Hello Mike, im a 7th Day Adventist, and on the last few weeks I have watched a lot of your content. Let me tell you that I really respect and apreciate what you do, teaching the bible from the bible, going deeper, exposing false doctrines and cults; even if we disagree in some points. I have specially found your videos on Chatolic, JW, Mormon, and Church of God enligthening. Would you consider doing a study on the 7th Day Adventist Church and Ellen White? I would like to know your perspective. Thank you, and God bless you.
The whole book of Hebrews is like BAM BAM BAM, hitting you with absolutely golden wisdom and insight. It’s just jam packed with Godly goodness. I love it so much.
This is the kind of stuff Christians need to learn to better understand what we believe in. This is what was preached in the early church and it’s awesome to hear it today also. Excited to learn more and share it with others!
Mike's video didnt address any of the unique claims of PSA and instead confused PSA with Recapitulation, Ransom and Moral Influence which are orthodox, unlike PSA.
@@warrenmcgrew8129, would you please elaborate on how penal substitutionary atonement differs from the Orthodox teaching? I recently became Christian when I read the Bible for the first time, and my knowledge of the concept of PSA is limited to what Mr. Winger has said about it. What he has taught, has been a more eloquent and articulate explanation of what I understood in my reading. If what he is teaching, and what I understood, is the Orthodox view, and not PSA, in what ways does PSA substantively differ?
Warren McGrew pretty sure he said PSA has aspects of all of those things.. so this whole confusion is from this people chopping up the Gospel and calling it different "theories" and juggling them around in a circus of confusion.
I have tried to listen to other perspectives on the atonement, and each time I listen they never answer the question of why Jesus had to die and what that means. Hebrews is awesome to gain understanding of, not only they "how", but the "why." Love this series. Thank you
It is just beautiful to me to hear Christ through the lens of the OT. I need to watch your series on Christ in the OT. This is such a blessing especially as we approach Passover and Easter to more fully understand what Christ has done.
I love that I just read an article on X denying penal substitution and I can just go on TH-cam and watch this video that was posted 4 years ago elaborately confirming what I already knew was true. Thanks Mike! You’re awesome!!!
It is beyond me how anyone doesn't understand this topic from a Biblical stand point... Unless that is you're just trying to get out of being held accountable for your sin. Praise Yeshua Hamashiach, our Savior Jesus Christ, who selflessly suffered until death on a cross and rose on the third day in accordance with the Word. His love for us is humbling to say the least.
Thank you Mike for doing this important series, even if it is not as popular as some other topics. This is really important, and it's blessing me a lot, thank you so much!
I can't thank you enough for what I learn with you. I love the way you explain things. You are thorough in every way. God bless you, and keep you safe. 🔥🔥🔥
The more I understand these things, the freer i feel and the guilt of my past fades away. I now understand what no condemnation means for christians. I wish all christians would learn more about what christ actually did and how wonderful that is. Because its given me such freedom, i know it will give others that same freedom that is found in Jesus
You explain things so well Pastor Mike! Thank you for everything you do and the information you give to us Christians looking for the words to explain our beliefs. These videos have been a very valuable tool for me as a new Christian to strengthen my understanding of God's word. This all seems so basic, and it is quite crazy in my mind that people will not accept this knowing it is straight from the BIBLE?! God bless you!
Praise God for both his love and justice displayed in the cross of Christ. Atonement is one of the main differences between Christianity and other religions. In Christianity God offers atonement and shows his justice in loving those believing in His Son. Romans 3:25. Good and much needed biblical clarification Mike. 👍
Ok I just want to say I didn’t know this was something that is under debate, I didn’t know there was a term for it. BUT it is crazy that you have to go through at this depth and teach that this is what it means. That is the most basic tenet in Christianity that Jesus died to take our place! I’m flabbergasted...
@@fredarroyo7429I hope you listened to the entire series, because this important doctrine is spread throughout Scripture (it’s not named PSA in Scripture, however, just as “Trinity” is not listed.”
I honestly cannot understand how people do not get it. 1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
@@Conservativevoiceify ... Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9) After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:28-30)
@@Cosigner22 Read Romans 5:9 in the original Greek; you will not find the phrase "wrath of God". In fact, "of God" is added commentary provided by the translator to help you make sense of the text; but then again, it is only "help" from their own theological perspective.
