Does Isaiah 53 Teach Penal Substitution?

        "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. " (Isaiah 53:4-6)

         This text states in cause-and-effect manner that man's sin brought about Christ's suffering. It contains substitutionary language, with Him bearing the consequences of our actions instead of us being dealt with by God for them. He was offered up in the same manner as an unblemished lamb for our sins (1 Peter 1:18-19). His innocent blood was shed on our behalf (1 Peter 3:18). Our sins are forgiven by His wounds, not our own merit (1 Peter 2:24). The Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:7-8 alludes to the humility and humanity of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53:7). The idea of vicarious atonement finds its basis in the sacrifices performed under the Mosaic Law:

         "When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." (Leviticus 16:20-22)

         Animals paid the price for the sins of the people with their own lives. Similarly, Jesus Christ gave up His life in bearing the penalty for our actions. The animals did nothing to deserve their fate. Thus, they served as an innocent substitute in the place of the offerers. Similarly, Christ did not deserve to die but suffered in our place anyway. Though animal sacrifices temporarily held off the judgment of God, the Levitical sacrificial system pointed to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-2). He has the power to spare us from eternal condemnation. Richard L. Mayhue provides this helpful synopsis of Isaiah 53 emphasizing the substitutionary elements contained therein:

         "1. v. 4 - "our griefs He...bore" 2. v. 4 - "our sorrows He carried" 3. v. 5 - "He was pierced... for our transgressions" 4. v. 5 - "He was crushed for our iniquities" 5. v.5 - "by His scourging we are healed" 6. v. 6 - "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" 7. v. 8 - "He was cut off...for the transgression of my people" 8. v. 11 - "He will bear their iniquities" 9. v. 12 - "He Himself bore the sin of many"

         The people who betrayed Christ and had Him executed thought that He was receiving due punishment for His own crimes. They thought God was exacting justice on Him, even though He was really suffering for the sins of those wounding Him. Jesus was treated unjustly by the Jews for their own benefit, even though they did not realize it. He allowed Himself to undergo undeserved pain in order that we not receive due punishment for our own sins against God. While contrary to human expectations, matters went exactly as God intended them to be. The suffering of this humble Servant is a foundational part of God's plan.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:5:

         "tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause. tn Heb “the punishment of our peace [was] on him.” שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) is here a genitive of result, i.e., “punishment that resulted in our peace.”sn Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here."

         It was because of things we did that Jesus Christ suffered. Our own actions resulted in Him bearing the weight of our sins and their penalty. He did this with the intent of restoring us back to a proper relationship with God. Christ died a criminal's death in order that enmity between man and God be resolved. This hostility does not originate from God to us, but us to God. Human nature has a bent of rejecting Him, which accounts for the Jews rejecting their own Messiah.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:6:

         "tn Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack."

         In Isaiah 53:6-7, the imagery of sheep is deployed with a contrasting effect. We are likened to sheep that have strayed from their shepherd. We have stepped out of line and merited for ourselves condemnation by God. The imagery of sheep in this case stresses our rebelliousness to His commandments. Jesus Christ is likened to a sheep that is totally obedient to its master. He obeyed the will of God in every jot and tittle. He was obedient even to the point of death. The imagery of sheep in this case emphasizes the humility and gentleness of Christ.

How Catholic Apologists Deal With The Thief On The Cross

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick wrote an article in an attempt to rebut the common citation of Luke 23:39-43 as a proof text for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The author briefly comments on the potential faith background of the thief, grasps at straws by saying that nowhere is personal faith brought up, and other issues. Following are excerpts from Nick along with a critique of his assertions:

          "We don’t know his faith background, e.g., if he was ever baptized in the past or if this was his first time meeting Jesus. His prayer “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” shows he had some knowledge of the Gospel, since no such “kingdom” details are given in this passage."

