THE VICARIOUS SUFFERING OF JESUS CHRIST
Some time ago, in the local paper's "My Opinion" column, there appeared quite a critical comment about the substitute suffering of Jesus Christ for the sinner. As this is one of the original foundational truths for Biblical Christianity I thought this needed to be addressed by someone. Strangely, with so many "Christian Church Elders" in the Church today, there hasn't been much response to that criticism.
ACTS 8:30-35 TELLS AN INTERESTING STORY THAT'S RELATED TO THIS:
"Who is the Prophet speaking of ?" asked the eunuch.
The person who asked the question had been traveling in a chariot, which must have made it difficult to read--he was reading a scroll. The dirt roads of 33-36AD were not graded asphalt of today. This "eunuch of great authority", obviously a person of importance, must have been a Jew of the diaspora, having come the distance from Ethiopia for the Passover and to worship in Jerusalem. He also could read Hebrew and Greek.
At this time, in Jerusalem, the Christian Church must have numbered in the tens of thousands, apparently still gathering, (likely still "daily") at the Temple Court, even though gathering locally in houses." This miracle movement had to be evident throughout Jerusalem, let alone those attending worshipping at the Temple. "Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the priests..."(Acts 6:7). So, without doubt the eunuch had heard about the Christian Gospel. Phillip could see some obvious signs from the chariot and horse he had. He was a man of dark skin so he probably had come from Ethiopian, and had come to
ACTS 8:30-35 TELLS AN INTERESTING STORY THAT'S RELATED TO THIS:
"Who is the Prophet speaking of ?" asked the eunuch.
The person who asked the question had been traveling in a chariot, which must have made it difficult to read--he was reading a scroll. The dirt roads of 33-36AD were not graded asphalt of today. This "eunuch of great authority", obviously a person of importance, must have been a Jew of the diaspora, having come the distance from Ethiopia for the Passover and to worship in Jerusalem. He also could read Hebrew and Greek.
At this time, in Jerusalem, the Christian Church must have numbered in the tens of thousands, apparently still gathering, (likely still "daily") at the Temple Court, even though gathering locally in houses." This miracle movement had to be evident throughout Jerusalem, let alone those attending worshipping at the Temple. "Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the priests..."(Acts 6:7). So, without doubt the eunuch had heard about the Christian Gospel. Phillip could see some obvious signs from the chariot and horse he had. He was a man of dark skin so he probably had come from Ethiopian, and had come to
Obviously the New Testament would be where a person would likely search for proofs about the cross. Unfortunately, as time passes, mankind's language ages and changes. While English may be one of the most used languages today, it didn't exist in Biblical times. The English Chaucer used 400 years ago is difficult to read. The New Testament was written close to 2000 years, and the language, the writers commonly used was Greek.
Fortunately for Christianity, as the Apostles were considered authority about Jesus Christ(John the Apostle was one of Christ's earliest followers), some Apostles (John, James, and Matthew) wrote or had someone write their gospel or message of Christ. Later Christian and non-Christian writers commented on the Christian belief and would quote the Apostles about Christ and His teachings. The Jewish historian Josephus and Christian writer Clement both lived during and after Jesus' ministry. While scribes and writers have continued copying and commenting ever since
I appreciate the commentary of the Keil and Delitzsch Old Testament Commentaries about Jesus.
They write quite a detailed commentary about the suffering and the crucifixion in pages 346-371. Beginning in Isaiah 53:5, they write:
VERSE 5
In Isa 53:5, וְהוּא , as contrasted with וַאֲנַחְנוּ , continues the true state of the case as contrasted with their false judgment.
Whereas He was enpierced for our sins, bruised for our iniquities: the punishmt was laid upon Him for our peace; and through His stripes we were healed.
He was...
--pierced for our sins,
--bruised for our iniquities:
--the punishmt was laid upon Him for our peace
The question is, whether Isa 53:5 describes what He was during His life, or what He was in His death.