Wrath is implied to be of God, otherwise language has no meaning. This is deconstruction of language and meaning. It does mean "wrath of God", otherwise this new rule means "nothing can be clearly implied". Apply that rule to the rest of the Bible or to everyday conversation.
Cosigner22 Are you saying that by saving us from wrath that it automatically means he had that wrath poured out on him in Romans 5? So where does the wrath that remains on unbelievers come from? Does it somehow dematerialize when they accept Jesus?
No not really. The sacrifices were not to suffer. The only time sins were placed on an animal was the Goat for Azazel, and it is not killed. If sins were ever placed on a sacrifice the animal but that act would be unfit to be sacrificed.
This is where we need to recognise that there are multiple forms of typology that are fulfilled in the Cross. The Old Testament talks about the Cup of Wrath that God mixes as judgement for the nations, which I believe is the same 'cup' Jesus mentions with dread in the garden of Gethsemene. Jesus is not crying tears of blood because he fears the physical suffering only, but because he understands all too well what it means to take upon himself the sin of the world and drinking the cup of wrath down to the last drop.
I still don't get *their* argument. I thought that is the point of Christianity. I fell away from the church for years because I couldn't wrap my head around "deserving" his sacrifice for me. A "too good to be true" kind of thinking. When God showed me that Jesus knew what he was doing and that he went to that cross voluntarily (and therefore the depth of His love for me, a sinner through and through), I came back to the Church. But I always, even when I didn't consider myself a Christian, believed in PSA.
There is a Catholic program called Called to Communion in which David Anders continues to deny the substitutionary atonement of our salvation. This video is really helpful to justify Protestant's view of this concept. In attempting to refute his idea I do think Isaiah 53 is the best source text but the idea of the scapegoat which you teach about here really hammers this notion home. Thank you!
I've watched way too much political content lately, and so of course the YT algo just swamps my feed with 10 times more of it, but then there was this gem sitting there amongst all that noise. A Mike Winger teaching on Penal Substitution from 4 years ago? That sounds like exactly what I need!
How does the passover sacrifice involve a penal element? The animal was killed, sacrificed, but I don't think you can scripturally say that the lamb was punished.
stewart parker people/animals die/are killed all the time without punishment. Death is not equal to punishment. The animal was sacrificed, not punished.
You’re just being nit picky about the concept, the animal was sacrificed and punished for the sins of the people. I hope you changed your mind in 4 years.
So you see this in the Levitical practice of placing their hand on the head of the animal, through which they are establishing the animal as their substitute before it is sacrificed. It's not enough to merely shed the blood of the animal, it must be understood that the lamb or other sacrifice is dying in the place of the people who have fallen short of fulfilling the Covenant laws given through Moses. This is major part of the Torah and without understanding the way the Old Testament community looked at sacrifices for sin we're bound to misunderstand atonement in relation to Jesus being the lamb who was slain as well.
This is exactly the problem I had when I was looking into the Orthodox Church. They seem to have a difficult time clearly laying out the Gospel when they remove PSA.
Winger achieves his conclusion by loading the definitions. He characterizes God's actions based on his perspectives, being unable to see things outside his worldview. For instance, Passover is NOT about punishment for sin, where sin is an individual's infraction of God's righteousness and punishment is exacting a moral recompense to balance the moral scales. Passover was a demonstration that God was God, and Israel was God's firstborn to the end that Egypt and the world would glorify God then and throughout the ages.
@bethl Because there is no evidence suggesting that it is both. The idea of moral punishment is not found in the passage, but interpolated from a foreign framework.
@zacdredge3859 Thank you brother. I have reviewed you marker. I did not miss anything. Mike frontloads the substitutionary atonement into his readings of the text. It is not present in the text, saying nothing about Passover being used to expiate sin.