          It is doubtful that the thief would have been baptized if he continued living as a thief, a crime for which he was being punished. By the way, folks who say that the criminal did not need to be baptized due to being under the Old Covenant would simultaneously argue that Nicodemus needed baptism in order to be justified (John 3:5), who was also under the Old Covenant. That is a glaring logical inconsistency.

          "Terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are not used in this passage, so there’s no reason to think ‘faith alone’ is even the focus, just as the Parable of the Pharisee & Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) doesn’t use such terms, but rather highlights the virtue of “humility”.

          What good works did the thief on the cross do for salvation? Further, the words “faith” and “belief” do not need to be specifically mentioned in order for such to be present. The way that the thief spoke to Christ implies that he had faith in what He proclaimed. While the convict did have a penitent heart, all that we see from the context is him placing his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Humility is not a work, but a state of heart.

          As for the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Christ was clearly addressing self-righteous individuals. The tax collector humbly trusted in God for justification, whereas the Pharisee relied on his own efforts to please Him. The first went home justified, whereas the latter was not. This parable is obviously about justification and the forgiveness of God.

          "In fact, we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone."

          God has not prescribed the various things listed by the author as being requirements for getting a right standing with God. Repentance from sin is not a work, but an expression of faith. It presupposes faith and stems from it. Only one whose heart has been changed by the grace of God would exhibit fear of Him. These things are inextricably associated with justification before God, but they do not make up its essence. It appears some sort of a watered-down concept of faith has been attacked.

          "This was a unique situation, it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits. For example, Jesus had not yet Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so Dismas probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t even given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of ‘not needing baptism’ is kind of moot."

          The "norm" that we observe in the New Testament is people believing on the gospel before getting baptized. In fact, there are over one hundred instances of the word faith being used in the New Testament, and none of them bring up the doing of good works to earn a right standing before God.

            "Plus, can we take this one example as an excuse to ‘not really have to’ obey the many teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, including getting baptized, gathering to worship with others, being subject to your pastor, sharing our possessions, etc?"

           This is a complete distortion of what Sola Fide means. Obedience to God is done out of love for Him and gratitude for His atonement sacrifice for us. The heart of a saved person is transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Biblical Showstopper For Catholic Eucharistic Theology

Introduction:

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that during the mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This transformation is said to occur under the appearance of bread and wine, while their substance becomes Christ Himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity. While this belief is central to Catholic worship, it faces serious theological challenges when examined in light of Scripture, particularly Acts 17:24–31.

In this passage, the Apostle Paul addresses the philosophers of Athens with a sweeping declaration of God’s transcendence, self-sufficiency, and spiritual nature, a declaration that stands in stark contrast to the idea of God being localized or physically consumed through ritual.

God Is Not Contained Or Controlled:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything…” (Acts 17:24–25)

Paul’s words dismantle any theology that suggests God can be summoned, manipulated, or made present through human ritual. The claim that bread and wine can be consecrated into the literal presence of Christ implies that God responds to human action in a way that contradicts Paul’s teaching. If God is not served by human hands, then He is not dependent on liturgical formulas or priestly invocations to manifest Himself. Paul presents a God who is radically independent of human mediation, who “gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” To suggest that His presence is triggered by ritual action reverses this relationship, making the creature the initiator of the Creator’s manifestation.

The Divine Nature Is Not Material:

“We ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and imagination.” (Acts 17:29)

This verse challenges the notion that God can be physically present in created elements. Bread and wine are tangible, earthly substances, crafted by human hands and subject to decay. To claim that these elements become the full presence of Christ equates the divine with material form, a concept that the Apostle Paul explicitly rejects.

Roman Catholic theology attempts to resolve this tension through Aristotelian metaphysics, distinguishing between “substance” and “accidents.” Yet this explanation introduces a philosophical framework foreign to Scripture. Paul appeals to the universal intelligibility of God’s nature, not to hidden metaphysical categories that require philosophical decoding. Why should a first-century Jewish audience understand Jesus’ words through a fourth-century Greek lens?

