There is a video hiccup that cuts out part of your answer at 103:34- 103:44. Not sure why but it won't let me play that part. Edit : Yep it seems to have fixed itself.
William Lincoln that’s odd. I haven’t deleted that spot. Give it a few hours and try again if you are still interested. Sometimes RU-vid resolves issues like that a bit after the video was live.
@Pk Amponn 1) Isaiah is definitely referring to penal substitution, it's as plain as day from reading the text. 2) Jesus can pay for your sins and offer you salvation, but if you reject it then your sins are still on your head. You aren't automatically covered, that would be God saving you against your will. 3) if you reject penal substitution then there is no hope for humanity. God will punish every sin. We have all sinned. Hence we will all be punished. There is no other way for a Good and Just God to both punish sin and save humanity other than the cross.
@Pk Amponn 1) I know exactly what it says. How you can leap from "the Jew thought..." To "therefore he wasn't punished" is completely illogical. There is no logical connection there. Furthermore, the Jews thought he was being punished for HIS sins. Which is why they were wrong. 2) yes and yes. OSAS is a clishe, I think if saved always saved is a better way of putting it. I'm 90% sure of ISAS. 3) yes. Because Jesus took our sins upon himself. He was being punished for our sin exactly as scripture says. "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering" "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." I don't how you can make it any clearer. It literally says that he was punished for our sins and that we are healed, or made innocent, by his sacrifice. As I said, it is as plain as day.
@Pk Amponn1) "Isaiah 53:4 "we considered him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted by him" the jews wrongly thought he was punished by God The punishment in Isaiah 53 is roman capital punishment (crucifixion)" - if you are just going to keep repeating yourself after I hav already corrected you then I see no point in talking to you. like I said before, there is no logical connection between the statement "we considered him stricken by God..." and the conclusion "therefore he wasn't being punished by God". you need to learn to formulate logical arguments. furthermore I have already told you that the Jews thought he was being punished for his own sins. that's how they were wrong. 2) "Matthew 5.29 "if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and cast it from you. For it is better to go through life with one eye than to end up in hell with both your eyes" - what will happen to you if you commit a sin according to this verse?" - this verse states that sin will cause you to go to hell. that is what I believe. what you have failed to do is take it in context with the rest of the entire bible. all of the parts that talk about Jesus paying for our sins. for example: 1 John 2 "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 3) "is it just to punish an innocent person?" - Jesus willingly took on our sin and was punished for our sin. so yes. how do I know that Jesus was punished for our sins? because I can read. "Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering" "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed" "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" "For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished" "Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days" "by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities" "because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" what I find truly remarkable is that you are so brainwashed that something can be written in plain English over and over again and you will still refuse to acknowledge it.
I can’t emphatically overstate my appreciation for the hours of work you pour into these live streams. I am serving my local church as a new pastor and am not embarrassed to admit that your thoughtful unpacking of scripture is a valuable resource for me. I also appreciate the humility that you espouse in approaching the scriptures and your encouragement that we should dig into ourselves. Well done! Thank you.
Philip Houle Thanks so much for your support! We're glad you're enjoying it, and I'll send your comment directly to Brent (the potter)! Blessings! ~Moderator
I wish there was a “love” button instead of just “like.” Every episode of this series is just confirming how absolutely beautiful the entirety of scripture is. I used to shy away from the OT because it seemed more harsh than the NT. Now I’m realizing how beautiful it all is.
What a colossal waste of time to sit in a church and reject the very Gospel of Christ Jesus that so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ died for. We've never had so much access to the scriptures and never had so much rejection of them. God bless you for contending for the Gospel!
We are saved by trusting Jesus though and through his death and resurrection. Our salvation doesn't depend on a correct understanding of how the cross worked, it sufficient to trust that it did.
Salvation is by grave thru faith but its Faith in the true Jesus Not some made up unbiblical idol who u call Jesus but its really a God in our own image and we might not understand everything perfectly but we need to have faith in what He did for us on that cross, not just that He died on a cross(many people died on crosses) but Him who has no sin, taking the punishment for sin that we deserve and we are made righteous in Him and in Him alone
Thanks so much, Mike, for your faithful handling of the word of truth. This series on PSA has been extremely helpful in the depth of insight and clarity of thought you have brought to bear on this crucial topic. May the Lord bless your ministry.
God bless you For your obedience to Crhist and the pure gospel of Jesus Crhist. It is such a blessing for me. 👏👏❤️ Enjoy your teaching thank you Jesus for blessing your word trough Mike Amen
Anti-PSA came up this week in a couple of my friends, citing the Septuagint’s “heal” in vs 10 over “crush.” It’s sad and funny how the Septuagint, as much as it deviated from the Hebrew there, still affirms penal substitutionary atonement in the context. You can’t get around it.
How you made it through this whole video without referencing 2 Corinthians 5:21 is beyond me (may e that there is something deeper that I'm not noticing). Great teaching. Thank you for your time and effort put in to equip the saints! Blessings.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:10-11
10The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: 11the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. ISAIAH 53:10,11 LXX THE GREEK BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND JESUS UNTIL Jerome created the Latin Vulgate. The Jews that rejected Christ altered and used the massoretic text to confuse Jews on Messianic prophesies. I am a Conservative German Anabaptist, please read the early Church Fathers for clarity on the atonement. The teachings on this channel are Augustinian Theology adopted by Calvin and Luther based off the Nastics that the early apostles defended the church against but once the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, Augustine, Jerome etc time of council of Nicea, these influences could no longer be held back. This Isaiah 53:10 proof text that is used to prove Penal Substitutionary Atonement reads completely opposite in the Bible of Christ and the early church. What ever Mike Winger is teaching no matter how passionate he is, or what he was taught or you were taught in liberal bible schools, is simply wrong. Search the scriptures and study history for truth. 3rd century BC the Septuigent was written, the manuscripts back them up. The earliest massoretic manuscripts are from the 8th century AD!