I actually think that PSA has a poor explanation of the blood sacrifice in the OT. I do believe in PSA, but I think it's a minor (but true) analogy for what Christ did on the cross. Studying Leviticus and the blood sacrifice is really what led me AWAY from PSA and made me realize that we need better explanations than PSA. If you look at what they did to the sacrifices in Leviticus, cutting them up, separating entrails, and sprinkling of blood... there was a lot more to it than just the animal taking on the penalty or punishment for sin. It's not just about sacrifice. It's about getting the blood and arranging the entrails in certain ways. The blood itself had to be sprinkled on the altar. It had to be marked on the ear. The passover lamb's blood had to be put on the door. The blood itself actually does something. It's not really about the death of the animal in Leviticus. The death gives you the blood and the fragrant aroma and other things so that those rituals can be performed. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22). The actual shedding of blood is important... not just death. Blood is not just a symbol for death. Understanding the OT perspective of sin is VERY different than what we understand today, and very different from your understanding of sin. Sin is consistently pictured as a disease in the OT which you're not emphasizing. You're emphasizing the presence/nearness aspect of sin and holiness, but you don't mention the disease aspect of sin and holiness. The clean/unclean/disease sense of sin is actually primary in the OT. Blood is used as a cleansing agent in the OT. And THAT is actually one of the ways to look at Christ's death. Shedding his blood provides a powerful cleansing agent for sin than animal blood was not powerful enough to cleanse. THIS is why the NT God seems so forgiving versus the OT god... its actually that we have a powerful cleansing agent in Jesus' blood so that we can be saved. If there is a piece of clothing that is horribly stained and your detergent can't clean it, you have to throw it away. And if its stained by something contagious like a disease, it actually needs to be burned. That's what happened in the OT. But in the NT, Jesus' blood is the powerful cleansing agent that can cleanse any sin, which is why we don't need to stone people like Achan (and his entire family... even though they didn't do anything wrong except proximity to the sinner). There's a cleansing agent, Christ's blood. Again, it's not that I think PSA is incorrect, but I don't think its adequate. The OT provides more than that. I think you're correct in that we need to really let God's Word tell us what happened in the sacrifice. Once we do that, we see that while PSA is one of the analogies that is used for what Christ did, it's really not the main analogy in scripture.
One year, near Yom Kippur, a nurse I work with had gone to borrow my computer station. She noticed the (Yom Kippur) greeting card propped up on my computer. It was a beautiful card, and it said that forgiveness is a beautiful thing, and may I have time to reflect on the things for which I might need forgiveness. It didn't say "Yom Kippur," It just talked about forgiveness. The nurse who had found the card asked me where I had gotten it. I told her that Theresa, another nurse on the unit, had given it to me. Her eyes got huge and she whispered, "What did you do to her?''
Something interesting about the OT sacrifices: the sacrificed animal did not rise from the dead. So it was incomplete and had to be repeated. It didn’t fully satisfy the judgement of God. Thank God he did raise Jesus from the dead, the sacrifice is complete and we can be free not only from the consequence of our sin, but also from the guilt thereof.
Thanks Tim, I appreciate your overview of the topic from a PSA perspective. Just to pick up on one thing you said - "Those who deny penal substitution sometimes want to say that Jesus' death has nothing to do with dealing with sin in the sense of achieving forgiveness for our sin." I believe Christians should not preach that the Cross allows God to forgive us. Rather because of the Incarnation, teaching, submission unto death & resurrection of Jesus we should now preach "repentance for the forgiveness of sin" (i.e. the basic unchanged message) "in Jesus' Name" (Luke 24:47). Because when people hear about the Cross their hearts are softened and emboldened to repent. This is why it is "THE MESSAGE of the Cross" that is the power of God for salvation - NOT the Cross per se!! In other words the Cross doesn't change the Immutable God but the human hearers of the Gospel. Salvation is all about Revelation and Faith - with, in my opinion, ideas of Atonement being anathema. From what I can see "Atonement" adds nothing to the concepts of "covering" and "reconciliation" except PSA, which has been imported from secular (and fallen) criminal justice systems. Biblical justice is akin to social justice and foreign to human criminal justice; the latter being nothing but state-mediated revenge for those with only hatred for their enemies. Thank God for secular governments who wield the sword against wrong-doers in this fallen world but what a tragedy that the Church has reverted to using fallen human justice as a model by which to understand God's transformative justice of Christ!
I missed the live stream yesterday :-( I am not quite understanding what the opposing teaching is. Are they teaching that we don't need someone to take our sins? Or is it like the wages of sin are death so we die to our sins? I don't understand. Anyone know a video where I can see this non-penal substitution teaching?
