John Calvin, and Anselm before him, and every theologian since, have made sincere efforts to understand what the Bible is saying. And just like everyone of us, they were influenced by their own culture and preexisting paradigms. Those lenses affected the way they understood Scripture. Then their theories have influenced translation and doctrine through the years. So much so that today in many circles, it is considered heretical to espouse a view of the atonement that is not punitive. There are passages that, when filtered through certain lenses, do seem to speak convincingly of a punishment and/or satisfaction aspect of atonement. One such passage is Isaiah 53. There are several verses in particular:
“Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” v. 1-4, ESV
“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned…every one…to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” v. 5-6, ESV
“By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?” v. 8, ESV
“Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief…” v. 10, ESV
Many translations, concordances, and lexicons have relied on the Masoretic text in the interpretation of the Old Testament. Other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic Text, often abbreviated “MT”, is the only existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest text fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete text is from the 10th and 11th centuries AD. “However, the Hebrew text that it contains is clearly not the original Hebrew, nor even the Hebrew that was in use in the 1st century AD. The Hebrew of the 1st century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used, when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text.”(1)
Old Testament quotations in the Greek New Testament are exactly aligned with the Septuagint and in sharp opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic. In extra biblical sources, the Septuagint is more in agreement with the Hebrew than the Masoretic. The history of the MT calls into question the integrity of its translators. Furthermore, the MT is a revision of 7-9th century AD Hebrew; the LXX, 3rd century BC. The oldest surviving LXX dates to about 350AD, as opposed to the MT’s date of 1000AD. Basically, the Septuagint is arguably a more accurate rendition of the Hebrew contemporary with the times in which most of the Scripture, especially the Old Testament, was written.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? When we look at the Septuagint, we find a very different understanding of Isaiah 53.
Verse 4 reads, “This one(the one who has just been described in verses 2-3) our sins he bears and he suffers for us, and we ourselves considered him to be in pain and in a plague and in oppression.”
Both the MT and the LXX are clear that this is the perspective of those beholding the suffering servant. He had nothing that attracted them to him…he was despised and rejected by man…a man of suffering…familiar with pain…his appearance was that of one people hide their faces from…he was held in low esteem. It is obvious to the observer that something is wrong with this servant. What is said next is the estimation of the observer. “Surely, he took up our pain and bore our suffering…yet we considered…esteemed him….”
The primary difference between the MT and the LXX is the attribution to God. In the LXX, there is no attribution that the punishment was by God. It seems more obvious that he was in such a condition because of our sins.
v. 5 is also different. It lacks the concept of punishment.
“But he himself was wounded because of our lawless deeds and he became sick because of our sins; the pedagogy of our peace was upon him, with his bruises we ourselves were healed.”
The MT and LXX use two different words for the word that is generally translated either “chastisement” or “punishment” in verse 5. The MT uses the Hebrew word, “musar” which means correction, discipline, punishment which has been translated “punishment” or “chastisement.” But the LXX uses “paideia” which means teaching, instruction, discipline, chastisement. “Paideia” is the word from which we get the word “pedagogy,” which means a method or practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept. This word “paideia” is translated in Isaiah 50: 4-5 as “tongue of instruction,” and “instruction.” The servant’s suffering was instructional….a model or example for us….achieving peace for us all. His was the method of teaching us of peace. What would this world look like if we learned from his method of achieving and bringing peace?
v. 6 is only slightly different in the verb usage.
“All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.”
This is a more passive, rather than active, role. God is not placing our sins upon him, but offering him for our sins. Considering that Paul tells us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, God offered Himself for our sins.
v. 8 reads “because of the iniquities of my people, he was led to death.” There is no punishment in this verse either. It was the iniquities of the people that led to his death, not God. If one reads this with the mindset of a penal substitutionary atonement, it verifies it. But, without that mindset, it doesn’t necessarily “prove” it.
v. 10 & v. 11 tell a completely different story. “And the Lord desires to purify him of the plague…” and “The Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul…” Here we see in both these verses, according to the Septuagint, God is the servant’s advocate. We don’t see God as the punisher, pouring out His wrath on His Son, but the Son willingly taking on the suffering that removes our sins and God desiring to purify His son of that suffering. God is not pleased to punish His Son, but desires to take away His travail.
