The issue in Isaiah 53:4-5 is not whether Christ was getting punished for his own sins or ours; rather, it was whether he was being punished at all, or instead undergoing strict discipline for an awesome life-and-death battle against Satan to win peace and healing for Israel and ultimately all humankind.

The righteousness, obedience, or faithfulness of the entire life and career of the Lord Jesus Christ was decisive for our salvation—including, most notably, our justification—yet not, as the Protestant Reformers theorized, because it was “imputed” to sinners (or even merely to “the elect”) when they believe, so as to become “their own” possession. Much rather, it was because of the EXTREME REWARD that it rendered Christ worthy of receiving, yet which he, in turn, gives away FOR FREE (hence the expression “free” grace) to all sinners who, under the hearing of this Explanation and Proclamation of extraordinary divine power, are thereby drawn back to God, submit in faith, and consequently receive the Holy Spirit as experiential pledge of the promised full inheritance to come.

It’s at this point that the proper role of imputation (logiz-) kicks in. It is precisely this faith, generated by the power of God’s proclaimed Explanation for the cross—namely, that without such a conclusive public execution any alleged subsequent resurrection would be placed in permanent doubt and regarded as a probable hoax—that God considers, regards, credits, counts, or imputes AS RIGHTEOUSNESS! And of course the ensuing coming of the Holy Spirit “finishes” the job by maturing us in actuality into conformity with the image of Christ (including assorted fruits of righteousness). [3/3/11; 3/18/24]

The dogma of “penal substitution” is disturbingly reminiscent of certain psychotropic drugs—notoriously, Prozac, Zoloft, and similar SSRI antidepressants.—it all too often produces severe, disinhibited, non-characteristic, bizarre, even violent, side-effects, plus disfiguring after-effects that too easily get misattributed to non-theological factors. Results of following the regimen are unpredictable in specific cases (“every body is different and responds uniquely,” “no two individuals react exactly the same,” etc.) and can be grossly out of character, and profoundly shocking. The punitive inferno of “penal satisfaction” is like a sleeping fire-breathing dragon or a slumbering volcano. It might even be said that this vaunted cure for human sinfulness is all too often worse than the illness of sin itself because, counterintuitively, it strangely exacerbates sin, making people mean, vengeful, unforgiving, conceited, arrogant, self-righteous, devious, hypocritical, exclusivistic…(“Please carefully read the enclosed drug warnings concerning known side-effects, adverse symptoms, etc.”). You get the idea. It’s like so many psychiatric drugs; they produce disfiguring tics, which do not always manifest until after withdrawal from the insidious substance (which simultaneously triggers, aggravates, and masks its own dreadful effects). Hence, the destabilized state of being “in withdrawal” from penal substitution may risk prompting any seething resentments to finally break surface unexpectedly with devastating consequences. [3/4/11; 3/23/24]

In commenting on Isaiah 53:4a, “Surely he hath born our infirmities and carries our sorrows…,” the Geneva Bible, note “f,” declares, “That is, the punishment due to our sins: for the which he hath both suffered and made satisfaction, Matt. 8:17, I Pet. 2:24 [emphases added].” On the contrary, neither scripture cited declares any such thing. Matthew explains its meaning with reference to Jesus’ expelling demons and healing the sick. And Peter expressly asserts that he bore “our sins” themselves, not any punishment for them. ‘Satisfaction‘ is nowhere in sight, nor even implied.

The Geneva notes proceed similarly in comment on the next phrase, 53:4b, “…yet we did judge him as ^gplagued, and smitten of God, and humbled.” “^gWe judged evil, thinking that he was punished for his own sins, and not for ours.” Yet nowhere is it written that he “was punished…for our sins,” and certainly not by God! Rather was he smitten by Satan, as Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 both make unambiguously clear at the outset and conclusion of Biblical Scripture, with no different doctrine sandwiched in between. The real issue in Isaiah’s text is not whether he was punished for his own sins or for ours (real answer: neither), but that he was undergoing necessary endurance training with the goal of achieving peace for us all after an ominous duel-to-the-death, winner-take-all engaging of a supremely daunting foe.

However, the Geneva Bible notes extend their error into the succeeding verse, 53:5, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was broken for our iniquities: the ^hchastisement of our peace [was] upon him, and with his stripes we are healed,” “^hHe was chastised for our reconciliation, I Cor. 15:3 [emphases added].” Yet that is hardly what this text teaches, much less the cited New Testament passage, especially not if punitive “chastisement” from God is intimated. Rather, Christ endured the Father’s discipline (LXX, paideia), without a hint of resentment or sin in response, nor of any wrath from God whatsoever.

Still, Geneva is not satisfied to cease and desist. In a culminating error it next asserts at 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid uopn him the ⁱiniquity of us all,” “ⁱMeaning, the punishment of our iniquity, and not the fault itself [emphases added].” Well that’s a comfort! Nay, but the diametric opposite is the case in actuality. This scripture, like its parallels and echoes elsewhere, speaks of (and seems to mean) precisely the “fault,” i.e., the seriously harmful, injurious felony that landed the just, holy, and innocent One on a tree, under a wickedly misplaced curse! [3/5/11; 3/23/24]