Watching these videos and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the argument against penal substitution! I didn't realize this was even a question, & googled opposing views so i could understand what is going on here!... But thank you for the in depth recap... You know, of basically the entire bible haha 😁😂
2nd corinthians 5:21 is most likely a reference to the asham. The septuigant translates verses about the asham as simply "hamartiia." Most scholars now acknowledge "He became sin" should read "he became the trespass offering."
@@repentandfollowjesus3474 Right. The sacrifice was a food gift given to God which is why the "sacrifice" was actually the eating of the animal meat, eaten by the priests in the temple with a portion of the food including oil, salt, grain, animal products, flour, and other foods eaten as a meal shared with God. God's portion of the meal was sent up to God as a burnt offering. Sharing the meal with God in the tabernacle was what made the atonement. This offering in many cases had no animal products whatsoever. but was strictly flour fired in oil and salted with a handful of the flour given to God as a burnt offering. Mike appears to have no knowledge of the sacrificial system. The blood of a "spotless" animal could be used for cleansing. It does not make sense for Jesus to become sin then be offered to God as a gift nor could he become sin then his blood be used to cleans from sin.
I have another interesting question for you. Why is it that no sacrifice was ever offered for sins that are punishable by death if all sacrifice is the death penalty? Why are we to die just as Jesus did if he died so we don't have to?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 I suspect you misunderstand this passage given the context where you posted it. There are two problems. One is you probably think "forgiveness" here means God forgiving. Two is you probably think "justified" means legal declaration or righteous. Fix those two problems and you're good. Forgiveness here is "aphesis" in the Greek which means "sending away" and "justified" is "dikaious" meaning to be made into a righteous person. Christ enables us to become righteous (good trees bearing good fruit) and to for our errors to be "sent away." This passage is about transformation of the person. It has nothing to do with legal justification or changing God's attitude towards anyone.
Can you please review “idol killer’s” video on atonement? He has a clip of you in his video and tries to refute you. I actually find him sound in a lot of ways and he does not seem like a progressive but his view atonement is very confusing. I feel his video is particularly dangerous for Christians because he is not a progressive as far as I know, but has a strange view of atonement that many Christians are hearing and listening to.
It's not a strange view but actually the view of the early church. Its a participatory view in which we look at Jesus' death as how we are do live our lives. Jesus suffered and die so we can suffer and die. All those verses by Paul where he says I am crucified with Christ is the essence of this view and it contradicts PSA. You will hear people talking about all their sins being nailed to the cross, but Paul talks about himself being crucified and knowing the fullness of his death. The power of the cross is not God's wrath being poured out but in that I can participate in his death and be raised to new life by the Spirit.
@@pateunuchity884 I agree it is a powerful truth! The subject of this video is debating Penal Substitution. This is another one of those subjects that we would be better off having no conclusion for.
Now 5,199 views and 183 comments. Thanks for the serious message. It is really speaking to me. I like the fact PSA is essential for our understanding of the cross.. Hebrews 9 - he says there is a wealth of connection between the OT and new..,so he reads two chapters. Heb 9 and 10 read in context.. 262 likes and 9 non.
I was raised as a Mormon, but I have learned more about Mormonism after I came out of the church, than I knew when I was in the church. But, I was a lousy Mormon. I couldn't do anything right. One of my sisters came out ofcthe church and is now an agnostic. I tried to witness to her and tell her things about Mormons, but she doesn't believe me. The motions don't tell you everything all at once. When you prove yourself, they will tell you more a little at a time.
Question: If Jesus' death is understood as substitutionary punishment for the sins of the world, satisfying God's wrath once for all, how do we reconcile the existence of Hell and eternal punishment for many? This implies Jesus’ punishment was insufficient to cover the penalty or impotent to some degree, or is conditional. If conditional, then a person’s response negates Christ’s sacrifice and overrules God’s authority and sovereignty. Or atonement is unconditional and universal. If not universal, then Jesus’ punishment did not atone for all sin but just a select few.
I appreciate the heart in which this is shared... not sure I agree that Exodus represents a substitionary sacrifice though. In the Exodus... it was not one lamb per person or not even one lamb per home, but you could invite your neighbor over and they could stay in your house as long as the blood was on the door post. Sounds more like obedience to me. As far as judgement goes, I agree, however, God said the judgment was on "all the gods of the Egyptians." Ex. 12:12, just some thoughts.
"Substitution" doesn't say it's 1 per person or 1 per household. In fact PSA teaches that Jesus is the substitute for *everyone.* So what's your point there? The judgement was not only on the Egyptians but also on all Israelites for their idolatry. The Israelites worshipped the gods of the Egyptians, and Ex 12:12 that you quoted literally says that God punished that idolatry with the 10th plague. In Ezekiel 20:5-8 it says the same.
@@friedrichrubinstein Thanks, I still don't see a mention in the OT that the lamb "took the place" for anyone. It was the blood that caused the death angel to pass over, not the death of the lamb... thx
That teaching although that of the vast majority of the church hangs on just 2 texts Eph. 4:8 "When He ascended He led captivity captive". Some translations say "... a host of captives" but this is not in all the Greek manuscripts. Those who reject the harrowing of hell teaching say this is a reference to Christ defeating death and leading death captive to His resurrection life. The other text is 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water." The objections against this text for the harrowing of hell ae as follows: a) If it was such why is Jesus only preaching to spirits from Noha's time? b) Deceased humans are never elsewhere referred to as spirits and it is said these spirits relate to the 'Sons of God' angelic being that sinned with the daughters of men in the times of Noah. If the rejectors of the harrowing of hell teaching are correct the souls of the righteous dead the saved remain in Paradise awaiting the first resurrection of the dead at Christ second coming. See Luke 16:19-31 & 23:43. Which to say they would be in Sheol the same state as the righteous saints as in Old Testament times. I tend to agree with this minority view.
Hebrews 9 reading (about minute 59:00 ). It’s 55:30 exactly. Hebrews 9 King James Version (KJV) Chapter 9 1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hello Mike , Exodus 8 v 22 the Bible says AMP Version : But on that day I will separate and set apart the land of Goshen, where My people are living, so that no swarms of insects will be there, so that you may know [without any doubt] and acknowledge that I, the LORD, am in the midst of the earth. I will put a division (distinction) between My people and your people. By tomorrow this sign shall be in evidence.”’” The Hebrews were Not included in God's Judgement of Egypt ... God preserved them and showed them favour. I agree with you regarding the Passover Lamb and How the Application of the Blood speaks of Deliverance of God's Judgement , But we know that it was a foreshadowing of what Jesus would accomplish through the shedding of his own Blood on the Cross .
Salvation is not works based. Good works are an outward representation of what Christ has done in us. In other words, if we believe what the Bible says, then obedience is the only course of action that makes sense.
Mike, I don't understand why this guy would say:"He preaches substitution. That's not in the Bible.That is an excuse to keep sinning." I don't see it that way. I don't fully understand the theological term substitution but I am pretty sure that you don't hold that as an excuse to keep sinning. I get the feeling this person is legalistic. I have currently been struggling with the law and grace. And from what I can tell we must lean on grace. When we think we are doing "it all right" we are still falling short. What do you think Mike?
@MrJlsiii That still sounds like works to me. Because even if you think you are doing everything that Jesus did you still faith and need the grace of God. So I don't fully agree with all you said. By the law shall no man be justified.
Legalistic people often have seared conscience which makes them unable to make sense out of grace, leaving the legalistim terms of the covenant as the only possible outcome.
@MrJlsiii "You must try with all your heart to follow the law" This is not the New Testament, you are mixing the old wine with the new wineskins and living in unstable double-mindedness. The Bible is clear that Jesus nullified the law in His body(ephesians 2:15, romans 7:4, romans 7:6, james 2:10-13 etc...) setting us free from it. You are saying that you can only follow 1 master yet ironically you are trying to follow the law and the Spirit in the same time, pointless and impossible!
@MrJlsiii You are denying the Apostles and the word that was given to them then. We are called to live in the law of freedom(james 2:10-13) not in the law of Moses which the Lord Himself made legally void, how hard is that to understand and read friend? How do you follow something that was made legally void? How do you keep something that you died to? If Apostle Paul says you are not under that master anymore but under grace, why do you choose to live under it doubting the Scriptures? Live in the bondage or receive the freedom from Jesus Christ.
But OT lambs didn't suffer wrath. I know PSA, I was taught it, but human sacrifice seems unusual anyway. Why does God require blood in order to forgive? Pagan deities demanded blood too.