The words decide in favour of the latter. For although c hâlâl is applied to a person mortally wounded but not yet dead (Jer 51:52; Psa 69:27), and c hâlal to a heart wounded to death (1 Psa_109:22); the pure passives used here, which denote a calamity inflicted by violence from without, more especially m echōlâl , which is not the participle polal of c hı̄l (made to twist one's self with pain), but the participle poal of c hâl (pierced, transfossus , the passive of m echōlēl , Isa 51:9), and the substantive clauses, which express a fact that has become complete in all its circumstances, can hardly be understood in any other way than as denoting, that the servant of God floated before the mind of the speaker in all the sufferings of death, just as was the case with Zechariah in Zec 12:10. There were no stronger expressions to be found in the language, to denote a violent and painful death.
As min, with the passive, does not answer to the Greek ὑπό ,
but to ἀπό , the meaning is not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him through like swords, and crushed Him like heavy burdens, but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins and iniquities. It was not His own sins and iniquities, but ours, which He had taken upon Himself, that He might make atonement for them in our stead, that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death.
The ultimate cause is not mentioned; but עָלָיו שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר which follows points to it. His suffering was a m ūsâr , which is an indirect affirmation that it was God who had inflicted it upon Him, for who else could the yōsēr (m eyassēr ) be? We have rendered m ūsâr punishment; and there was no other word in the language for this idea; for though נָקָם and פְּקֻדָּה (to which Hofmann refers) have indeed the idea of punishment associated with them, the former signifies ἐκδίκησις , the latter ἐπίσκεψις , whereas m ūsâr not only denotes παιδεία , as the chastisement of love (Pro 3:11), but also as the infliction of punishment (= τιμωρία κόλασις , Pro 7:22; Jer 30:14), just as David, when he prayed that God might not punish him in His anger and hot displeasure (Psa 6:2), could not find a more suitable expression for punishment, regarded as the execution of judgment, than יִסַּר ( הוֹכִיחַ ).
The word itself, which follows the form of m ūsâd (Isa 28:16), signifies primarily being chastised (from yâsar = vâsar , constringere , coercere ), and included from the very outset the idea of practical chastisement, which then passed over into that of admonition in words, of warning by example, and of chastity as a moral quality.
In the case before us, in which the reference is to a sufferer, and to a m ūsâr resting upon him, this can only mean actual chastisement. If the expression had been עָלָיו מוּסָרֵנוּ , it would merely mean that God had caused Him, who had taken upon Himself our sins and iniquities and thus made Himself representatively or vicariously guilty, to endure the chastisement which those sins deserved. but it is שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר . The connection of the words is the same as that of חַיִּים תּוֹכַחַת in Pro 15:31. As the latter signifies reproof leading to life, so the former signifies the chastisement which leads to our peace. It is true that the suffix belongs to the one idea, that that has grown up through this combination of the words, like berı̄th shelōmı̄ , my peace-covenant (Isa 54:10);
but what else could our peace-chastisement be, than the chastisement that brings us peace, or puts us into a state of salvation? This is the idea involved in Stier's rendering, restoring chastisement, and Hofmann's, the chastisement wholesome for us. The difference in the exposition simply lies in the view entertained of the m ūsâr , in which neither of these commentators will allow that there is any idea of a visitation of justice here. But according to our interpretation, the genitive שׁלוֹמנו , which defines the m ūsâr so far as its object and results are concerned, clearly shows that this manifestation of the justice of God, this satisfaction procured by His holiness, had His love for its foundation and end. It was our peace, or, what is more in accordance with the full idea of the word, our general well-being, our blessedness, which these sufferings arrived at and secured (the synonyms of shâlōm are tōbh and yeshū‛âh , Isa 52:7).
In what follows, and by His stripes (c hăbhūrâh = c habbūrâh , Isa 1:6) we have been healed, shâlōm is defined as a condition of salvation brought about by healing. Venustissimum ὀξύμωρον , exclaims Vitringa here. He means the same as Jerome when he says, suo vulnere vulnera nostra curavit . The stripes and weals that were inflicted upon Him have made us sound and well (the lxx keeps the collective singular, and renders it very aptly τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ; cf., 1Pe 2:24).
We were sick unto death because of our sins; but He, the sinless one, took upon Himself a suffering unto death, which was, as it were, the concentration and essence of the woes that we had deserved; and this voluntary endurance, this submission to the justice of the Holy One, in accordance with the counsels of divine love, became the source of our healing.
