSA

1. Substitutionary Aspect:
   • The sacrificial animals in Exodus 24 represent substitutionary atonement, where the animals die in place of the people. This prefigures Christ’s substitutionary death, where He bears the penalty for sin on behalf of humanity (Isaiah 53:5-6).
2. Satisfaction of Divine Justice:
   • The blood on the altar symbolizes God’s satisfaction with the sacrifice, pointing to the satisfaction of divine justice in Christ’s atoning death. This aligns with the PSA view that Christ’s death satisfies God’s righteous requirement for justice against sin.
3. Covenantal Fulfillment:
   • The sprinkling of blood on the people symbolizes their binding to the covenant, foreshadowing the new covenant established through Christ’s blood. This is evident in the New Testament references to the “blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:20), highlighting the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant in Christ’s sacrificial death.
4. Purification and Sanctification:
   • The act of sprinkling blood for purification in Exodus 24 points to the purifying effect of Christ’s blood in the New Testament. Believers are cleansed from sin and sanctified through the sacrificial blood of Christ, as emphasized in 1 John 1:7 and Hebrews 10:10.

Conclusion

Exodus 24, with its detailed description of the covenant ratification ceremony involving sacrifices and the sprinkling of blood, provides substantial theological groundwork that supports the concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). The elements of substitutionary sacrifice, purification, and covenantal inclusion all point towards the ultimate fulfillment of these themes in the atoning work of Christ. By understanding the rich symbolism and theological significance embedded in Exodus 24, including potential polemical aspects against Egyptian gods, we can see how it prefigures and aligns with the doctrine of PSA as articulated in the New Testament. Therefore, McGrew’s critique overlooks the continuity and depth of the biblical theme of covenant and atonement, which Exodus 24 richly embodies and which seamlessly aligns with the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Paul Vendredi’s interpretation of Isaiah 53 and related passages emphasizes a rejection of the Levitical sacrificial system, arguing that both Isaiah and Jesus opposed such sacrifices. While Vendredi raises significant points about the importance of genuine worship, Alec Motyer’s detailed commentary provides a more nuanced understanding that reconciles the role of sacrifices within the broader biblical narrative.

1. Isaiah’s Condemnation of Sacrifices

Vendredi uses Isaiah 1:11 and Isaiah 66:3 to argue that God condemns animal sacrifices outright. However, Motyer’s commentary clarifies that these condemnations target the insincerity and hypocrisy of the worshippers, not the sacrificial system itself.

• Context of Isaiah 1:11-17:
  • Verse 11: The multitude of sacrifices means nothing to God because they are offered hypocritically.
  • Verse 12: The temple is still referred to as “my courts,” indicating that God still acknowledges the sacrificial system’s divine authorization.
  • Verses 13-15: The language used (“vain oblations,” “iniquity and obligatory assembly”) highlights the disconnect between ritual and ethical behavior. The issue is the people’s moral corruption, not the sacrifices themselves.
• Motyer’s Insight:
  • The Hebrew verbs used in Isaiah 1:16 (“wash” and “make yourselves clean”) indicate a call for purity and genuine repentance. Motyer points out that if Isaiah intended to reject the sacrificial system outright, he would have avoided using these verbs that are associated with ceremonial cleansing. Instead, the call is to restore true worship by aligning ritual with righteous living.

2. Jesus’ Opposition to Temple Sacrifices

Vendredi argues that Jesus’ actions in the temple demonstrate his rejection of the sacrificial system. However, Motyer’s and traditional biblical interpretations suggest otherwise.

• Jesus as a Child and at Age 12:
  • Vendredi speculates that Jesus questioned the validity of sacrifices, but the text (Luke 2:41-52) indicates that Jesus’ questions astonished the teachers, suggesting a deeper understanding rather than outright opposition.
• Cleansing of the Temple:
  • Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-17, Matthew 21:12-13) addresses the corruption and commercialization of temple worship. Jesus emphasizes the temple’s intended purpose as a house of prayer (Isaiah 56:7), not a rejection of sacrifices per se.
• Fulfillment of the Law:
  • Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” This indicates that Jesus’ mission was to fulfill and perfect the sacrificial system through his own ultimate sacrifice.

3. Isaiah 52 and 53 as Prophecies of Jesus Christ

Vendredi claims that Isaiah 52 and 53, which he sees as prophecies of Jesus, cannot be about sacrifices. However, traditional interpretations and Motyer’s commentary provide a deeper understanding:

• Isaiah 53:5-6:
  • These verses describe the suffering servant who bears the sins of the people, aligning with the concept of substitutionary atonement. The servant’s suffering is seen as the ultimate sacrifice that fulfills the purpose of the Levitical system.
• Motyer’s Commentary:
  • Motyer emphasizes that Isaiah’s critiques of sacrifices are about their misuse, not their intrinsic value. He highlights that genuine repentance and ethical behavior are required for sacrifices to be meaningful. Isaiah 53 ultimately reveals a sacrifice in which God delights – the suffering servant (interpreted as Jesus) who fulfills the sacrificial system’s ultimate purpose.

Conclusion

Paul Vendredi’s arguments focus on the rejection of insincere sacrifices, which is a valid critique. However, Motyer’s commentary and traditional interpretations provide a more comprehensive view:

The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is traditionally understood as Jesus, whose sacrificial death fulfills the purpose of the Levitical sacrifices, providing the ultimate atonement for sin.