Further, Acts 17 presents a God who “commands all people everywhere to repent,” not a God who hides behind appearances. Transubstantiation introduces a kind of sacramental opacity, where what appears to be bread must be believed to be Christ, despite all sensory evidence to the contrary. This stands in tension with Paul’s emphasis on clarity and accessibility in divine revelation.

Paul’s warning in Acts 17:29 against thinking “the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” could just as easily be paraphrased: “or bread and wine.” The theological implication is unavoidable: worship directed toward created elements, however well-intentioned, violates the very nature of God’s transcendence.

The Spirit Of Christmas Present

"Good Spirit,' he pursued, as down upon the ground he fell before it:' Your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life.'

The kind hand trembled.'

I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone.'

In his agony, he caught the spectral hand. It sought to free itself, but he was strong in his entreaty, and detained it. The Spirit, stronger yet, repulsed him.

Holding up his hands in a last prayer to have his fate aye reversed, he saw an alteration in the Phantom's hood and dress. It shrunk, collapsed, and dwindled down into a bedpost."

A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens; Stave 4: The Last of the Spirits, pages 10-11

Answering The Mormon Claim Of Total Apostasy

• Introduction: 

          -Mormonism is a religious sect that was founded by Joseph Smith in the woods of Palmyra, New York, in the year 1820. He claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him to establish a completely new church. In other words, he had visions that gave him allegedly new revelations to restore the church back to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. The loss of divine truth is said to have occurred sometime after their deaths. The Mormon church was officially recognized in 1830.

          -Smith claimed that the "Angel Moroni" gave him some golden "Nephi Plates" so that he could translate them into English. This religious text is known as the Book of Mormon. The three other religious texts used by the Mormons are the King James Version, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. The underlying assumption of Mormonism is that the entire Christian church has gone totally astray. The message of the Bible has been corrupted and lost, to be trusted (to borrow a Mormon phrase) only "as far as it is translated correctly."

• Examining Claims Of Total Apostasy In Light Of Biblical Teaching:

          -If Mormonism is correct in claiming a total apostasy, then Jesus’ promises in Matthew 16:18 and 28:20, and Paul’s declaration in Ephesians 3:21, must be false, which would make God a liar, an unthinkable conclusion for any Christian. Jesus explicitly said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that He would be with it always, even to the end of the age. Paul affirmed that God would be glorified in the church throughout all generations, world without end. These are not vague spiritual sentiments. They are declarations of divine continuity and protection. To assert that the church ceased to exist for over 1,700 years until Joseph Smith restored it is to deny the very words of Christ and the enduring work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture consistently shows that God preserves a faithful remnant, not through reinvention, but through continuity. The Mormon narrative of total apostasy and restoration contradicts the biblical witness and undermines the trustworthiness of God’s promises.

          -While the apostles spoke of the coming of false teachers, they nowhere spoke of a total apostasy. It is one thing to say that the church became unrecognizably dirty throughout history, but it is another to claim that the church essentially disappeared from the face of the earth.
          -His Word endures forever, unlike the things of man (Isaiah 40:8; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Peter 1:23-25). The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). The Word of God has not been lost, corrupted, or forgotten. Divine providence rules out that possibility. 

          -Those who present strange doctrine are to be deemed heretics (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 2 John 9-11), of which the Mormons teach several science fiction sounding ideas. Further, angelic visions are not an acceptable method of drawing attention to oneself (Colossians 2:18).

          -The Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 wrote a categorical condemnation of any different gospels that could arise during his lifetime or in the future after his death. He even issued an anathema to angels who could theoretically arrive to preach differently from the doctrine originally delivered by the apostles. 

          -So, even granting that Joseph Smith had an encounter with the Angel Moroni, Mormonism is a false religion because it preaches a different message of salvation. According to Paul, another gospel is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7). The gospel never needed to be restored because it was not lost to begin with.

• Examining Claims Of Total Apostasy In Light Of History:

          -When did the Christian church go into the state of total apostasy? If this happened, one should be able to chronicle the steps at which it took place and how it happened. One should be able to refer to established facts, writings, history, etc. However, this has never been done successfully by Joseph Smith or Mormon apologists.  