Hey Mike, I wanted to clarify if I understood you (sorry, one day I'll manage to write a short comment). You said at about the 34:13 mark, “[Quoting Hebrews 9:11], ‘Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood. And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.’ There's something about the law, the justice that says to us ‘Yeah, there isn't gonna be any forgiveness unless there is an offering’ and so Christ; he is the offering to bring us forgiveness.” I agree with you [and with the author to the Hebrews] that Christ’s sacrifice is essential for forgiveness of sins. However, what you said sounds similar to what I’ve heard many Christians say: “God could not simply forgive us because that would violate His justice. Jesus had to die, to satisfy God's justice in punishing sins, so God may forgive us; and thus so God may love us.” Stated in this way, it sounds like Christ’s atonement caused God’s forgiveness and only once God forgives us is He able to love us. When I read the scriptures, it seems to say that God’s love is both prior to and the source that led to the atonement: For *God* *so* *loved* *the* *world* , *that* *he* *gave* *his* *only* *begotten* *Son* , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. *For* *God* *sent* *not* *his* *Son* *into* *the* *world* *to* *condemn* *the* *world* ; *but* *that* *the* *world* *through* *him* *might* *be* *saved* . (John 3:16-17 NKJV) *But* *God* *demonstrates* *His* *own* *love* *toward* *us* , *in* *that* *while* *we* *were* *still* *sinners* , *Christ* *died* *for* *us* . Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if *when* *we* *were* *enemies* *we* *were* *reconciled* *to* *God* *through* *the* *death* *of* *His* *Son* , much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:8-10 NKJV) *By* *this* *we* *know* *love* , *because* *He* *laid* *down* *His* *life* *for* *us* . And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (1st John 3:16 NKJV) In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. *In* *this* *is* *love* , *not* *that* *we* *loved* *God* , *but* *that* *He* *loved* *us* *and* *sent* *His* *Son* *to* *be* *the* *propitiation* *for* *our* *sins* . (1st John 4:9-10) But God, who is rich in mercy, *because* *of* *His* *great* *love* *with* *which* *He* *loved* *us* , *even* *when* *we* *were* *dead* *in* *trespasses* , *made* *us* *alive* *together* *with* *Christ* (by grace you have been saved), (Ephesians 2:4-5) Furthermore, if God’s love for us when we were His enemies led Him to make this love manifest in sending Christ to atone for us, and if forgiveness is ‘love for an enemy’, than it would appear that God’s forgiveness led to - and was made manifest by - sending Christ to die for us. (I.e. Rather than atonement causing God’s forgiveness, it appears that the forgiveness already in God’s heart was revealed by the atonement.) I can’t state this as well as James Torrance does: “In the teaching of the Bible, there is forgiveness in God our Father who loves his world, and because there is forgiveness, he offers us a way of atonement and propitiation in Christ to cover our sins. In the federal scheme, that order is inverted. There can only be forgiveness of sins for the elect when atonement has first been made - and because of the priority of retributive justice, there must be an equivalence of sufferings in Christ to the sufferings due as the just penalty for the sins of the elect, before the forgiveness can be held out to the elect as the reward for the sufferings of Christ. [ *NOTE* _This_ _is_ _a_ _reference_ _to_ _Jonathon_ _Edwards_ ‘ _essay_ , ” _On_ _the_ _Satisfaction_ _from_ _Sin_ ” _from_ _vol_ _1_ _of_ _the_ _4_ _volume_ _edition_ _of_ _Edwards_ _works_ . _Further_ _discussion_ _of_ _this_ _is_ _given_ _in_ _chapters_ _4_ _&_ _5_ _of_ ‘ _the_ _Nature_ _of_ _the_ _atonement_ ’ .] In other words, the Father has to be conditioned into being gracious by the obedience and satisfaction of the Son - a view which Calvin in the Institutes, following St Augustine, had explicitly rejected. Atonement, Calvin argued, flows from the loving, forgiving heart of the Father (Inst. 2.xvi.4)” (_Nature_ _of_ _the_ _Atonement_ , _2nd_ _Edition_ , _page_ _9_ - _James_ _Torrance's_ _introduction_ ) .. "Against the background of Scottish theology and federal Calvinism, John Calvin, in the Institute (Book III, chapter 3) in his critique of the medieval sacrament of penance drew a distinction between legal repentance and evangelical repentance. Legal repentance said, 'Repent, and if you repent, you will be forgiven!' This made the imperative prior to the indicative, and made forgiveness conditional upon an adequate repentance. So the medieval world said that if the sinner is truly contrite, if he confesses his sins and makes due amends (contrition, confession, satisfaction) then he may be forgiven and restored. [ *NOTE* _I_ _think_ _this_ _is_ _a_ _reference_ _to_ _Tertullian_ " _On_ _Repentance_ "]This was the root of much of the medieval doctrine of merit. Calvin argued that this inverted the evangelical order of grace, and made repentance prior to forgiveness, whereas in the New Testament forgiveness is logically prior to repentance. Evangelical repentance, consequently takes the form 'Christ has borne your sins on the Cross, therefore repent!' Repentance, Calvin argued, is our response to grace, not a condition of grace." ( _Nature_ _of_ _the_ _Atonement_ , _2nd_ _Edition_ , _pages_ _11_ - _12_ - _James_ _Torrance's_ _introduction_ ) "What did Calvin and the Marrowmen mean by saying that 'forgiveness is logically prior to repentance? Let me use an illustration. Suppose I had the misfortune to have a quarrel with someone, and the result was that we became estranged from one another. Then suppose after some time I came to my friend sincerely seeking reconciliation and said to him, 'I forgive you!', it would be clear that this would be not only a word of love, it would also be a word of condemnation for I would be clearly implying that he was the guilty party! How would he react? His immediate reaction would probably be one of indignation, for, sensing the element of judgment in my words, he might reject my word of forgiveness, by refusing to submit to the verdict of guilt implied in it. He would be impenitent - there would be no 'change of heart' toward me. But suppose on subsequent reflection, he comes back and says I am sorry, I was quite wrong.' That would mean, in accepting my approach of love and forgiveness, he would in the very act be submitting to the verdict of guilty. There would be a change of mind - an act of penitence on his part. The good news of the Gospel is that there is forgiveness with God our Father and he has spoken his word of forgiveness in Christ on the cross - a word of love to humanity, and yet also a word of judgment. But that word summons from us a response of faith and penitence. In accepting the forgiveness of the Cross, we not only accept the gift of love, but in the very act know we are submitting to the verdict of guilty - acknowledging that it was our sins which put Christ on the Cross. Before the Cross, we know we are unconditionally summoned to renounce the sins for which Christ died. That is, God's forgiveness is logically prior to our repentance. It is the goodness of God which leads us to repentance." ( _Nature_ _of_ _the_ _Atonement_ , _2nd_ _Edition_ , _pages_ _12_ - _13_ - _James_ _B_ _Torrance's_ _introduction_ ) … “Thus, if following Calvin and the Marrowmen, he interprets ‘evangelical repentance’ to mean - ‘forgiveness, therefore repentance’; and NOT ‘repentance, therefore forgiveness’”, in terms of his doctrine of atonement, he sees with Augustine and Calvin that the order is ‘love, therefore atonement’; and NOT ‘atonement, therefore love’ (as in certain types of Western penal satisfaction theories). In his own language, the filial is prior to the judicial; NOT the judicial prior to the filial’.” ( _Nature_ _of_ _the_ _Atonement_ , _2nd_ _Edition_ , _pages_ _12_ - _13_ - _James_ _B_ _Torrance's_ _introduction_ ) I'm not sure if you would agree with me on this. (And I would gladly hear your view if you disagree.) Would you understand God’s love and forgiveness to exist prior to (though necessarily manifested in) Christ’s atonement for sin, or could God not forgive until Christ had first atoned for sin? (I.e. Do you think God’s forgiveness or the atonement came first?)