Contextual Understanding:

Isaiah’s condemnations are directed at hypocritical worship, not the sacrificial system itself. The call is for purity and genuine repentance, aligning ritual practices with ethical behavior.

Jesus’ Role:

Jesus’ actions in the temple target corruption and emphasize true worship. His mission fulfills the law and the prophets, including the sacrificial system, through his ultimate atoning sacrifice.

Isaiah 53’s Fulfillment:

The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is traditionally understood as Jesus, whose sacrificial death fulfills the purpose of the Levitical sacrifices, providing the ultimate atonement for sin.

Overview of Matthew 8:16-17 and Isaiah 53:4-5

Context of Matthew 8:16-17:

• Matthew records Jesus healing many people and exorcising demons after the Sabbath, as people waited until sunset to bring their sick (Blomberg). This context explains the timing and underscores Jesus’ authority and willingness to heal.

Isaiah 53:4-5 Context and Interpretation:

• Explicit References to Death: Isaiah 53 explicitly describes the Servant’s suffering and death, making it clear that the Servant’s mission involves more than just physical healing; it includes bearing the sins of many (Carson, Brown).
• Dual Aspects of Healing: Isaiah 53:4-5 addresses both physical infirmities and the spiritual aspect of bearing sin. This integrated understanding aligns with the prophetic tradition where healing often symbolizes spiritual restoration (Keener, Blomberg).

Refutation of Paul Vendredi Using Keener, Carson, and Blomberg

Original Argument: Matthew 8:17 applies Isaiah 53:4 to Jesus’ healing ministry rather than his death, indicating that the passage is more about physical healing than substitutionary atonement. This suggests that Isaiah 53:4-5 primarily addresses physical infirmities and diseases rather than the spiritual aspect of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

Detailed Refutation Using Scholarly Insights

Contextual Understanding of Isaiah 53

1. Direct Translation from Hebrew (Keener):
   • Matthew bypasses the spiritualized reading of the Greek Septuagint and translates Isaiah 53:4 directly from the Hebrew. This choice underscores Matthew’s intent to retain the original context, which encompasses both physical healing and the bearing of sin (Keener).
2. Healing from Sin (Keener):
   • Keener emphasizes that the context in Isaiah 53 suggests the servant’s death would heal the nation from its sin (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8-9). This is consistent with the prophetic usage of healing as a metaphor for spiritual restoration and judgment, as seen in other prophetic writings (e.g., Isaiah 6:10, Jeremiah 3:22, Hosea 14:4).
3. Eschatological Wellness (Keener):
   • Keener points out that the broader context of Isaiah shows God’s eschatological concern for his people’s complete wellness, both physical and spiritual (Isaiah 29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6). This suggests that Isaiah 53:4-5 can have secondary nuances of physical healing while primarily focusing on spiritual restoration through the servant’s suffering and death.

Theological Depth in Matthew’s Citation

4. Character of the Servant’s Mission (Keener):
   • Keener asserts that Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 to demonstrate that Jesus’ mission of healing fulfills the character of the servant’s mission, which includes revealing God’s concern for a broken humanity at the ultimate cost of his own life. This indicates that Matthew sees a deeper theological connection between Jesus’ healing ministry and his sacrificial death.
5. Illustration of Spiritual Principles (Keener):
   • Keener observes that Matthew recognizes that genuine physical healings can illustrate principles about spiritual healing (Matthew 9:5-7, 12; 13:15). This means that physical healings are not isolated events but serve to highlight and point to the greater spiritual healing accomplished through Jesus’ atonement.

Interconnectedness of Healing and Atonement

6. Explicit References to Death (Carson):
   • Carson notes that Isaiah 53 explicitly describes the death of the Servant, using phrases like “brought as a lamb to the slaughter” and “poured out his life unto death.” These references make it clear that the Servant’s mission includes his death. This supports the understanding that Isaiah 53:4-5 encompasses both physical healing and the Servant’s sacrificial death.
7. Restoration of Benefits Lost Through Sin (Keener):
   • Keener highlights that the servant’s suffering would restore to Israel the benefits lost through sin, aligning with the blessings and curses outlined in Deuteronomy 27-28. This restoration includes both physical and spiritual aspects, demonstrating the comprehensive nature of the servant’s redemptive work.
8. Matthew’s Fulfillment Quotations (Carson):
   • Carson explains that Matthew’s use of Old Testament quotations, including Isaiah 53:4, is often typological and reflects a deeper theological fulfillment. Matthew interprets the events in Jesus’ life as fulfilling the broader narrative of Israel’s history and prophecies, linking Jesus’ healing ministry to his ultimate atoning work on the cross.
9. Typological Fulfillment and Deeper Meanings (Carson):
   • Carson discusses the complexity of fulfillment in the New Testament, noting that it often involves typology where Jesus’ life events recapitulate and fulfill the experiences of Israel and the prophecies about the Messiah. This typological fulfillment underscores the deep and multifaceted nature of biblical prophecy, where physical healings are signs pointing to the greater spiritual healing and redemption through Jesus’ atonement.

Matthew’s Theological Perspective

10. Holistic Mission (Keener):
    • Keener’s interpretation shows that Matthew views Jesus’ mission as addressing both physical and spiritual brokenness. The physical healings performed by Jesus are a manifestation of his ultimate mission to heal humanity’s spiritual ailments through his death and resurrection.
11. Fulfillment of Prophecy (Keener):
    • By citing Isaiah 53:4, Matthew demonstrates that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the suffering servant, whose mission includes both physical healing and spiritual atonement. This holistic understanding of prophecy reinforces the interconnectedness of Jesus’ healing ministry and his atoning sacrifice.
12. Selective Healing as a Sign of Divine Authority (Blomberg):

• Blomberg points out that Jesus selectively healed individuals to demonstrate his divine authority and create faith. This selective healing highlights that physical healings were signs pointing to his greater mission of spiritual healing and redemption, rather than an end in themselves.