Did you ever think pagan deities are just corrupted sacrifices God instilled from Noah’s time. Noah’s was the only human left. God reinstituted animal sacrifice at that time. Generations later it is corrupted by man and they place it into worship of their pagan Gods.
Love your vids! God bless you! (just my thoughts) Substitution... Yes! Absolutely! Sacrifice... Yes! Once and for all! Tortured and punished by the Father 'instead' of us... ...??? It's partly a matter of emphasis, and I'm sure that if PSA is what we've been brought up with, then we will make it central to everything... even reading into certain writings what we want to see rather than what was intended by the writers within the historical context and the mind of the church at the time. (the early church fathers do not see the satisfaction of divine wrath or honour as the central significance of the Atonement... and the Orthodox Churches still dont to this day).... Bearing in mind that the juridical pictures are not the dominant ones in Scripture, and that we are dealing with ontological 'relational' realities (God is a relationship of 'Persons' - Who IS love) this surely must be a key in our interpretation (His utter holy otherness and His being Light and Love) He did what we couldn't do. He united God and Man within Himself - the Person of the Son and Word. He identified fully with the joy and tragedy of our existence. He became a curse. He reversed every cursed result of our transgression of the Law (Reality) and the command to Love. He destroyed death by His voluntary death. Sin was condemned. He took the fall... every shameful, painful, separative, God forsaken result of our sin. He died our death... recreated our humanity, absorbed the darkness, the non being... then disarmed, defeated and decimated every hostile power - before raising us up! 'He suffered and was buried... and on the third day He rose again " " For us"... (Isaiah 53) ... As one of us His sprinkled blood is His Life given for our life... Poured out for us. Eternal life. Every worthy sacrifice in the Old Testament, at heart, is to do with the heart... "a broken spirit and a contrite heart O God, You will not despise" God's heart broke His ultimate Sacrifice was a pleasing aroma. Many of the Old Covenant offerings were only Icons that brought us face to face with the true cost of sin, and actually became food (on every level) for us and pointed us towards the true giver of life and the tree of life that would come.... The Cross The propitiation that is 'pleasing' (Ephesians5v1) (Hebrews 12) (Isaiah 53) The expiation that cleanses, redeems and recreates us.... "ransom"... "Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world" The 'penalty' is yet to come for those who reject Messiah. The wrath 'is' being revealed. He relationally and freely and cosmically righted all wrongs - that all will be "made new". Christ and His Church are the Ark. Judgement will come, but He is the One who saved us from all our enemies!... He Who was the Offering, the Priest, and the One to Whom it is offered... Our all in all X "That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"
Finally someone who gets it. Its not penal substitution thats wrong as it is obviously present in both the scriptures and the church fathers. What is wrong in my estimation is what I call Satisfactory Penal Substitution that teach the penal substitution is done to appease and satisfy God’s Holiness, Justice and Wrath (all terms used incorrectly in this view as they assume a western/ more modern understanding of these words). Instead he is our penal substitution to take on the consequence of sin that according to the law of the natural order of things is death and bt defeating death he defeats sin (whose natural result is death) and the holder of death ( that was Satan who insists that the consequence of death be paid).