I always love to catch the live stream but its even better to rewatch it a few times and really focus on the teaching always a blessing thanks Mike (and all the Mods too of course) And I love the cat, in fact I'm getting a little one of my own.
Was going to comment on the buzz, which started at 44:21 in the video sola scriptura, but you all are already taking about it. I haven't been commenting lately, but eating up your studies brother Mike. Thank you for all that you do. May God continue to bless your ministry.
I was reminded while you were talking about the LXX of a heated discussion I had on the subject where the other person sent me a picture of a book where the authors looked at the passage and openly admitted that he saw it supported penal substitution and then literally hand waved it away. How anyone can view that as legitimate scholarship?
I have a copy of the Septuagint myself and its rendering of Joel 2:32 is far different of that than any of the other translations I have, even the original Hebrew. Well as original as i can personally get hold of. I know its off subject but thought Id try to get a response.
The one killed is for sin (as Christ died for our sins) and the one released is for an atonement (Christ is resurrected for our atonement - the goat is an "emissary" and Christ having resurrected is not just dying but can claim his death for our sakes)
46:27 But wait, here's where I get stuck. How does our faith in Jesus impute his righteousness onto us? How could God forgive us because we have faith in Jesus? I don't understand!!
If we have faith in Jesus, that automatically leads to forgiveness of sins cos if you believe in Jesus you'll also believe that he bore our sins on himself and suffered the punishment of sin. Therefore, our sins are removed from us and by his Grace, we are justified. Jesus imputes righteousness onto us. If you believe in Jesus and allow him into your heart, he will change it and change you from inside to out. Changing you from someone unrighteous to someone righteous. Watch Mike Winger's Romans series, particularly chapters 6-8 and read along in your bible
Faith in Christ is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so the grace of Christ is conveyed to us through a living faith, not mere ideas. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
Thank you for answering all those random off topic questions. They make this so much more personal and relational and not just a get in/get out lecture
Is 53:11From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. יאמֵֽעֲמַ֚ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַֽעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל: From the toil of his soul: he would eat and be satisfied, and he would not rob and plunder. with his knowledge… would vindicate the just: My servant would judge justly all those who came to litigate before him. and their iniquities he would bear: He would bear, in the manner of all the righteous, as it is said (Num. 18:1): “You and your sons shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary.” Rashi commentary
Thank you so much for this series!!! I find that people that have read the book “the shack” and get theology from it are the people denying psa. And if they are not already universalist, then they are about one step away from it.
Does not the "bearing iniquity" language also fit with the fact that he is literally our High Priest in the heavenlies? And also his death was required in order to receive that reward of his priesthood so would be causal.
Having learned english as my second language, I don't know the difference between "for" and "because". Seems to be very subtle. (Discussion around 26:00 in the video.) Can someone help me out here?
Little late here but i had to talk this through to myself to understand why this would matter also.. If i say "I died FOR you" that means something different than "I died BECAUSE of you". BECAUSE would imply that something CAUSED Jesus' death rather than Him sacrificing himself. Phew! Hopefully that made sense haha.
The cross brought PSAC, that is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Covenant. Not direct salvation but indirect salvation through his covenant, through faith, not by faith as Romans 3:30.
Brother Mike, I really enjoy your ministry. Keep up the good work. I have a question about “sprinkle”. What did Jesus sprinkle with his blood? I don’t think it could be the ground because blood that fell on the ground was not considered acceptable for sacrifice by the Jews. Is it possible he was fulfilling the prophecy in 1 John 5:8?
The act of sprinkling represented purification. See Leviticus 16. Jesus sprinkled the nations with his blood, giving purification to all those throughout the world who place their faith in Christ.
Christopher Walls I was actually wondering if there was any validity to a story I heard. Supposedly, Jeremiah hid the arc of the covenant in a tunnel under the city of Jerusalem. When Christ was crucified there was an earthquake and the ground was rent. When his side was pierced, blood and water poured out, flowed down the crack in the ground and sprinkled the mercy seat on the arc. If this really happened it would have sealed the new covenant in an undeniable way. Any thoughts?
Christopher Walls The story isn’t in the Bible but there are some hints that it could be a valid claim. It’s a reported archeological find by a guy named Ron Wyatt. Ron has since passed away but his story is easily researched on google. Fascinating tale. Major implications if it’s true. He felt it would be the evidence for the 144,000 witnesses in the end times. Daniel 9:24 references the messiah anointing the most high. That could be the arc. Also my previous reference to 1 John 5
@@Maine_Prepper Sorry for the late response, but I have a few concerns with Ron Wyatt’s story. This doesn’t mean it absolutely didn’t happen, but we should approach all claims of man with a healthy serving of skepticism. 1) Ron’s picture of the ark is terrible. I understand the timing and location are a factor, but that really doesn’t serve as evidence, and it is the only evidence he really has to back up his claim. That’s a problem for me. 2) The Bible doesn’t talk about this event that would have had such deep theological meaning. Consider that Jesus would have certainly known this had happened (being God and all), and he spent 40 days with the disciples after his resurrection. Why is there no record of this happening given by Jesus’ testimony or one of the apostles after him? The other problems stem from the Scripture references. 1 John 5:8 references three witnesses: Spirit, water, and blood. There is some context given in verses 6-11, but nothing in this passage appears to be pointing to the ark. I don’t want to read into the text what isn’t there. That is a very dangerous practice. Daniel 9:24 actually seems to point away from Ron’s story. Here’s the verse: “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy [Place].” Here is my problem: anointing the Most Holy is the last thing listed, after sealing up vision and prophecy. That didn’t happen at the cross. The cross actually takes place after 69 ‘sevens’ and not on the 70th seven (see Daniel 9:25-26), and Jesus’ death did not end all prophecy (which is listed before the anointing), or we wouldn’t have all the prophesying in Acts nor the entire book of Revelation (a vision given to John AFTER the cross). We have to remember that there are two arrivals of Jesus (two advents): one to seek and save the lost and another to judge and rule. When Jesus comes again to judge and usher in the new heavens and earth, there will no longer be any need for prophecy (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-12). That is most likely what Jesus anointing the Most Holy is about: His second coming to reign with Jerusalem as His capital city. I’m not a big fan of vague interpretations trying to make the Bible say what I want it to say. If the ark was involved at the cross, there should be clear verses that say so. If Ron actually found the ark, there should be clear evidence that says so. Because we have neither clear Scripture nor clear evidence, I am inclined to view this story as false.
Thanks Mike, very nice talk. This material is especially helpful as a friend was touting the Shack movie which is clearly against a Penal Substitution.
Word Sorcory Revelations: The Elect of God keep the Commandments & have his testimony , A straight forward sentence So how does Penal Substitution satisfy "Pick up your crosses & follow me DAILY, What is the revelation of "My God, My God why do you forsake me " & immediately after that says "Unto thy hands I commend my Spirit "
1 John 1:7 [7]But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 20:28 [28]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Hebrews 10:29 [29]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Is penal substitution to satisfy the wrath of the Father? Is there clear teaching or assumptions made that PS was for that purpose? What was the purpose of the first Passover lambs?
Hey Mike, i Got a question, having the believe that Jesus is not the supreme God, that he is not in the same level as the Father, that he was created, is that a serious heresy? can you go to hell for believing that doctrine? or is just like a brother in Christ that doesnt believe in the gifts ?
@@leilyzamarripa142 If you are called to believe in Jesus, don't you have to actually believe in the Jesus of the Bible? If you don't believe that Jesus is God, are you believing in the real Jesus? If you believe Jesus is a created being, are you believing in the real Jesus? Verses for Jesus is God (among others): John 1:1, John 20:28, Revelation [1:8, 1:17, 2:8 21:6, 22:13]) For the Revelation references look at the titles are their contexts: who is the "First and the Last" and who is the "Alpha and Omega" and why are they the same person in verse 22:13 if Jesus isn't God? Jesus is not created: Colossians 1:15-17 (firstborn is a position, not "the first one born"). If Jesus created all things, and Jesus is a created thing, did Jesus create himself? Jesus created all things, and was not himself created, because he is God.
Did Pastor Mike define what PSA is? You can read PSA into the text but it is important to have a specific definition of PSA, did I miss this in another video?
The overwhelming majority cases where the OT says “bear/carry iniquity”’it indeed refers to someone BEING held guilty for their OWN sins. However, that one case of Leviticus 10:16-18 sounds more like a mediatory role of the priests than substitutionary role. Nowhere do we have any hint that they themselves are being vicariously held responsible for the sins of the congregation. Rather they DEAL with the sins of the congregation. This comports well with the way the Book of Hebrew describes the role of Jesus. Of course the rest of Isaiah 53 does make his role seem vicarious.
Those examples of the LXX "differing" from the Masoretic and Qumran Hebrew texts can ALSO be explained by a creative or different interpretation of the same Hebrew. I'm not saying that the LXX is correct on Isaiah 53, rather that is likely interpreting the same Hebrew text in its own idiosyncratic way.
My question would be why does God require sacrifice at all in order to forgive? (I believe that this is the case, I just think it would help to actually understand why)
When you ask questions that begin with "Why... God" your always on shaky ground because he is God and we are not. It is for us to understand "That... God" meaning He is the standard and its up to us to follow it, not question it. That being said, I think(big Ole qualifier here), God is perfect in all the various aspects of His nature. Each nature existing in perfect balance with the others. We know from scripture that both Love and Justice are both perfect and infinite (limitless) natures that He possess. Since it is un-just to simply forgive without some kind of judgment God literally CAN'T do that. So, since we understand that God's nature sets the standard for justice we know from OT writings(and modern day sensibility) that someone can justly pay the punishment for another(not in all cases in modern justice, but there are examples). Since God is punishing a part of His own divine being, in effect, God is satisfying both His just nature and His loving nature by bearing the punishment for our sins Himself (in the form of Jesus living and dying as a man). You can find references for all this in scripture but it would take a long time to pull it all together on my phone. I think Mike has done some work on it in other videos though.
Basically, when Lucifer rebelled in Heaven, acusing God of being a Tyrant forcing his creatures to obey his Law. If God had simply destoyed Satan at that point, he would have proven him rigth at the eyes of the other Angels. If he had simply forgiven all sinners, again, Satan would have been rigth that the Law was meaningless. He needed to let Satan act, and then send The Son to die in place of those who disobeyed, proving once and for all that he is both Just and Loving. Hope that helps.
@@arturovelez5508 That's really interesting. Can you please tell me where you think the scriptures indicate that Satan accused God of being a tyrant? I'm genuinely curious so this isn't snark.
@@heirofthesith970 God is the "definition" of justice. Any human explanation or definition will ultimately fail to fully represent what that is. The Bible never defines justice as clearly as it does love, so exactly what justice is we have to try to understand based on how God teaches us to behave justly. So it carries then that, Punishment is an extention of (God's) justice and its "purpose" is that it exist in the nature of God. We accept it as a reality of His nature and thus a moral law that we are subject to.
Think about forgiveness in human terms. When a person forgives someone, the person who forgives bears the cost of the violation of the one who is forgiven. Example: Your ten year old is playing baseball outside. You remind him not to throw the ball near the plate glass window. Your plate glass window costs $2,000! Your son disobeys and throws the ball near the window disregarding your instructions. You, as a parent, have two options. (1) You can demand Justice from your son by requiring him to make restitution. Your son is going to mow the lawn until he “earns” enough money to pay for the window. (2) if you are going to “just forgive” your son, YOU bear the cost of the window. When your son pays, that is Justice. When the parent “just forgives” for breaking the window. That is Justice and Mercy.
He wasn't punished for anything He did, for He did no wrong. He was punished for our sins. What could be more clear than this? How could anyone who is truly born again deny this?
The key to the way I understand it is in 53:1, where the "arm of the LORD" is equated with the suffering servant. See other mentions of the arm of the LORD in nearby passages ( 40:10; 48:14; 50:1-3; 51:5, 9; 52:10; 59:1,16; 63:11-14, etc.). Compare to John 1, Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1, where Jesus is described as God's Word, Radiance and Image, through whom God created all things. I see the "Arm" as similar (the same actually) to the "Word", that is an exercise of Divine Power. So the Arm, like the Word, is how God does things. So to describe it as "divine child abuse" requires a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Jesus paid the ransom for our sins. Ransom is a fee to release a prisioner. Jesus didnt stand in our place and pay our debt, cause our debt is eternal hell. If He paid our debt , Hed be in hell. Jesus paid the Price ( ransom) for our freedom. God set aside His wrath on us, like He set His wrath aside on Nivena. God didnt have to pour out His wrath on Jesus. Our sins werent transferred to Jesus. Jesus wasnt guilty on the cross. Because then Hed deserve it. Jesus was innocent on the cross which was the price to pay iur ransom. Its vsry beautiful.
@@crimocampell1370 thats putting this a fleshy logic box. Ransom can mean the price paid to redeem a slave , which is what your thinking but the real essence of what ransom is goes like this. Christ death is the means by which we can be released from the penalty of our sins
@@fredarroyo7429 "Christ death is the means by which we can be released from the penalty of our sins" ok. But how does His death accomplish that. I give up really I am just to simple for these debates. I am gonna just walk in the sprit, love and serve others, keep the sacraments and partake in the eucharist. My dead grandma did not even know what this debates were but she loved the Lord. God bless you
@@crimocampell1370 I think this is a secondary issue that doesnt affect salvation. However, i do think its important. PSA can lead to abusing grace. For example, you can think Jesus paid for your sins whatever its not a big deal, but its the implications that come from it, for example then thinking because Jesus got punished for your sin then you might think you will judged for Jesus righteousness, which can lead to a license to sin which can damn you PSA can lead to Once Saved Always Saved.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 KJV
Sprinkle vs Startle They mean the same thing. The High Priest of the would sprinkle blood seven times in many places. What happens when someone sprinkles water on your face? Startle, I do think is a better translation, but Sprinkle does tie the stories together. “Because of” vs “For Our” Its a english falling short. The problem with translations is the english language. Its abstract, you can make words mean anything if it has no foundation. Where as the “Ancient Abary/Hebrew” is based on physical characteristics. ‘Bless’ translations to ‘BaRuK’ which means ‘kneel’. ‘Anger’ translates ‘nostrils’, example, what happens when a Bull sees you cross his territory? Etc...
Pk Amponn That’s the beauty of what the Gospel is all about. The spotless lamb, Christ, innocent and blameless took our place. He laid down His life, nobody took it from Him. If God poured His wrath out on a guilty man what would that prove. We see God pouring out wrath on the wicked all throughout the OT. But the new covenant was brought about by the blood of Gods lamb, His only son. God became man and was obedient unto death. He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our inequities. Where do you get the idea that everyone’s sins are forgiven. Only those who are in Christ Jesus no longer have condemnation. Their sins are forgiven, but those who are not in Christ, Gods wrath still abides upon them.
Concepts that lead to penal substitutionary atonement idea did not exist for about first thousand years of Christianity. If God died in our place, why did He called us to take up our crosses and follow Him. Remember, He picked up His cross and when't to His death, so that is the only place where we can follow Him. But why would we do that if His death atoned us all?
@@endlessendeavor4464 Yes, but He did it because He loves us, and told us that there is no greater love then to die for your friends, and we are His friends if we follow His commandments, and that the new commandment He gives us is to love one another as He has loved us (as He has shown us). So we must pick up our crosses, we do it out of the love, but its not optional. The measure of love is sacrifice, we can believe we love Him or our fellow man, but until we show it in action its irrelevant. He died only for His friends, not for everyone, although everyone can choose to be His friend by following His commandments.
Blessed by your videos! I get this question by a friend! If Jesus knew all the prophecies in the OT he just completed them on purpose. So these are not really prophecies, Jesus decided to do it all.
Yet Paul or anyone else NOT ONCE use the central part of Isaiah 53 to talk about Jesus being punished. Never. Invested what they speak of is forgiveness and grace. The very concept of forgiveness is to REALSE debt. Not collecting it from someone else.
How is God free to just forgive if there are sins that needs to be paid for? Doesnt justice demand punishment for sins? Would God be just if He just forgave sins? It's righteous judgement to demand punishment for sins. We expect it now on earth among people, why not from God? God however, in His love for us, wants to forgive, but knows He cant do the one (forgive) without the other(setting wrongs right). And He proceeded to solve this problem by coming down in the flesh and dying. Justice is served and forgiveness can be freely given. This is so wonderful to me, it is really hard to see how someone would want to reject it. Jesus is our Saviour, right? That is the term the bible uses? We can then only ask, what does He save us from? The penalty for all sins was paid, He opened the floodgates of forgiveness. The only sin left to pay for is unbelief and that will be paid by those who reject Christ Jesus.
@19:00, What you should clarify is what exactly was the chatisement? Was it God's wrath poured on Christ or the chastisement (punishment via wipe) from the Roman soldiers. In a sense one can say God did it, via means of the Roman soldiers.
The reason for rejecting the word PENAL in the atonement, is not because anyone thinks Jesus did not suffer most horribly. The reason is because this doctrine teaches that God Himself poured out wrath on Jesus on the cross and then chased Jesus into Hell for 3 days and went into a frenzy of torture against Jesus with the demons, giving cruel torture, eye for an eye for every sin, to pay that way in advance for sins. Whether for all sins or just the ones who would someday be saved, who can say how this doctrine pans out, but it is at the root of the antinomian heresy, that our sins are paid eye for an eye in advance. Therefore, we can sin all we want because Jesus already paid for our sins. We just need to believe in Jesus, and accept the grace. But the Bible doesn't say this. The Bible calls the atonement a BLOOD ATONEMENT, not penal atonement. As the teacher points out, the mercy seat talks about 'sprinkling' and when the atonement is spoken of it is called a BLOOD atonement, not a penal atonement. Even with the animal sacrifice -- the animals were not beaten or tortured. They were killed and their blood was sprinkled. This is a big difference. The Bible speaks of the blood. The blood has power, a special power to take away sin. It is Jesus' blood, not the wrath of God on Jesus or a whooping that takes it away. Being pierced is not the same as being tortured eye for an eye. In order to be killed, to die, to pour out His blood for us, Jesus had to suffer, to be humiliated, and it was sufficient. It was not eye for an eye, and the power is in the blood, not in the wrath of God on Jesus, and I don't believe the Bible teaches wrath of God on Jesus. Being crucified on the cross is indeed smitten by God, and no-one would ever think it was not the most horrific death and suffering Jesus endured for us. But in the end, it is His blood, not the wrath of God on Jesus that saves us. I do not believe the Father poured out wrath on Jesus, and I do not see in the scripture where it teaches that the Father did that. The doctrines being taught that the Father chased Jesus into Hell to torture Him for 3 days eye for an eye -- I believe this is heresy. This is the objection I have against calling the atonement a PENAL atonement, rather than a BLOOD atonement. There is no precedence for the shadow atonement of animals to be punished either. Rather, they were quickly killed, and it was their blood sprinkled on the alter, not any torture that was thought to be cleansing of sin. This Penal Atonement doctrine, eye for an eye, all sin punished in advance by wrath of God on Christ, also leads to Antinomian belief in license to sin -- since all sins are already paid in advance might as well just sin anyway. These heresies are deadly and wicked. Nobody who opposes the "Penal" atonement claims Jesus did not suffer horribly. But the idea that God Himself poured out wrath on Jesus eye for an eye, and that God went to Hell for 3 days to join the demons in torturing Jesus to give even and equal punishment on Jesus for all sins -- NOT. Jesus because the Father turned His face away does not equal PENAL. This is a wrong teaching, very wrong. Animal sacrifice never involved torturing the animals. They gave their lives and their blood, but they were not tortured, and the animal sacrifice was a picture of the sacrifice of Jesus to come. Bible says even their blood could not take away sin, but that it was a picture. IOW, a picture of the BLOOD of Jesus taking away sin. It was the blood sprinkled on the Mercy seat, and there was no animal torture by priests standing in place of God to torture the animals. Jesus suffered horribly at the hands of evil men and Satan -- NOT THE FATHER. And it is His BLOOD that cleanses us from sin, not the Father keeping score and pouring out wrath on Jesus eye for an eye. That is what Penal Atonement means to me, and to others also who think their sins have been 'paid for' eye for an eye, by the Father Himself pouring out wrath on Jesus.
Yes, Jesus being trampled by demons in hell and especially God joining in is absolute heresy. It’s ridiculous and unbiblical. However there is no such concept in basic, historic PSA. Penal - penalty (the penalty would be death, separation from God) substitutionary (His life for ours) atonement (to make right). The full penalty, yes the wrath of God, was poured out on Jesus ON THE CROSS. As He said, Father father why have you forsaken me? Here was the separation from God. But at His very death, the curtain was torn, the wrath fulfilled, and the Phil 2:7 ‘descent into hell’ was a victorious descent to take back the keys, then to also ascend and carry His blood before the Throne. The wrath of God is necessary (He who loves someone completely must hate that which harms them) but it was all borne on the Cross, not some mystic after-punishment.
@@ruthvansandt9713 Jesus was not seperated from God on the cross not did God turn His face from Jesus nor not hear Jesus like God would be expected to deal with Sin
Mike, great work. This association with the OT is not taught? There were violent times in the history of the church. The division between the Christian and the Jew. Christianity for it's right for supremacy, over Judaism. Particularly here. It was here the church offered the message to the gentiles. Paul's gospel. What has been termed by Hebrew Christian's, " the Greek Jesus.".
PSA has given Jesus the power over death. He can now cover our past sins or not. That is how Jesus became judge as John 5:22. Jesus has taken control of death off his Father.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell I don't think I disagree with you. The penalty of death for those who please Jesus, our Judge in the church, are atoned for past sins at baptism. It is the penalty that is substituted to give atonement, not Jesus being our substitute, as no man can pay for the sins of another. Since that comment was posted I have made a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', there are now 25 videos.
Mike Jesus is the scape goat and the priest. So Christ is in control of his blood and who he washes with it. PSA is in the victory of Christ who has taken control of our life or death.
Jesus took on our punishment but was not punished by God. Jesus instead was dying on our behalf to remove the curse of death. Jesus now owns the right to take away our past sins as our judge. Judgement has passed to Christ.
@@BloodBoughtMinistries of course it pleased his Father, as Jesus was obeying him. It pleased the Father as it was his plan. And it now pleases the Father that all judgement is born by his Son, and that is the result of the cross, not that our punishment has gone or ALL would go to heaven, but that Christ will judge who goes to heaven by his mercy. Not only did he sacrifice his life for us, but he is also the high priest giving forgiveness in heaven.
@ your opinion isn't very scientific is it. Where do you get this idea of flesh and blood? We are energy waves posing as flesh and blood. Energy waves are produced by a source, as a eternal entity of a mind could do. Eternity has no time but this universe has been given the illusion of time by the use of gravity as the universe is stretched out. We live in the illusion and the Creator of it lives in reality. And eternity and reconciliation await. Man did not create eternity which is beyond the limits of our universe. Eternity must exist even for the Big-bang to have happened as time belongs only to our universe. It is the fourth dimension. Even if you do not believe in the Holy Bible like many scientists don't, many are still Deists as they see order that is in the universe. Such as the Anthropic Principle, where too many things appear arranged for chance to be the answer.
5 лет назад
@@simonskinner1450 , this is what I get from you believes, absolute tripe, how can anyone have a dialogue with someone who comes out with comments like yours, you're in lala land
Hi Mike, just trying to get a clear understanding of your view. So if these people you were talking about at beginning of the video believe Jesus is Lord, that he died to wash away their sins, that he is God come in the flesh and that he has freed them from the curse of death and came to destroy the one who holds the power of death and that God by Jesus blood has sanctified those who have put their faith and pledged loyalty to Him so they are clean and can be in a relationship with God and rule with Jesus when he renews all things BUT...they don’t believe The Father punished Jesus for sin on the cross and/or poured out his wrath on him then they aren’t preaching the real gospel? And you’re not sure if they are even “saved”?
They can believe all that and believe Jesus sacrfrice replaced the need for punishment as in punishment upholds the law but His perfect lifes sacrfrice upholds the law even more. God is able to righteously set aside His wrath if you meet His conditions of obedience. God doesnt have to pour out his wrath at that point. If Jesus paid your fine your penalty wasnt forgiven it was paid. If God set aside your fine and turned away from your sins your penalty was truly forgiven. We accept all the things you said but deny the paying your fine. The same can be accomplished by actually forgiving sins not jusr transferring them
Fred Arroyo Interesting but what you are saying isn’t exactly the doctrine of Penal Substitution. Also do you know that in the Levitical system sacrifices almost exclusively weren’t for moral sins? They were for ritual sins and impurity, to purify sacred ground. And even if you obeyed the law without breaking a single rule (they didn’t) that didn’t save you either? Sacrifices didn’t save you. The blood of goats and bulls didn’t rescue you from Sheol. In fact, according to the Old Testament...both the “righteous” and unrighteous dead, resides in Sheol in the afterlife. The “Righteous” would one day be rescued. Not because of works or sacrifice. They were rescued the same way you are saved in the New Testament. Loyal Faith. Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, David, weren’t chosen or saved by the Torah...besides that they wouldn’t have been very good moral examples of it. Murderer, Liar, Adulterer, Rape, Drunkard, Thief, Cheater, Fits of murderous rage, Deceiver, etc these are words that could describe them. So why were they chosen as “righteous”, or “a man after God’s own heart” or “My Firstborn Son” “The Most Humble” “My Anointed One”. These titles didn’t come from moral perfection of adherence to Torah (some of them didn’t even have Torah. Ex: Abraham “The Righteous” who was also a compulsive liar, put his wife in danger multiple times to save his own skin, and raped his slave, got her pregnant and then abandoned her and the Ishmael in the desert to die). So why, according to the old and New Testament were they “saved”? Why does the New Testament say Abraham was counted as righteous?