Conclusion

The combined insights from Keener, Carson, and Blomberg provide a comprehensive refutation of the argument that Isaiah 53:4-5 is solely about physical healing. These scholars affirm that Matthew’s citation reflects a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of physical and spiritual aspects of Jesus’ mission. The broader context of Isaiah, along with explicit references to the servant’s death and the eschatological wellness, underscores that the passage encompasses both Jesus’ healing ministry and his atoning sacrifice. This holistic view demonstrates that Jesus’ physical healings are integral to his redemptive work, pointing to the ultimate victory over sin and death achieved through the cross.

1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”

Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi’s Argument:

Context of 1 Peter 2:24:

• Ethical Implications: McGrew and Vendredi argue that the focus of 1 Peter 2:24 is on the ethical transformation and healing of believers rather than on substitutionary atonement. They emphasize the moral implications of Christ’s suffering, suggesting that Peter’s main point is how believers should respond to Christ’s example.

Connection to Isaiah 53:

• Illustration of Suffering: They claim that Peter’s use of Isaiah 53 serves to illustrate the suffering of Christ as an example for believers to follow in their own suffering. The emphasis, according to them, is on moral and spiritual healing, not a legalistic transfer of guilt and punishment.

Counterarguments:

Karen Jobes:

• Substitutionary Suffering: Jobes asserts that Peter’s use of Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:21-25 clearly supports substitutionary atonement. She notes that Peter interprets Jesus’ suffering as bearing the sins of others, consistent with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.
  • Quote: “Peter’s allusions to Isaiah 53 are woven throughout his epistle, particularly in 1 Peter 2:21-25, showing that Jesus bore our sins in a substitutionary manner.”
  • Source: Jobes, Karen H. “1 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.” Baker Academic, 2005.
• Ethical Implications: Jobes agrees that Peter emphasizes ethical implications but argues this complements rather than negates substitutionary atonement. The transformation in believers’ lives results from Christ’s atoning work.
  • Quote: “The use of terms like ‘shepherd’ and ‘overseer’ in 1 Peter 2:25 echoes Ezekiel 34, where God promises to shepherd and oversee His people. This connection reinforces the understanding of Jesus as the fulfillment of the suffering servant who bears the sins of others.”
  • Source: Jobes, Karen H. “1 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.” Baker Academic, 2005.
• Ezekiel Connections: Jobes highlights the parallels between 1 Peter 2:25 and Ezekiel 34. Ezekiel 34 speaks of God’s promise to shepherd and oversee His people, which Peter echoes by referring to Jesus as the “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
  • Quote: “The shepherd and overseer imagery ties Jesus directly to the fulfillment of God’s promise in Ezekiel 34, reinforcing His role in bearing sins and providing spiritual leadership and care.”
  • Source: Jobes, Karen H. “1 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.” Baker Academic, 2005.

William Lane Craig:

• Atonement and Penal Substitution: Craig highlights that Peter’s use of Isaiah 53:5 and the description of Christ bearing sins on the tree align with penal substitution.
  • Quote: “The servant’s suffering is seen as a necessary and divinely ordained means to achieve reconciliation. The term ‘offering for sin’ (’āšām) aligns with the sacrificial system, emphasizing substitutionary atonement.”
  • Source: Craig, William Lane. “Atonement and the Death of Christ.” Baylor University Press, 2020.
• Transformative Aspect: Craig acknowledges the ethical transformation but asserts it stems from atonement. The healing in 1 Peter 2:24 is both spiritual and moral, resulting from Christ’s sacrificial death.
  • Quote: “The context of Isaiah 53 and its application in 1 Peter shows a comprehensive understanding of atonement that includes both substitutionary suffering and its transformative impact on believers.”
  • Source: Craig, William Lane. “Atonement and the Death of Christ.” Baylor University Press, 2020.
• Ezekiel Connections: Craig draws connections between Peter’s references in 1 Peter 2:25 and the promises found in Ezekiel 34. He notes that the imagery of the shepherd in Ezekiel 34 and its fulfillment in Christ underscores the comprehensive nature of Jesus’ atoning work. Craig also points out that the concept of bearing sins is present in Ezekiel’s prophetic actions, symbolizing the bearing of the people’s iniquities, which foreshadows Christ’s ultimate bearing of sins.
  • Quote: “The imagery of the shepherd in Ezekiel 34, echoed in 1 Peter 2:25, illustrates the fulfillment of God’s promise to shepherd His people, highlighting the substitutionary and pastoral role of Jesus in bearing sins and leading believers. Additionally, Ezekiel’s symbolic actions of bearing the people’s iniquities foreshadow Christ’s ultimate bearing of sins.”
  • Source: Craig, William Lane. “Atonement and the Death of Christ.” Baylor University Press, 2020.