In the Masoretic text, God is viewed as the punisher who inflicts punishment on the servant for our sins. In the LXX version of Isaiah 53, sin is pictured as a disease that humanity has and Jesus, the suffering servant, stepped in and took the disease on Himself…carrying our sins, burdens, sorrows like a plague to the cross. Through His death and resurrection, He took this plague into the grave and when He came out, He left that in the grave. As a result, He released a new creation and a new race out of the 2nd Adam.
Another concept that is important for us to understand is “propitiation.” The apostles tell of Jesus being the propitiation for our sins.
“Whom(Jesus) God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” Rom 3:25
“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” He 2:17
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 Jn 2:2
Propitiation means “a gift to appease a deity or a god.” This concept of appeasement was a common one throughout ancient history. One would bring a gift to an angry king or god to appease his anger. But, was it a biblical concept? Are the apostles teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross appeased God’s wrath?
When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC, the Greek language had no word for the Hebrew understanding of atonement. Think about that for a moment…absolutely no word for what God offered humanity. Atonement, or forgiveness…was literally unheard of in ancient times.
Having no Greek word that was the equivalent of “mercy seat” or “place of atonement,” translators used the closest Greek word they could find…hilasmus…even though it had connotations that were very different. In Leviticus 16, we read of the day of atonement. The LXX used the word “hilasmus” for mercy seat or atonement even though the Hebrew concept of atonement was different that the Greek concept of hilasmus. We do not see the element of appeasement in Leviticus 16. The Israelites likely would have scoffed at the idea that the blood of goats could appease the wrath of God. The day of atonement was a ceremony, renewing their covenantal relationship with God. This was an act of faith that God, in response to their faith, would forgive their sins…and their covenantal relationship with Him was renewed for another year. Appeasement was never a part of the biblical concept of atonement.
Paul and other New Testament writers would have understood well this Hebrew concept of forgiveness. In their letters, they were not referring to appeasement by Jesus’ blood, but to Jesus being our “mercy seat” or “place of atonement.” Their readers would have understood the same. His blood covers our sins…forgives us…establishing our covenant relationship with God. It has nothing to do with appeasement.
Several translations do translate this word hilasmus more in keeping with the original Hebrew understanding.
“God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood…to be received by faith.” Rom 3:25, NIV
“Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.” Heb 2:17, NLT
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 Jn. 2:2, NIV
Jesus blood did not appease God’s wrath…but provided a means of forgiveness for those who place their faith in His blood shed on the cross.
Yes, there are verses that, when read through a Calvinistic or Anselmic understanding, seem to suggest punishment, wrath, or appeasement. But, when we look at the original understandings, it appears very different.
“[The Jews of Jesus’ day] did not perceive themselves to be living within a story of an angry moralistic God who threatened people that he would send them to hell if they displeased him. Nor were they hoping that, if somehow they could make things all right, they would go to a place called “heaven” and be with God forever. Some ancient pagans thought like that; most ancient Jews did not.
They were hoping, longing, and praying for what the prophets had sketched, what the Psalms had sung, what the ancient promises to the patriarchs had held out in prospect: not rescue FROM the present world, but rescue and renewal WITHIN the present world. Israel’s fortunes would plunge to a low ebb, and then lower, down to the very depths; but there would come a time when God would return in person to do a new thing. Through this new thing not only would Israel itself be rescued from the “death” of exile, the inevitable result of idolatry and sin, but the nations of the world would somehow be brought into the new creation the creator God was planning. And one of the central, vital ways of expressing this entire hope…rescue from exile, the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple, the return of Yahweh himself…was to speak of the ‘forgiveness of sins.’”(2)
The atonement was never about wrath. It was never about punishment. It was never about appeasement. It is all about a loving Father offering Himself for the forgiveness of sins so that His kids can become one with Him again.
Endnotes:
