Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

Question 9
On Isaiah 53:10, the Masoretic “it pleased the Lord to bruise him” is contrasted with the Septuagint “the Lord wishes to take away the pain of his soul”; how does each reading shape your view of the Father’s posture toward the Son at the cross, and which reading better fits the speaker’s claim that God was not being changed but was acting to change us?
Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
The Masoretic reading tends to portray the Father as taking pleasure in bruising the Son, which can support the idea that the cross satisfied something in God. The Septuagint reading portrays the Father as desiring to remove the Son’s pain, which better fits the speaker’s claim that God did not need changing and that the atonement’s effect is to cleanse and change us.

Support from Transcript:
  • He quotes the Masoretic (NKJV): “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him…,” saying it implies God “gets some kind of pleasure out of hurting his son… satisfied him.”
  • He quotes the Septuagint: “The Lord wishes to take away the pain of his soul,” calling it “a 180-degree difference.”
  • He links the Masoretic reading to penal substitution’s plausibility: it became a “major reason” the penal substitution view developed in the West.
  • He emphasizes early Christian framing: Christ’s offering was “love and obedience,” not “appeasement” or satisfaction of justice.
  • He repeats the key contrast: penal substitution says Christ’s blood changes God; early Christian model says it changes “us,” cleansing rather than ledger entries.
  • He argues the Septuagint has priority because it was “the Bible of the apostles.”
Discussion Follow-ups How does each reading affect your emotional sense of the Father during the crucifixion—pleased to punish or grieving and desiring relief? What model of atonement feels most “natural” depending on which text you trust most?