          -The New Testament is supported by thousands of different manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Further, a creed summarizing the gospel message that the Apostle Paul recounted in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 has been dated back to the first century. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles have not been lost or altered, disproving the claims of Mormonism.
          -Why would Mormons use the Bible at all, since they maintain that the whole of Christianity became irredeemably corrupt after the first century and the canon was assembled by an (allegedly) apostate church? Which parts of the Bible have been corrupted?

Is The Watchtower Society Correct In Asserting That Jesus Was Created?

          The following excerpt from a Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower publication outlines their view of Christ’s origin and role in creation:

          “God created Jesus before creating Adam. In fact, God created Jesus and then used him to make everything else, including the angels.”

          This claim—that Jesus is a created being who assisted God in creation—stands in stark contrast to the testimony of the Old Testament. Scripture affirms that God alone is the Creator, unaided by any part of the created order:

          “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.” (Isaiah 44:24)

          Here, God explicitly declares that He created the universe by Himself. No subordinate being, no intermediary, no created helper participated in the act of creation. He is both the source and the agent of all that exists.

          Malachi 2:10 reinforces this truth:

          “Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?”

          The biblical Creator is unique—set apart from the false gods of the nations. He alone is worthy of covenantal faithfulness and worship.

          If Jesus were merely a created being, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then He could not have participated in creation. Yet Scripture teaches that He did.

          “For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him.” (Colossians 1:16)

          This verse does not describe a created agent assisting God. It identifies Jesus as the Creator Himself. He is not part of creation—He is the origin of it. He sustains all things by the power of His word (Hebrews 1:3), a divine prerogative.

          Further evidence of Christ’s divinity is found in the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 12:10, where God declares:

          “They will look on Me whom they have pierced.”

          In the New Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus’ crucifixion (John 19:36–37; Revelation 1:7). Isaiah 53:5 also foretells that the Messiah would be “pierced for our transgressions.” The implication is profound: the one who was pierced is none other than God Himself. But God, being spirit, cannot be pierced—unless He takes on human flesh.

          This is the mystery and majesty of the incarnation. Jesus Christ is not a created being. He is God in the flesh—the eternal Son, coequal with the Father, and the Creator of all things.

A Problem For Roman Catholic Mariology

The Roman Catholic Church teaches two dogmas about Mary: that she was conceived without original sin (the Immaculate Conception) and that she remained a virgin for her entire life (the Perpetual Virginity). These doctrines are held as essential truths. However, when examined together in light of Scripture, they present a theological contradiction.

In 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, the Apostle Paul commands that spouses must not deprive one another of sexual intimacy, except temporarily and by mutual agreement for spiritual purposes. He states that each spouse has authority over the other’s body and that withholding intimacy invites temptation and sin. This is not presented as optional advice. It is a moral directive grounded in the nature of marriage.

If Mary and Joseph were truly married, and Mary permanently withheld sexual intimacy, then by Paul’s standard, she violated the moral obligations of marriage. That would constitute sin. But Catholic doctrine insists that Mary was sinless. Therefore, one of two conclusions must follow:

• Mary was not sinless, which contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
• Mary was not truly married to Joseph in the full sense, which contradicts Scripture and tradition.

Or, Paul’s moral directive does not apply to Mary and Joseph, which undermines the universality of apostolic teaching.

To affirm both dogmas simultaneously, one must carve out an exception to Paul’s teaching, an exception not found in the text itself. This requires assuming that Mary and Joseph had a unique, divinely ordained marriage exempt from normal moral obligations. But such an assumption is theological special pleading: it introduces an exception to resolve a contradiction without scriptural support.

Therefore, the tension remains unresolved. Either Mary sinned by withholding what Paul calls a marital duty, or she did not remain perpetually virgin. Both cannot be true without redefining either sin or marriage in a way that departs from the ordinary meaning of Scripture.