D.A. Carson:

• Holistic Salvation: Carson argues that the healing in 1 Peter 2:24 includes both physical and spiritual dimensions, with Jesus’ ministry of healing pointing to His ultimate work on the cross.
  • Quote: “Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 53:4 in the context of Jesus’ healing ministry is an extension of the atonement theology, showing that physical healings point beyond themselves to the cross, where ultimate healing from sin is accomplished.”
  • Source: Carson, D.A. “Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.” Zondervan, 2010.
• Christ’s Suffering and Example: While acknowledging Christ’s suffering as an example, Carson emphasizes the primary focus on atonement, which provides the basis for ethical and moral transformation in believers.
  • Quote: “The pleasure of the Lord in Isaiah 53:10 relates to the accomplishment of redemption through the servant’s suffering, not to any sadistic pleasure. The servant’s suffering is seen as a necessary means to achieve reconciliation and healing for humanity.”
  • Source: Carson, D.A. “Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.” Zondervan, 2010.

1. Vicarious Suffering and Death:

Isaiah 53 portrays the servant as suffering not for his own sins but for the sins of others. The language used in verses 4-6 is unmistakably substitutionary: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering… But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). This passage emphasizes that the servant’s suffering is redemptive and substitutionary. He takes on the pain and punishment due to others, highlighting the transfer of sin and its consequences from the guilty to the innocent servant.

2. Bearing Iniquities:

Isaiah 53:11-12 further underscores the substitutionary aspect by stating, “After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities… For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” The servant’s role in bearing the sins of many directly points to the idea of substitution. The servant takes on the iniquities of others, thus justifying them before God. This concept is aligned with the legal and sacrificial systems in the Old Testament where a substitute bears the punishment of the guilty party (Leviticus 16:20-22, the scapegoat ritual).

3. Intertextual Connections:

The document details how Isaiah 53 is connected with other parts of the Old Testament and how it is interpreted in the New Testament. Isaiah 53’s language of bearing iniquities and being pierced aligns with the broader biblical narrative of sacrificial atonement (cf. Leviticus 16; Deuteronomy 21:22-23). This connection is critical as it shows a consistent theme throughout Scripture of a substitute bearing the consequences of sin, which culminates in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:24 and Substitutionary Atonement

1. Echoing Isaiah 53:

1 Peter 2:24 explicitly references Isaiah 53, stating, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds, you have been healed.” This direct quotation from Isaiah 53 solidifies the continuity between the Old Testament prophecy and its New Testament fulfillment. The apostle Peter sees Christ’s suffering as the fulfillment of the servant’s suffering in Isaiah 53, emphasizing the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement.

2. Forensic and Penal Dimensions:

The forensic (legal) and penal (punishment) aspects are integral to understanding 1 Peter 2:24. The text indicates that Christ bore the sins “in his body on the cross,” suggesting a physical and judicial bearing of sin’s penalty. This aligns with the Old Testament’s sacrificial system, where the sacrificial animal bore the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:21-22). Peter’s use of the term “bore our sins” in a legal context underscores the idea that Christ took upon himself the judicial penalty for sin, satisfying the requirements of God’s justice.

Forensic Aspect and Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

1. Legal Satisfaction:

The forensic aspect of PSA involves Christ satisfying the legal demands of the law. As detailed in the document, Deuteronomy 21:22-23 plays a pivotal role in understanding this concept. The curse of being hung on a tree, as mentioned in Deuteronomy, is applied to Christ in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.'” This passage shows that Christ’s crucifixion was seen as bearing the curse of the law, a legal penalty for sin. This satisfies God’s justice and fulfills the law’s requirements.

2. Corporate Solidarity and Representation:

The concept of corporate solidarity, where a representative stands in for the people, is central to understanding PSA. The document highlights how leaders in Israel bore the consequences for the people’s sins (e.g., Numbers 25:4; 2 Samuel 21:1-14). Christ, as the ultimate representative and king, bears the sins of his people, fulfilling the typological patterns established in the Old Testament. This representation means that Christ’s atonement is substitutionary, bearing the legal penalty on behalf of others.

Isaiah 53 and New Testament Christology

Paul’s Use of Isaiah 53

1. Lowly Christ (Phil. 2:7; cf. Isa. 53:3):

Paul identifies Jesus as the Servant in Isaiah, emphasizing Christ’s humility and lowliness. Isaiah 53:3 describes the servant as “despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” This is reflected in Philippians 2:7, where Paul writes, “but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

2. Delivered for Transgressions (Rom. 4:25; cf. Isa. 53:4-5):

Paul states in Romans 4:25 that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” This directly correlates with Isaiah 53:4-5, where the servant is said to have borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, and was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities.”

3. Securing Justification (Rom. 4:25; cf. Isa. 53:11):

The justification of many through Christ’s death is a central theme in Isaiah 53:11, “by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous.” Paul echoes this in Romans 4:25, linking Jesus’ resurrection to our justification.

4. Justifying the Many (Rom. 5:19; cf. Isa. 53:11):

Romans 5:19 highlights, “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous,” aligning with Isaiah’s declaration that the servant will “make many to be accounted righteous.”

5. Peace Through His Death (Col. 1:20; cf. Isa. 53:5):

Paul’s theology in Colossians 1:20, “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross,” reflects Isaiah 53:5, where the chastisement that brought us peace was upon the servant. These references illustrate how Paul uses Isaiah 53 to build a comprehensive Christology, demonstrating that Christ’s life and work fulfill the servant’s role described by Isaiah.

Peter’s Use of Isaiah 53

1. Suffering Servant (1 Peter 2:21-25):

Peter quotes Isaiah 53 extensively in 1 Peter 2:21-25, showing that Christ’s suffering was foretold by Isaiah and serves as an example for believers. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter explicitly references Isaiah 53:5, “by his wounds, you have been healed,” indicating that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross.

2. Consistent Interpretation:

Peter’s interpretation aligns with how Christ (Mark 10:45), Acts (Acts 3:13), Paul (Rom. 4:25), and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 9:28) understood Isaiah 53. They all see it as describing the Lord Jesus and his sacrificial work on the cross.

The Forensic and Penal Dimensions

1. Legal and Penal Aspects (Deut. 21:22-23; Gal. 3:13):

Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which discusses hanging on a tree as a cursed act, is applied by Paul in Galatians 3:13 to Christ’s crucifixion: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” This underscores the forensic aspect of PSA, where Christ’s death satisfies the legal demands of the law and God’s justice.

2. Corporate Solidarity and Representation:

The principle of corporate solidarity, where a leader or king represents the people, is significant. Christ, as the ultimate representative, bears the sins of his people, fulfilling the typological patterns established in the Old Testament. This is seen in how leaders in Israel bore consequences for the nation’s sins (e.g., Numbers 25:4; 2 Samuel 21:1-14).

Conclusion

The analysis of 1 Peter 2:24, supported by scholarly interpretations, demonstrates the connection between the Suffering Servant and the New Testament understanding of Christ’s atoning work. The interpretations by Jobes, Craig, and Carson collectively reinforce the substitutionary and penal nature of the servant’s role, aligning with the New Testament portrayal of Jesus’ atoning work. This counters McGrew and Vendredi’s arguments, which emphasize ethical and healing aspects without acknowledging the substitutionary atonement central to Isaiah 53 and its fulfillment in Christ’s suffering and death. The connections to Ezekiel 34 further support the comprehensive understanding of Jesus’ role as both the bearer of sins and the shepherd of souls, with Ezekiel’s symbolic bearing of sins foreshadowing Christ’s ultimate atoning sacrifice.

Paul Vendredi’s Argument and Hezekiah’s Healing

Paul Vendredi argues that Hezekiah’s healing during Isaiah’s time should be viewed more as an instance of vicarious healing rather than divine pardon. To evaluate this claim, let’s examine the relevant scriptural passages and their theological implications.

Hezekiah’s Healing in Context

Scriptural References:

1. 2 Kings 20:1-7:
   • This passage describes King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. The prophet Isaiah informs Hezekiah that he will die, but after Hezekiah’s prayer, God grants him 15 more years of life.
2. Isaiah 38:1-5:
   • A parallel account where Isaiah conveys God’s message of Hezekiah’s healing.

Key Points of Vendredi’s Argument

1. Vicarious Healing vs. Divine Pardon:
   • Vendredi suggests that the context of Hezekiah’s healing is more about vicarious healing, reflecting immediate, tangible events rather than abstract theological concepts.
2. Divine Judgment and Healing:
   • He argues that since Hezekiah was healed, the emphasis should be on physical restoration rather than on themes of divine judgment or pardon.

Counterpoints and Theological Considerations

Divine Judgment as Temporary Stay

1. Temporary Pardon:
   • Hezekiah’s healing can be seen as a temporary pardon rather than a complete absolution of divine judgment. The extension of his life does not negate the ultimate reality of divine judgment but serves as a stay of execution. This aligns with the broader biblical theme that God can delay judgment in response to prayer and repentance.
2. Divine Judgment:
   • The fact that Hezekiah’s illness was considered a divine judgment (as Isaiah initially proclaimed his death) underscores that healing in this context can still reflect divine pardon or mercy, albeit temporarily.

Broader Theological Context

1. Isaiah’s Prophetic Role:
   • Isaiah’s prophecies often encompass both immediate historical events and foreshadow future messianic fulfillment. Therefore, interpreting Hezekiah’s healing purely in terms of vicarious healing might be too narrow.
2. Vicarious Suffering and Healing:
   • In the broader scope of Isaiah’s prophecies, particularly Isaiah 53, the concept of vicarious suffering leading to healing (both physical and spiritual) is prominent. Hezekiah’s healing can thus be viewed as a type or precursor to the ultimate healing and pardon brought by the suffering servant.

Biblical Evidence of God’s Control Over Death

1. Deuteronomy 32:39:
   • “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.”
   • This verse clearly states that God has the ultimate authority over life and death.
2. 1 Samuel 2:6:
   • “The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.”
   • It reinforces God’s control over death and resurrection.
3. Job 14:5:
   • “Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass.”
   • This indicates that God has predetermined the lifespan of each person.
4. Revelation 1:18:
   • “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”
   • Jesus, as part of the Godhead, claims authority over death and the afterlife.

Biblical Evidence that Death is a Punishment

1. Genesis 2:17:
   • “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
   • Death is introduced as a consequence of disobedience to God’s command.
2. Romans 5:12:
   • “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
   • This connects sin with the entry of death into the world, showing death as a result of sin.
3. Romans 6:23:
   • “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
   • Death is described as the wages (or punishment) for sin.
4. Ezekiel 18:4:
   • “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.”
   • This reiterates that death is a direct result of sin.

Theological Implications for Hezekiah’s Healing

Given this biblical framework, we see that:

1. God’s Sovereignty Over Death:
   • God has absolute control over life and death, which underscores the significance of Hezekiah’s healing as an act of divine intervention.
2. Death as Divine Punishment:
   • Death is a punishment for sin, and Hezekiah’s impending death can be viewed as a form of divine judgment. His healing, therefore, represents a temporary reprieve from this judgment, akin to a stay of execution.

