With the above verses (and mostly
with verse 10) they want to convince us that
"it
pleased
the LORD
to bruise
him, he hath put him to grief",
because that was the way that Divine justice would
be
satisfied (given that "someone had to be PUNISHED" in place of
the guilty) and so, through Christ's sacrifice "the
LORD
hath laid
on
him the iniquity of us all ",
so that Christ would
be paying the price for our sins.
Naturally, with a closer look, we
will see that not even the Masoretic texts say anything of the
kind. Moreso, when comparing
them
to the same verses (especially
verse 10) of the Septuagint - which is 1000 years older - it
says entirely different things!
We shall now examine below the
reasons that prove Isaiah had never prophesied the juridical
theory of a "demented god".
4.
A debunking by Isaiah of the
arguments supporting the juridical theory
4.1.
"We
did esteem....
but..."
The first point that refutes the
juridical theory is absolutely clear - not only in the
Septuagint text, but ALSO in the Masoretic text itself!
This is a clear-cut statement which alone is enough to close the
issue. It is the clear-cut statement of verses 4 and 5,
where the Masoretic text says: "we
did esteem
him stricken
smitten
of God
and afflicted
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
This verse clearly says "we
esteemed" (thought)! "We (the Jews)
thought He was
injured and wounded and afflicted by God." Then it
continues with the word "But" !!! This is the word
that differentiates
between the
fact and what "we thought".
The "but" corrects "our" erroneous opinion, and gives us the
correct status: "But
he was wounded
for our transgressions
he was bruised
for our iniquities....."
This verse clearly and
sufficiently negates the juridical theory, and it is a point
that is also in full agreement with the Septuagint as seen in
the respective columns above.
4.2.
"The
chastisement
of our peace
was upon
him
"
The second point that looks
strikingly inappropriate and is
nevertheless used by the "juridicals" is
the word "chastisement/punishment" which appears in the Masoretic text, in verse 5: "But
he was wounded
for our transgressions
he was bruised
for our iniquities
the
chastisement
of our peace
was upon him."
Since he was "punished" -they tell us- this is a clear
indication that we have a "court case". God "PUNISHES" the
innocent one in the place of the guilty ones, so that the guilty
ones may be saved (!!!)
Beyond the clear irrationality of
this logic - as extensively explained in
another of our articles, the first
thing that we must mention is that this same passage
in the
(1000-year older) Septuagint text is actually different: "5
however
he was
injured for our sins, and was bruised for our
iniquities; an
education of peace for us
(was) upon
him. By his bruising, we have been healed."
Here, we can see that the word
"chastisement"
or "punishment" is
not present in the text. On the contrary, we
notice the word "education". In fact, (for those who want
to perceive the word "education" in the sense of "punishment") the
Septuagint text does not (grammatically) relate the "education"
to Christ, but to "us". It says : "an
education of peace
for us" In other
words, even if we
wanted to see the word "education" (παιδεία)
as implying a punishment (τιμωρία)
that would educate someone, it would be
OUR PUNISHMENT! It would
be an educative punishment for US, not for Him!
Consequently, neither does this
verse
(not even in the Masoretic text)
actually say
that God the Father
PUNISHED God the Son for our sake. It may
imply
"punishment" (education), but NOWHERE does it specify that this
punishment pertained to Christ. It says it was OURS. In
other words, according to Eusebius of Caesaria: "...therefore,
although it was appropriate for us to suffer and be educated for
our own sins, they (sins)
befell Him, for the sake of
our peace towards God" (όπερ γαρ εχρήν
ημάς παθείν παιδευόμενος δια τας αμαρτίας τας ημετέρας,
ταύτα επ΄ αυτόν ήλθεν υπέρ της ημετέρας ειρήνης της προς
Θεόν).
In short, this educative
"punishment" that WE should have
undergone, was finally
undergone by Christ, for our
sake.
Nowhere does it
imply
that God
"wanted to satisfy His justice" with
these words, or
that He "punished Christ". It was something that the
Father had TOLERATED for our sake, because it was how we were going
to escape the educative punishment that
WE deserved! What
was normally deserved by us was
borne by Christ -
without
this implying that it satisfied God's justice in any way!
4.3.
"...and
the LORD
has laid
on
him the iniquity of us all"
The next
point that we need to examine is verse 6: "...and
the LORD
hath laid
on him the
iniquity of us all
".
With this
passage, the juridically-minded obviously want to tell us
that "the Lord" was the one who "loaded" all our sins on
Him, and therefore God's justice was thus "satisfied", by
punishing an innocent in the place of all the guilty.