Ezekiel 18 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21“But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22“All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? 24“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? 26“When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. 27“Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. 28“Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29“But the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right? 30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. 31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? 32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.”
Fred Arroyo Fred Arroyo Wow, so it’s saying that every time a wicked man genuinely repents from his sinful ways God will just forgive him?! And when the man is loyal and faithful to God, that his life will reflect God’s righteous ways?! Wow, what an amazing, merciful, holy God! And he won’t forgive him just once? But again and again?! Amazing! I can’t believe he just simply forgives him each time instead of demanding blood (good thing he didn’t because at this point in the story they were exiled and...COULDNT MAKE SACRIFICES FOR SINS)! I wonder what God does with all that wrath that needs to be abated?? No wonder this is one of my favorite passages in the entire bible! I agree! Salvation comes with repentance and faith(fullness) in God! Also it doesn’t sound popular with the once saved always saves crowd. 😂
@@matthew8720 " i wonder what God does with all the wrath thats abated" Psalm 85 1O LORD, You showed favor to Your land; You restored the captivity of Jacob. 2You forgave the iniquity of Your people; You covered all their sin 3You withdrew all Your fury; You turned away from Your burning anger. 4Restore us, O God of our salvation, And cause Your indignation toward us to cease. 5Will You be angry with us forever? Will You prolong Your anger to all generations? 6Will You not Yourself revive us again, That Your people may rejoice in You? Yeah OSAS hates the bible
That is the probleme of the CROSS Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. Isa 40:20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. Isa 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Jer 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. Jer 51:17 Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. Dan 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Nah 1:14 And the LORD hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile. Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name
I'm confused. Are you implying that people are worshiping the cross? Those verses definitely say don't worship false gods and don't worship graven images (which essentially is the same thing). But I don't think people are worshiping the cross. The cross simply serves as a reminder of what the God we worship did for us. Now, if someone IS worshiping a piece of wood, that would be wrong, but I doubt that is what is happening (at least most of the time). Abraham and others in the OT did make memorials to remind them of significant events that God did for them. For you (again, I can't say for all) this is what the cross is for us: a reminder of the sacrifice Jesus made to pay for our sins and give us the opportunity to be saved.
0:32 - Winger doesn’t know what penal substitution is. When one criticizes PSA, one is only criticizing the “penal” part; not the “substitution” part, not the fact that Jesus died for our sins.
Somebody's smitten for his flock to have gone astray couldn't clarify it better if neither Caesar's nor Clerics else dually were it possible in charge of a nation Israel at the time Christ's tending it as tendering his own life... or Cephas was properly chosen well ahead for his Church's trying times?!
I dont demonize PSA i deny its true. I dont deny the caricature i deny Jesus paid for our sins jesus died in our place and paid the punishment that we deserved. Scripture and logic denies its true. I believe in the full authority of the bible. I demonize the implications usually derived from penal substitution..1. Transfer of righteousneds 2. Future sins atoned 3. Faith alone. Scripture is clear PSA is unbiblical.
Major Interpretive Mistakes in this Video: You make a factual error when trying to explain Isaiah 53_5. You tried to make it sound like God was chastising because occurrences of that word, in the prophets, are always a reference to what God is doing. First, this is factually inaccurate because in Jeremiah 10_8, is a reference to idols. Second, in all the references that you list, it is clear from the context that God is doing the chastising. However, in Isaiah 53_5, it is not explicit like the other references. In fact, the phrase, “upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace” is part of a parallelism where it is clearly the action of sinful men. Trying to make it sound like God was doing the chastening does not satisfy the irony nor the parallelism of the statements in verse 5. Besides the transition from verse 4 to verse 5, the ironic statements show the relationship between the servant and the abusers. The words in brackets are from your earlier video on Isaiah 53 ( “Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Bible pt7 - Isaiah 53”; starting at the 35-minute 57-second mark). But he was pierced [with nails] for our transgressions; he was crushed [bruised with beatings] for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement (hostility in the form of mockery/reviling) that brought us peace (well-being) (I explain these parentheticals later), and with his wounds [striped with the roman flagellum] we are healed. I think it is rather plain to see that “pierced” is parallel with “crushed”, and “transgressions” is parallel with “iniquities”. Likewise, in the following parallel, “chastisement” is parallel with “wounds” and “peace” is parallel with “healing”. The reason I interpret chastisement as hostility in the form of reviling, is because this is the explanation that Peter gives (1 Peter 2:18-25). Psalm 22_6-8, the gospel narratives, and Hebrews 12_3 are more than enough to bolster this claim. Other issues: You misrepresent the number of translations that translate the word in Isaiah 53_5 as “because”. You list the NET and the HCSB, but it would have been more accurate to also list the: CEB, CJB, CEV, EHV, GNT, TLB, TPT, TLV, and Voice. If you are going to appeal to the popularity of translation choice here- at least be transparent with the actual balance of translations. The foundational equivocation that you rely on in this series involves using two definitions for penal substitution. While you build a case for the first definition (from the Pierced for our Transgression book), nothing you said here establishes the second definition (from the Master’s Seminary article). That definition is: “Penal substitution emphasizes that punishment from God, provoked by human sin was born by Jesus Christ with His sacrificial death”. This equivocation undermines your entire PSA series because you use proof-texts that can support definition 1, and then you transition into trying to prove definition 2 (and even later in the series going as far as to say that Jesus was experiencing God’s wrath). There are numerous quotes of Isaiah 53 in the N.T. and NONE of them show that God was punishing Jesus. In fact, we see just the opposite, 1 Peter 2_18-25 includes a quote explaining that Jesus was mistreated by humans. Interestingly, you leave the significance of this detail out. None of the N.T. authors who quote Isaiah 53 explain that Jesus was experiencing God’s punishment/wrath/chastisement etc… In an interview with Dr. Michael Brown, you discuss Psalm 22 and refer to it as a “sister passage” of Isaiah 53 (again-men are doing the maltreatment). In the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12), it is men who kill the Son. Worst of all (for penal substitution) is Hebrews 12_3 that shows that the hostility experienced by Jesus was from sinners-not wrath from God. Regarding Isaiah 53_10: Albert Barnes writes on Isaiah 53_10: “The word here [to bruise him] is the infinitive of Piel. 