Conclusion

While Hezekiah’s healing during Isaiah’s time indeed provides an example of vicarious healing, it does not exclude the concept of divine pardon. Instead, it highlights a temporary stay of execution, reflecting God’s mercy in response to repentance and prayer. This serves as a precursor to the more profound themes of vicarious suffering and divine pardon found in Isaiah’s prophecies, particularly in Isaiah 53.

Exploring the Connections between Romans 3-5, 8, and Isaiah 53

Examining Romans 3-5, 8, and Isaiah 53 reveals profound theological themes such as substitutionary atonement, justification, and the demonstration of divine love. The New Testament passages build upon the rich imagery and motifs in Isaiah 53, shaping the portrayal of Christ’s redemptive work.

Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:5

Romans 4:25: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”

Isaiah 53:5: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Connection:

Substitutionary Suffering:

• Romans 4:25: “Delivered for our sins” echoes Isaiah 53:5’s “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities.” Both verses emphasize the substitutionary nature of the servant’s (Christ’s) suffering on behalf of others.
• Isaiah 53:5: This verse highlights the servant’s vicarious suffering, bearing the punishment that rightfully belonged to others.

Justification and Healing:

• Romans 4:25: “Raised to life for our justification” aligns with the idea that through Christ’s resurrection, believers are justified. This connects to Isaiah 53:10-11, which speaks of the servant seeing his offspring and prolonging his days, hinting at a form of resurrection and subsequent justification.

Romans 5:6-8 and Isaiah 53:6

Romans 5:6-8: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Connection:

Christ’s Sacrificial Death:

• Romans 5:6: “Christ died for the ungodly” mirrors Isaiah 53:6’s depiction of humanity as straying sheep whose iniquity is laid upon the servant. Both passages underscore the idea that Christ died for those who were helpless and in need of redemption.
• Isaiah 53:6: This verse emphasizes the collective sin of humanity and the servant’s role in bearing these sins.

Divine Love and Mercy:

• Romans 5:8: “God demonstrates his own love for us” through Christ’s death parallels Isaiah 53’s theme of divine love expressed through the servant’s suffering. The servant’s sacrificial act is portrayed as the ultimate demonstration of God’s love and mercy.

Scholarly Insights and Parallels

Schreiner on Romans 4:25: Schreiner suggests that Romans 4:25 likely alludes to Isaiah 53:12 LXX, where the servant is “delivered up” for the sins of the people. This highlights the substitutionary nature of Christ’s suffering and connects it to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Moo on Romans 5:6-8: Moo emphasizes that Paul’s language in Romans 5:6-8 reflects the substitutionary themes of Isaiah 53. The notion that Christ died for the ungodly and sinners aligns with the servant bearing the iniquities of many (Isaiah 53:12). This underscores the depth of God’s love demonstrated through Christ’s sacrificial death.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) and PSA

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of Isaiah 53 is consistent with the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), reinforcing the themes of substitutionary suffering and divine justice.

Romans 4:25 and Isaiah 53:5 (LXX)

Romans 4:25: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”

Isaiah 53:5 (LXX): “But he was wounded because of our lawlessness, and he was made to suffer because of our sins; the discipline of our peace was upon him; by his wounds we are healed.”

Connection:

Substitutionary Suffering:

• Romans 4:25: The phrase “delivered for our sins” in Romans resonates with the LXX’s “wounded because of our lawlessness” and “made to suffer because of our sins.” This highlights the idea that Christ’s suffering was on behalf of sinners, bearing the punishment due to them.
• Isaiah 53:5 (LXX): The LXX emphasizes the vicarious nature of the servant’s suffering, clearly supporting the concept of penal substitution where the servant endures the punishment for others’ sins.

Justification and Healing:

• Romans 4:25: “Raised to life for our justification” is seen as the culmination of the servant’s suffering, echoing Isaiah 53:10-11 (LXX) which speaks of the servant’s vindication and prolonged days, hinting at resurrection and the resulting justification of many.
• Isaiah 53:5 (LXX): The healing through the servant’s wounds aligns with the New Testament theme of justification through Christ’s resurrection.

Romans 5:6-8 and Isaiah 53:6 (LXX)

Romans 5:6-8: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Isaiah 53:6 (LXX): “We all went astray like sheep; each one went astray in his own way; and the Lord delivered him up for our sins.”

Connection:

Christ’s Sacrificial Death:

• Romans 5:6: “Christ died for the ungodly” mirrors the LXX’s description of humanity as straying sheep, whose iniquities are laid upon the servant. This underscores the substitutionary atonement where Christ bears the punishment deserved by sinners.
• Isaiah 53:6 (LXX): The phrase “the Lord delivered him up for our sins” directly corresponds to the New Testament understanding of Christ’s sacrificial death for the ungodly, reinforcing the PSA theme.

Divine Love and Mercy:

• Romans 5:8: “God demonstrates his own love for us” through Christ’s death parallels the LXX’s theme of the servant’s suffering as a profound act of divine love and mercy. The servant’s vicarious suffering is the ultimate demonstration of God’s love, aligning with the New Testament portrayal of Christ’s death.

Romans 8:32 and Isaiah 53

Romans 8:32: “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?”

Connection:

Divine Initiative in Salvation:

• Romans 8:32: The one who delivered up and handed Jesus over is clearly God, echoing Isaiah 53:10’s depiction of the Lord’s will to crush the servant. This divine action results in the exoneration of the elect, affirming God’s ultimate plan for salvation and demonstrating his profound love.