And yet,
the 1000-year more ancient text of the Septuagint says
something entirely different:
"...and
(so)
the Lord delivered
him unto our sins...."
Obviously, it is one thing to
claim that
God
actually laid the sins of others onto Christ, and
a totally different thing to
"deliver" Him unto others,
for the sake of our sins.
In the former instance (if we don't take the words
metaphorically), God appears as the "moral perpetrator" of
an injustice: punishing someone innocent in the place of the
guilty. In the second instance however, God is seen as
ALLOWING the Innocent One to be wronged, because He
knows that in this way, the others will benefit by it and be
saved.
But even
in the Masoretic text, it is not necessary to take the
expression literally - rather, it is necessary that it be
taken metaphorically, because it ACTUALLY IS a metaphorical
expression! How can someone actually "load sins" onto
someone else, as though sins are objects that can be loaded
and carried? This phrase could only have a
metaphorical meaning, therefore how can we possibly ascribe
a literal meaning to it, just because it may suit our
prejudices?
Therefore,
even if we wanted to perceive the Masoretic text as the more
correct version, we would still be obliged to perceive the
phrase metaphorically, and understand that by "allowing"
Christ to suffer what He did under the Jews, it is as though
God was (in this metaphorical manner) "loading" all that
weight onto Christ (which we were obliged to lift); a weight
that was "removed" from us thanks to His Sacrifice.
But under no circumstance whatsoever was God "satisfied"
with an outcome like that, nor did He regard the Sacrifice
as a "just punishment" of an innocent for the sake of the
guilty!
4.4.
"for
the transgression
of my people
was he stricken.."
The next
verse that the juridically-minded might highlight is verse
8, which, according to the Masoretic text says "...for
the transgression
of my people
was he stricken...".
A statement like that in the minds of the juridicalists
apparently seems to imply: "...because the people had
transgressions, the judge demanded that an innocent person
be punished in their place..." But an inference like
that does not exist - not even as a suspicion! There
is not the slightest hint here that could indicate God as
the one who wounded Him or had ordered that He be wounded.
People wounded Him, on their own initiative and
responsibility. Furthermore, there is no mention
whatsoever that God was SATISFIED with that wound.
What is
implied in this verse is that Christ was ALLOWED to suffer a
wound (as also mentioned above, that "God allowed" Him to
suffer what He did), because both of them knew full well
that the people would thus be saved from their sins. Nothing
more.
4.5.
"Yet
it pleased
the LORD
to
bruise
him, he hath put him to grief"
Verses 10
and
11 say the following, according to the
Masorites:
"10
Yet it pleased
the LORD
to
bruise
him he hath put him to grief
when thou shalt make
his soul
an
offering for sin
he
shall see
his seed
he
shall prolong
his days
and the pleasure
of
the LORD
shall prosper
in his hand
11
He
shall see
of
the travail
of
his soul
and shall be satisfied
by
his knowledge
shall my righteous
servant
justify
many
for he shall bear
their iniquities.."
"Yet
it pleased
the LORD
to
bruise
him he hath put him to grief"
!!!!!
And this is where we
can see the juridicalists' "heavy
artillery" !!!
We can
just imagine them, triumphantly bragging:
"What
clearer statement could you want than this? Doesn't it say
here - quite clearly - that the
Lord was the one Who
wanted to
inflict torture and
put Christ to
grief? God Himself, and not anyone else? And
doesn't it say that this was a "sacrifice", an "offering for
sin"? Who then was the recipient of sacrifices, if not
God?"
"No!
You are mistaken!"
is our equally triumphant reply to
them.
Because in the Septuagint text - which is more reliable and
more ancient by 1000 years - this verse says the exact
opposite! Observe what it says:
"
10 and
the Lord wants to
cleanse
him from that injury. If you (likewise)
give something for sin,
your soul shall see a long-living seed; and God
shall want to
take away 11
from the
pain of his soul, so that he may show him light and forge
according to prudence, vindicate the righteous who works
good deeds to many, and their sins He shall remove..
In simpler
language:
"10
And the Lord shall want to cleanse him of the wound. If you
(plural) make an offering (sacrifice) for sin, your soul
will see a long-living seed, and the Lord wills to take away
11 from the pain of his soul, to show him light and to forge
according to prudence, and shall vindicate the righteous
(one) who does good deeds to many, and their sins he shall
remove.."
In other
words, the correct, older text not only
DOES NOT STATE
that "it
pleased
the LORD
to
bruise
him he hath put him to grief"
- not only does it
NOT STATE that "the
LORD
hath laid
on him the
iniquity of us all",
but on the contrary,
it says that
the Lord was the One Who relieved him and vindicated him!!
