How can we use this verse to reject penal substitution?

[Hatikvah]

So you might know of the penal substitution theory of atonement, used by Baptists, Calvinists, some Restorationists and others. It is rejected by Lutherans (somewhat), Methodists, Anglicans (I think?) and also Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

I came across this verse that points to Jesus (read the context, it’s Isaiah, and the rest of the chapter points to Him). Every space signifies a new verse. I’ll highlight the things that might seem to be supporting penal substitution, though I’m not trying to argue for it (I don’t apply that theory to my theology):

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

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. (Isaiah 53:4-6, ESV)

If you’ll notice, and I underlined it, it says that He was smitten by God, and I don’t see whether or if it refers to Him allowing Himself to be sacrificed and that it was entirely willing.

Am I misunderstanding the classic satisfaction theory of the atonement? How can this verse be interpreted as supporting the satisfaction theory? Or, is it the translation (ESV is the LCMS’s official Bible translation, but they did not make it)?

Thanks.