Substitutionary Atonement:

• The idea of God not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us aligns with the concept of substitutionary atonement found in Isaiah 53, where the servant suffers for the iniquities of others.

The Phrase “By His Knowledge” in Isaiah 53:11

The phrase “by his knowledge” in Isaiah 53:11 has been a point of discussion among scholars and theologians, leading to varying interpretations. One interpretation, as noted, suggests that it refers to the servant’s own knowledge. Isaiah indeed mentions that “the Spirit of knowledge” rests upon the servant (Isaiah 11:2), and Jesus speaks of the unique knowledge he possesses of the Father (Matthew 11:27). However, the deeper theological point here is not about the servant’s superior intellectual prowess or special insights justifying sinners.

Interpretations of “By His Knowledge”

1. The Servant’s Own Knowledge:

• Isaiah 11:2: The Spirit of knowledge resting on the servant suggests he has divine insight and understanding.
• Matthew 11:27: Jesus highlights the exclusive mutual knowledge between the Father and the Son, indicating a deep, intimate knowledge that only the divine possesses.

2. Knowledge of the Servant (Faith):

• Justification Through Faith: The phrase “by his knowledge” in Hebrew can be interpreted as “by the knowledge of him,” meaning it is the knowledge of, or faith in, the servant that justifies the many. This interpretation shifts the focus from the servant’s intellectual capacity to the relational and faith-based aspect of justification.
• John 17:3: Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent. This knowing is relational and transformative, leading to justification and eternal life.

Theological Implications

Not Intellectual Prowess, but Sacrificial Death:

• The servant does not justify the many because of his intellectual insights. It was not his superior knowledge or intellectual prowess that provided justification for sinners. Instead, it was through his sacrificial death that justification was achieved.

Faith as the Instrument of Justification:

• The servant’s knowledge is not the instrument through which justification is applied. Rather, it is the sinner’s faith in the servant and his work that brings about justification. The expression “his knowledge” refers to the knowledge of him, or faith in him, that justifies the many. This aligns with the New Testament teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is the means by which individuals are justified before God.

Isaiah 53:5 – Detailed Analysis

Isaiah 53:5: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Key Terms and Their Hebrew Meanings

1. “Crushed” (דכא – daka):

• Meaning: The Hebrew word translated as ‘crushed’ connotes breaking in pieces or pulverizing. This term indicates the severity of the servant’s suffering, emphasizing the extent to which he was afflicted.
• Theological Implication: This crushing is a vivid depiction of the intense suffering and sacrifice the servant endured. It highlights the totality of the servant’s offering, being utterly broken for the sins of others.

2. “Scourging” or “Stripes” (חבורה – chabburah):

• Meaning: This term refers to the wounds or marks left by flogging, underscoring the physical suffering of the servant.
• Theological Implication: By his scourging, or the wounds inflicted upon him, healing is brought to the people. This implies that the servant’s suffering has a redemptive purpose, bringing restoration and healing to those he represents.

3. “Chastening” (מוסר – musar):

• Meaning: The Hebrew word translated as ‘chastening’ frequently connotes punishment. It refers to disciplinary action, often involving suffering or correction.
• Theological Implication: The chastening the servant endures is not for his own peace, but for the peace of those he substitutes. This highlights the concept of vicarious punishment, where the servant takes on the punishment that brings peace and reconciliation to others.

4. “Chastening of our well-being” (מוסר שלומנו – musar shelomenu):

• Motyer’s Translation: J. Alec Motyer renders this phrase literally as ‘our peace-punishment,’ which semantically conveys the meaning ‘the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God.’
• Theological Implication: This phrase encapsulates the idea that the servant’s suffering is necessary to restore peace between God and humanity. It underscores the redemptive purpose of the servant’s punishment, which is to achieve reconciliation and peace with God for the people.

Connecting to the New Testament and Romans

The analysis of these terms in Isaiah 53:5 resonates deeply with the New Testament’s depiction of Christ’s redemptive work, particularly in Romans 3-5 and 8. The concept of substitutionary atonement, where Christ takes on the punishment for humanity’s sins, is central to Paul’s theology.

Romans 4:25: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”

• The ‘delivered over to death’ mirrors the ‘crushed’ and ‘chastened’ servant, while ‘raised to life for our justification’ reflects the healing and peace achieved through his sacrifice.

Romans 5:6-8: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

• This passage aligns with the idea that the servant’s death brings about peace and reconciliation. Christ’s death for the ungodly showcases the ultimate demonstration of divine love, akin to the servant’s sacrificial suffering in Isaiah 53.

Distinction Between Active and Passive Will

In Christian theology, the distinction between God’s active and passive will helps explain how God can permit evil or suffering without being the direct cause of it.

Active Will:

God’s active will refers to what He directly causes or commands. For example, the creation of the world, the incarnation of Christ, and acts of direct intervention.

Passive Will:

God’s passive will refers to what He permits to happen, allowing human free will and natural laws to operate. This includes allowing evil and suffering for a greater purpose or to bring about a greater good.