How could it
ever be possible for the theory of a
"punisher-God and a torturer of an innocent" (as per
the Masoretic text) be correct, when quite clearly,
BOTH
TEXTS - the Masoretic and the Septuagint - have in
previous verses stated clearly that:
"we
did esteem
him stricken
smitten
of
God
and afflicted,
But
......."
(Masoretic)
we
thought
him to be in pain and stricken
by God, and in affliction;
however
....." (Septuagint)
Wouldn't
that mean a blatant contradiction within the very same
chapter? Well, it is obvious in verses 4 and 5,
where it is clarified that
WE HAD WRONGLY "ESTEEMED
that he was wounded/punished/chastised by God" !!! Quite
clearly, the Masoretic text has been corrupted at this point
!
Furthermore, there is also NO mention that the will of God
is to punish one innocent for the sake of the many guilty.
Instead, it says:
"and
the pleasure
of
the LORD
shall prosper
in his hand".
The "pleasure of the Lord" here is
understood to mean the saving (salvation) of the guilty
-thanks to the Sacrifice of the Righteous One- and NOT the
injustice of punishing/chastising an innocent one...
4.6.
The "recipient" of the sacrifice
As for the
matter of the sacrifice, once again, we encounter the same
issue that was mentioned earlier: "How is it possible
to want to perceive a metaphorical expression literally, for
the sole purpose of accommodating our personal ideology?"
Because when speaking of a "sacrifice", it is obvious that
we are referring to something along the lines of: We
have a victim, laid out on a sacrificial altar and the
priest who is wielding a knife slaughters the victim and
then burns it. Well, is this what happened in the case
of Christ? Was He literally sacrificed on an
altar by a ritual priest, with a knife, and then burnt as
"an offering for sin" to God?
Of course
not! Even the juridicalists will comment here that
Christ was the "representative offering" which had been
prophetically symbolized by the sacrifices of the past - by
the "sacrificial offerings" of the Law. They will tell
us that those sacrifices SYMBOLIZED Christ's eventual
sacrifice, which is why in the case of Christ, the
sacrificial altar was the Crucifix, the sacrificial knife
was the centurion's spearhead, the priest was Christ Himself
(who was offering Himself), and the sacrificial fire was
symbolic, according to: "the zeal of your house has devoured
me" (John 2:17)... and many more related details.
Therefore,
they too admit that Christ's sacrifice is METAPHORICALLY
related to the sacrifices of the Law.
So, is it
appropriate to perceive a clearly metaphorical association
literally, whenever it suits one's ideology?
Because, if they do not seek a literal "sacrificial altar"
and a literal "sacrificial priest" and a literal
"sacrificial knife" and a literal "sacrificial fire", then
why do they seek to make God the literal recipient of the
sacrifice? Why don't they understand that in the same
manner that God does not "feel pleasure" or "relish" the
fragrance of literally
sacrificed animals, He
likewise feels no satisfaction with the UNFAIR death and
torture of the Righteous One? Why can't they
understand that, just as God was
metaphorically
"satisfied" by animal sacrifices in the Old Testament,
He was likewise metaphorically the recipient of
Christ's sacrifice?
God was
the "recipient" of the SALVATION of sinners, and not the
demander of the sacrifice; God is the recipient of
everything good and righteous, and not whatever is evil and
unrighteous; He accepted the forgiveness of our sins, which
ORIGINATED FROM the death and the resurrection of Christ,
but He never demanded that sacrifice to take place for His
own satisfaction. He never regarded the death of the
Righteous One for the sake of the unrighteous as something
just. On the contrary, it was precisely because the death of
the Righteous One was UNJUST that - along with the soul of
the Righteous One - it was God's DEMAND that the souls of
all those who had believed in Him also be liberated from the
demonic potentates of Hades! It is quite obvious
therefore, that He did not pay them; HE PLUNDERED THEM!
He looted Hades - He did NOT "buy" it. It is one thing
to "set up" a sacrifice, and another thing to "accept it".
It is one thing to tolerate it, and another thing to impose
it. It is one thing to feel satisfaction with
injustice, and another thing (on account of an injustice) to
"demolish" the unjust authority of Hades and save its
captives.
Yes,
God was a recipient. But not a recipient of "satisfaction".
He was the recipient of forgiveness and salvation; the
recipient of relief and of vindication. This is how all the
points of the passage being examined should be interpreted,
as should all the other passages that speak of "sacrifice",
"offering", "vindication", "buying", "price", "ransom",
"payment of ransom", and "saving from sins".