'To bruise him, or his being bruised, was pleasing to Yahweh;' that is, it was acceptable to him that he should be crushed by his many sorrows. It does not of necessity imply that there was any positive and direct agency on the part of Yahweh in bruising him, but only that the fact of his being thus crushed and bruised was acceptable to him” (From his commentary; free on studylight.org). If the supporter of penal substitution was hoping to make a strong case (that God was punishing Jesus) from Isaiah 53, they would want several things which simply are not in the Bible. First and foremost they would want a N.T. reference of Isaiah 53 that explained that it was God who punished Jesus (not only is this lacking, but the opposite case is made). Second, they would want the word for bruising to specifically mean “punishment”. Third, they would want the bruising in Isaiah 53_10 to have a causative stem (e.g. hiphil) attributed to Yahweh. This is the stem used in the passages where it is clearly Yahweh doing the action. For example, in Isaiah 53_6 it has, “...and the Lord has laid on him (with the hiphil stem) the iniquity of us all. There is no ambiguity that it is Yahweh who is laying the iniquity on Him. (To be fair, this part of Isaiah 53_10 uses the hiphil stem showing an action of Yahweh in relation to the servant: “...he has put him to grief…”). However, in context, this is when the servant is a sin offering, and as demonstrated in Isaiah 53_6, it is Yahweh who lays the iniquities on the servant. Putting him to grief, is likely (or at least, plausibly) a reference to the laying of the sins on the servant. So, even when there is the causative stem relating the actions of Yahweh to the servant; the language and context show that the action is priestly, not necessarily punitive. Again, any ambiguity (whether grammatical or contextual) is cleared up in 1 Peter 2, Psalm 22, and Hebrews 12_3.
With all due respect, I think it is clear that evil men carried out that killing. But it has been God’s plan before the foundations of the world, and Jesus did it willingly. God the Father and Jesus have always been in control of Christ’s sacrifice. No Christian should be taught to deny any of those elements whatsoever. I think God’s Sovereign planning and human agency is clear on this issue throughout scripture.
This is a thoughtful review of the text in Isaiah and I am surprised there were so few responses to it. It is, as you probably know, the view of the Orthodoxy that the Father did not punish the Son. Rather, the suffering Christ endured was due to his willing sacrifice at the hands of his own creatures.
Hi Mike. Just acTruth 1:01 seeker here. The PSA idea is Middle Ages correct? Earliest consistently is Christus Victor. What would a Jude 3 believer understand the atonement to be? Christ our Passover lamb was a protector from death. I appreciate your perspectives in so many things. Shalom
That's incorrect actually. Mike already addressed this alleged historical argument in the first video in the playlist. A Jude 3 believer would hold to the same Gospel taught by all the Apostles. I would encourage you to read just a little further to Jude 5 which connects this Gospel to the events of Passover which Mike has also covered previously. It would also seem that the passage covered in this video is instrumental in Philip evangelising the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Do you think that he was taking the Christus Victor model from this section of Isaiah? How so?
Mike assumes the fact Jesus is a sin offering, bears iniquity, Jesus was sacrificed, God planned Jesus to be sacrfriced and was pleased with it. Jesus justifies the many all means without a doubt penal substitution. It can mean Jesus paid a ransom not Jesus paid your debt
One mans obedience making many righteous doesnt mean that they are instantly made righteous. It can mean His death made an opportunity to make you righteous.
How do you explain to a new believer that their baptism covers not only past and present sins but future sins as well??? He tells me pre forgiveness is not in Scripture and future forgiveness is not in the Bible and that I am adding to scripture, I know better oh, but how do you explain this?? I told him all means all he still doesn't get it
@CDTV Its doubleminded. You say one thing then say the opposite. Especially when it comes about sinning. Youve created or the devil has created this self fufiilling prophecy because of what you feel about sin and mans ability to keep commandments that it has silenced your conscience.
@CDTV Youve created a self fufilling prophecy when it comes to a humans abilility to stop sinning. Partial obedience is full disobedience. You can say that a Christian should obey but not obey 100 percent, thats contradicting. Obedience is 100 percent if its not its full disobedience. 98 percent obedience is full disobedience. Your doubleminded. You dont really mean a Christian should obey.
@CDTV No I believe it is possible for anyone to sin and it is possible for anyone to stop sinning. You dont believe its possible to stop sinning. I am not the one with limiting beliefs, not based on scripture.
Whoa, Mike did you just say that some sin is worse than others? Which sin is "NOT" willful? Are you saying that some sins are accidental and that we cannot be held accountable for them? Please tell me you are not suggesting that we are still living under the law.
I would say that some sins are worse than others but this doesn’t mean accidental sins are freebees. People are still accountable for sins they commit without fully being aware of it. Here’s the long explanation. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Tp_lAMuX16k.html
I think the question that's not being addressed is: does another "theory" better explain what happened on the cross? Even in Isa 53 the will of God being to crush him was as an offering. (53 vs 10) When considering the sacrificial offering systems we need to ask whether or not the animals being sacrificed were being "punished" or "offered". It doesn't solve every objection but most people agree Jesus died for our sins. Was He punished by God in order to pay the penalty (penal) for the restoration of humanity? That's not how sacrifice or forgiveness works anywhere else in the OT.
37:30 "His soul makes a guilt offering... that's sacrificial substitutionary atonement." I don't know about the naming but here you describe it by leaving out the word penal. And by doing so I think you make a statement which most believers will agree with. I think there needs to be a distinction between a voluntary sacrifice and a punitive death sentence. I can't defend those who you present, I don't even know them. But it seems you agree with other theories just not the people you mention.
What is your take on the sacrifices in Leviticus? When people laid hands on the sacrifice, did that not represent their sin being transferred to that animal, who would subsequently die before the LORD in the believer’s place?
The LXX is far more likely to have been fabricated closer to 200 AD than 200 BC. Psalm 14 (or 13 in LXX) departs from the structure mirrored in Psalm 53 (52 in LXX) and quotes Paul’s words out of the New Testament (which would have been impossible in 200 BC). There are many other issues in the LXX, such as adding up dates have people other than Noah and fam living past the flood. It is simply not a reliable source. Nor are the Alexandrian texts that include it.