Biblical Support for the Distinction

God’s Active Will:

1. Creation:
   • “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
2. Salvation:
   • “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
3. Intervention:
   • “The Lord has done it this very day; let us rejoice today and be glad.” (Psalm 118:24)

God’s Passive Will:

1. Permitting Evil:
   • “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” (Genesis 50:20)
2. Human Free Will:
   • “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15)
3. Suffering for Growth:
   • “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.” (Romans 5:3-4)

Warren McGrew’s Rejection

Warren McGrew rejects the distinction between active and passive will, arguing that such a distinction might undermine God’s sovereignty and moral responsibility. He may contend that everything that happens does so by God’s direct will, thus maintaining a stronger sense of divine control and purpose.

Irony in Paul Vendredi’s Appeal to Active and Passive Will

Paul Vendredi argues for a distinction between God’s active and passive will to explain difficult theological concepts, such as God’s involvement in the crucifixion. This argument is ironic because, as Warren McGrew rejects this distinction, Vendredi’s position relies on it to resolve apparent contradictions.

Following Leighton Flowers’ Critique

Leighton Flowers critiques the notion of God having two wills that stand in opposition to each other, a concept often implied in Calvinistic interpretations. He asserts that:

“God certainly may have purposes for allowing evil to continue but He certainly does not have two wills that stand in opposition to each other as Calvinism’s claims imply.”

Paul Vendredi’s Appeal

Paul Vendredi’s appeal to the distinction between active and passive will might be an attempt to explain difficult theological concepts, such as God allowing suffering or using it for a greater good, without making God the direct cause of evil. This can help reconcile the existence of evil with the belief in a benevolent and omnipotent God.

Case of God “Crushing” Paul

When explaining God’s actions in “crushing” (using the example of the Apostle Paul or another similar figure), Paul Vendredi might argue:

God’s Active Will:

God actively intervenes in Paul’s life to bring about a profound transformation. For example, Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19) can be seen as an act of God’s active will to change Paul’s heart and mission.

God’s Passive Will:

God allows Paul to experience suffering and persecution. This suffering is not directly willed by God but permitted to bring about a greater good, such as the spread of the Gospel and Paul’s own spiritual growth (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).

Theological Synthesis

To reconcile these views, one might argue:

• God’s Sovereignty: God’s sovereignty encompasses both His active and passive will. He is ultimately in control but allows human free will and natural events to operate within His divine plan.
• Greater Good: Suffering and evil are permitted by God’s passive will to bring about a greater good, demonstrating His wisdom and benevolence.
• Human Responsibility: While God permits evil, He does not cause it directly. Humans are responsible for their actions, and God can redeem even the worst situations.

Active Will of God in the Crucifixion

The New Testament presents the crucifixion of Jesus as an event orchestrated by God’s active will. This is not merely a case of God permitting human actions but rather God’s direct involvement in fulfilling His redemptive plan.

Biblical Evidence

1. Acts 2:23:
   • “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”
   • This verse indicates that Jesus’ crucifixion was part of God’s deliberate plan, showing active involvement.
2. Isaiah 53:10:
   • “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”
   • The prophecy in Isaiah emphasizes that it was God’s will to crush the suffering servant (interpreted as Jesus), highlighting divine action.
3. John 10:17-18:
   • “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
   • Jesus speaks of His authority and the command from the Father to lay down His life, indicating divine orchestration.
4. Romans 3:25:
   • “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.”
   • God actively presented Christ as a sacrifice, underscoring His direct involvement.

Further Biblical Evidence of God’s Active Will in the Crucifixion and Preordained Plan

1. Romans 8:28-30:
   • “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
   • This passage emphasizes God’s sovereign plan and purpose, indicating that the events of salvation, including the atonement, are part of His predestined plan.
2. Ephesians 1:11:
   • “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”
   • It highlights that all events, including the crucifixion, are part of God’s deliberate plan and purpose.
3. Acts 4:27-28:
   • “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”
   • This passage reinforces that the crucifixion was preordained by God’s will and power.
4. 1 Peter 1:20:
   • “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.”
   • This indicates that Jesus was chosen for the atonement before the creation of the world, demonstrating the pretemporal nature of God’s plan.
5. Revelation 13:8:
   • “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”
   • This passage suggests that the sacrificial role of Christ (the Lamb) was part of God’s plan from the beginning of creation.

Theological Implications of the Preordained Plan

1. Centrality of the Atonement:
   • The atonement is not an afterthought but the central thesis of reality. It is the pivotal event in God’s redemptive history, planned before the foundation of the world.
2. God’s Sovereign Will:
   • These passages affirm that God’s will is both active and sovereign. The events leading to and including the crucifixion were part of a divinely orchestrated plan that fulfills His ultimate purpose.
3. Integration of Divine and Human Actions:
   • While human agents (e.g., Herod, Pontius Pilate) played roles in the crucifixion, these actions were within the scope of God’s predetermined plan. This shows the integration of divine sovereignty with human responsibility.

Addressing Warren McGrew’s Rejection

While Warren McGrew rejects the distinction between God’s active and passive will, arguing for a more direct view of God’s involvement in all events, the evidence clearly shows that in the case of the crucifixion, God’s will was actively at work. This does not undermine God’s sovereignty but rather highlights His deliberate and purposeful action in the redemption of humanity.

Conclusion

The New Testament, supported by passages like Romans 8, Ephesians 1:11, Acts 2 and 4, 1 Peter 1:20, and Revelation 13:8, clearly teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus was an event actively willed and preordained by God. This central act of atonement was planned before the foundation of the world, demonstrating God’s sovereign control and intentional purpose in the redemption of humanity. Thus, while the distinction between active and passive will is helpful in many theological contexts, the crucifixion stands as a clear example of God’s active involvement in bringing about His redemptive plan.