He was
also the
recipient of that very sacrifice, to which the
Christians of our Church resort - through to the end of Time
- by eating from His sacrificial altar (the Holy Altar)
[Hebr.13:10] the Body and the Blood of the sacrificed
Christ. That is why it says in verse 11: "If you
(likewise)
give something for sin,
your soul shall see a long-living seed".
Those who
partake of the Sacrifice of Christ shall be benefited by it.
4.7.
Why do we insist on the Septuagint text?
So, why
are we so sure that the correct text here is the Septuagint
and not the Masoretic?
Without
overlooking the fact that quite often, because of the Hebrew
language, the Masoretic version has a more reliable
formulation of many Hebrew terms, we will now mention
several reasons why we believe that the specific passage has
been altered and therefore why we insist on the Septuagint:
1.
As we proved earlier, the
Masoretic text in the specific chapter contradicts itself
(verses 4 and 5 with verses 10 and 11), as opposed to the
text of the Septuagint, which does not present such a
problem.
2.
The text of the Septuagint that we
have at our disposal today is far older than the Masoretic
by about 1000 years and as such, less tampered with.
3.
While the text of the Septuagint
had been prepared by Israelites who belonged to the people
of God, the Masoretic text was prepared by Jews who had not
believed in Christ and who had already fallen away from the
faith.
4.
The first Christian Church quoted
mainly from the Septuagint text rather than other ancient
texts of their time,
as we can discern in the New Testament.
5.
Furthermore, over Time, the Church
also
delivered the
Septuagint text to us as an Ecclesiastic text, as
opposed to the Protestants, who preferred the text that was
composed by the non-faithful-to-Christ Jews.
6.
The fact that the Masoretic text
has removed 10 books from the Holy Bible makes it even less
trustworthy than the Septuagint text.
7.
But there is something even more
important, which is ESPECIALLY associated to the specific
passage that we are examining, and with regard to the
trustworthiness of the Septuagint text rather than the
Hebrew text of the Masorites. And this is the final and
absolute criterion as to which of the two texts we should
trust:
We would
like to ask if the Apostles themselves had ever quoted from
the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the New Testament Gospels?
If so, which text did they use? The Septuagint, or something
that resembled the Masoretic text?
Indeed,
there is a passage in the Holy Bible which has been taken
from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, and yes, it is a phrase
that has been taken from the Septuagint, and not from
something that resembles the Masoretic!
It is
located in Acts, 8:32-33,
and it is the passage that Philip
and the Ethiopian Eunuch were studying, when Philip was
helping him to understand that the words of that verse were
referring to Christ.
In the
columns below, our readers can see for themselves AND
COMPARE this excerpt with the Septuagint as well as the
Masoretic texts, in order to verify which version
the New
Testament itself recommends us to select:
We believe
that by observing which textual quote the New Testament
itself had used - from the Book of Isaiah - even the most
distrustful will be convinced of the fact that the
Septuagint text is the one that the Church delivered to us
as the most reliable version for the understanding of
the specific passage in Acts, and not the Masoretic version
by the post-Christ, non-believing Jews that the Protestants
are using today, and on which they have based their cacodoxy
of "satisfaction of Divine Justice".
If the
Holy Bible itself has "voted" in favour of the Septuagint as
the more correct rendition of Isaiah 53, then who of the
faithful dares to dissent?
4.8.
Even if the Masoretic text was
correct...
....nevertheless, we will take one more step towards
convincing even the most persistent fan of the juridical
theory. We shall imagine for one moment (for argument's
sake) that there are no contradictions within this chapter;
that we accept the Masoretic text as being more accurate in
the specific passage, and will proceed to interpret that
passage accordingly - along the lines of the corrupted
verse.
Thus, even
if the Masoretic text were correct, the passage would still
be open to an entirely different interpretation to the one
that the juridicalists desire to ascribe to it.
Observe the excerpt again:
10
Yet it pleased
the LORD
to bruise
him, he hath
put him to grief
....."
The basic
point here that should be comprehended properly, is the
expression "it
pleased
the Lord". If we can understand this, we will also be
able to see the solution. The inference here is about
"divine will" or "divine pleasure", therefore the words that
Christ addressed to His Father, a little prior to His
Passion, immediately come to mind:
"Father, if thou be willing,
remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine,
be done...." [Luke
22:42]
And this
is where we need to pose the question:
Was Christ's sacrifice involuntary, or
did He WANT to go through with it?
I do not
believe there is a single Christian who would reply that
Christ was forced into being sacrificed. Well then, if He
was sacrificed of His own will and not compelled by anyone,
then why does the Gospel verse above indicate that His will
was different to that of His Father? Why would He ask
His Father to "remove from Him" the cup of torture, if
Christ's will was the same as the Father's?
Naturally,
it was Christ's human nature speaking, which, in view of the
torture that it was to face, was desirous of avoiding it.
But to Christ, the will of God was far more powerful than
the will of human nature with its human weakness in the face
of pain and suffering, and so He preferred to embrace the
will of His Father - which however is also the will of His
own Divine Nature, and which also explains why
He willed
to be sacrificed.
Having
noted the meaning of Christ's "will", let us now examine the
meaning of the Father's "will":
When we
use the expression: "This was the will of God", what do we
really mean with the word "will"?
When we
say:
"it
pleased
the LORD
to bruise
him he has put him to grief...",
does it mean that the Lord
obtained SATISFACTION with Christ's death? Or that God
"satisfied His sense of justice" with the death of an
innocent, as the juridicalists maintain?
The answer
to this question is given in Ezekiel, 18:23: "Have
I actually
any
pleasure that
the wicked should die? saith the Lord,
and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
As we can
see from this verse, God DOES NOT WANT the death of anyone,
not even of the wicked, therefore much less the death of the
Righteous One! And yet, the wicked
are put to death
for their iniquities. Does that mean that God cannot
impose His will in the universe, seeing that by and large
what He wants is not done? If however He
does
want/will it, then why does He mention in verse 18:23 of
Ezekiel that He does not want it?
Finally,
one more verse that will help us in this detail is the
excerpt from the Wisdom of Solomon, 1:13:
"...For
God made not death: neither hath he
pleasure in
the destruction of the living...."
If God
therefore does not get any pleasure out of the
destruction of the living, and if He did
not create
death, then how is it possible for Him to be "satisfied" by
the death of the Righteous One, and DEMAND something like
that in order to save the irreverent ones?
From the
above, it is obvious that the expression "will of God" does
not contain any inference to "pleasure" and "satisfaction"
on God's part, for something that He merely ALLOWED to
occur. By knowing in advance what the final outcome will be
(and always for the purpose of edification and salvation),
He makes allowance for death and pain and torture and
sacrifice. The expression "will of God" has nothing to do
with pleasure and satisfaction - it only implies "what He
ALLOWS" to occur.
Observe
what God says in regard to Job's sufferings: "And
the LORD
said
to Satan:
have you
considered
my servant
Job,
that there is
none like him in the earth -
a perfect
and an upright
man,
one
that fears
God
and eschews
evil
and still he holds fast
his integrity,
even though you moved
me against him to destroy
him without cause?"
[Job 2:3]
And we
ask: was it God Who brought all those torments upon Job, or
Satan? And yet, God is speaking in this verse as
though He had personally inflicted all those sufferings on
Job! And why is that? It is because He was the One Who
had MADE ALLOWANCE for them to occur. And when something is
ALLOWED by God to occur, we say it was "the will of God" -
even though He Himself feels no satisfaction for some of the
things that He allows. But He allows them to occur
nevertheless, because He knows that somewhere down the line,
those occurrences will benefit many, just as we are
benefited today by Job's sacrifice which had taken place
with God's concession (will), and just as the entire world
is benefited by Christ's Sacrifice, which had likewise taken
place with God's CONCESSION (will).
[ However,
for those points of the Holy Bible where God is declared an
"executioner" for the sake of a concession, we have composed
another article (in Greek), where an interested reader
can find further analyses on the topic, and the reason the
Divine Will is formulated in such a manner in the Holy
Bible. ]
The same
applies in the case of the verse of Isaiah being examined.
Even if we were to accept the corrupted formulation by the
Masorites who state that "Yet
it pleased
the LORD
to bruise
him, he hath put him to grief",
once again, we should not assume that God obtained
any "satisfaction" or "pleasure", or that He had imposed any
kind of "pressure" on Christ to accept that Sacrifice.
Given that God knew in advance that this was the way that
mankind would be saved from Sin and Death, HE ALLOWED IT TO
OCCUR, ALBEIT UNWILLINGLY. But, because He allowed it to
occur, we say that "it was the will of God that it occurred"
- just as God had UNWILLINGLY ALLOWED the Devil to torment
Job, knowing that to the end of time, Job's sacrifice was
going to be a most valuable example of salvation for us.
If we have
now understood that even though Christ had clearly implied
"I do not want" and yet we say that He WANTED to be
sacrificed (and was), then let us understand in the same
manner how the Father of Love had ALLOWED that sacrifice of
the Righteous One for the sake of all the unrighteous.
That is
why, "let no-one say 'I am being tested by
God', for God is unaffected by evil things, and He tests
no-one." (James 1:13)