@@christopherbarber5213 yes... God is opposed to and holds righteous indignation towards devil's and sinners (for sin is not a thing, just a demonic potential before someone actually acts upon that demonic / flesh desire and it actually becomes a thought, word or deed) The Father was not "angry" with the Son, for the Son had done no wrong; but the Son, entering into the place of judgement - in our stead - and the Most High - going to the lowest low and receiving (somehow, in a mystery) the culmination of the entirety of our sin, our fallen state and demonic hatred... is cut off, tastes death, separation, receives the curse and its consequence (death) that He Himself had originally ordered, and exhausts within His Divine Person all the demonic fury and broken lost humanity - before raising us up. He is creating a safe space within Himself - the Ark of His Body the Church - by recreating our humanity - united with Himself. . . Why ? . . . that we might be the "righteousness of God in Him"... for He is "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God" Yes Divine justice is satisfied. The propitiation and expiation of the cross indeed proves the Father "just, and the One Who justifies"; but the satisfaction in God the Son "Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross" and in the Father "Who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" is that the wrong had been 'relationally' righted ! via His own Righteousness / Justice / Order / Peace - through the chastisement of His passion and His full identification with us. Using forensic terminology, the penalty has indeed 'been paid' by the entirity of His Incarnation... Culminating at the cross and victoriously completed and manifested by His resurection from the dead ! Jesus Christ our Lord. He drank the cup of suffering, but the wrath for those Who reject God and His Lamb is yet to come. "He suffered and was buried, and on the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures" - The Creed
The animals signify the covering and cleansing of Sin by innocence. They are then often meals to be eaten. They iconographically reveal both the costly nature of sin and the coming of The Icon: Christ the Lamb., Who will cleanse us of the Wound of Ancestral and actual sin via His wounds, reveal His Righteousness and Righteous judgement of sin, and cover us from the wrath to come. Seeing all the O.T in the warped 16th century model is wrong. As is labelling those (like myself) who don't agree with it as liberals and progressives! 🤔✌️💚
Did the Lord suffer the wrath of God on the cross? Is there any verse in the New Testament that clearly states that He did? I accept He is my substitute, and that He had to die on my place (the penalty of my sin is death according to the law). But since it is taught that God did pour out His wrath, there should be scriptural support. Other than that I fully agree on penal substitutionary atonement and Christus victor theory. Both make sense to me simultaneously. None of the types or shadows in the law involve wrath being poured out on the sacrifices, they simply died in the peoples place (not to over simplify the cross)
Yes Jesus suffered the wrath of God. "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."(Isaiah 53:10)
@@robertdelisle7309 that verse talks about the Lord bearing the weight of our sin on the cross, be was beaten and badly abused and killed by us, but I dont see wrath being poured out, there is simply not enough evidence in scripture to make this statement.
In the OT Gods wrath is represented as a cup of wrath Jeremiah 25:15, Isaiah 51:17. This is the meaning of the cup Jesus speaks of in the garden of Gesthsemane, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”(Luke 22:42) Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath down to the dregs; Jesus absorbed the full punishment for our sins that was meted out by God.
Either you are a Calvinist, in that Christ died for only the elect (I dont believe that) or that He died for the sins of the world, as Christ Himself said. IF God poured out all wrath due for sin on Christ, how then can He judge the world? Since there should be no wrath due for any sin.
I plan to listen to this series a few times until I know the info well enough to explain it. I'm also reading through material from M.Heiser and R.Johnson that challenges this teaching, at least in part. I see this similar to the baptism issue. The case is strong that baptism is "required" for salvation - that there's some 'mechanical' component whereby the act of baptism unlocks something in the heavenlies. However, that concept seems out of character with the rest of the NT. So likewise, we may hear "God wants to be near his people, but there's a sin problem. How is sin taken care of? Sacrifice." But then, there's a lot of "I desire mercy over sacrifice" language in the OT. God can save without baptism, and can forgive without sacrifice. But does he? If not, does that mean those acts serve a 'mechanical' function to unlock something in the heavenlies? I say no. I think the types and pictures do not break down when the sacrifices are seen as wholly illustrative and not efficacious - in fact I'd say they make more sense that way. But I'll keep listening and studying.
There are two types of baptisms. The baptism of water, and the baptism of the spirit. The only way that the baptism with water can be a prerequisite for salvation is if Jesus is a liar in Luke 23:43. The baptism of the spirit is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior, and not a physical baptism but a spiritual one. When you acknowledge Christ is lord and ask to be filled with the holy spirit, that is the baptism that is necessary. The water baptism is a cleansing of the flesh, whereas the spiritual baptism of Christ is the cleansing of the soul. Matthew 23:25-27 is not just a factual statement about cleanliness. It's also an explanation of this concept. This does not mean that I hold any disregard for the baptisms of John, or that I think Christians shouldn't seek water baptism. It is merely my belief that water baptism is something that a believer would want to do to demonstrate, commemorate, and celebrate their spiritual baptism through Christ, rather than something that is necessary for salvation. I have never heard or read an argument that baptism is salvific, that refers to water baptism, that stands in light of those verses. Acts 8 further supports this position. I realize this doesn't touch on PSA, but hopefully you'll find it helpful with the baptism issue.
@@franciscodanconia3551 Thank you. I'm not really struggling with the baptism issue. I alluded to it because Mike Winger has a video or two posted where he and a friend debate the topic, "Is water baptism necessary for salvation?" I really appreciate how they handle the issue. Mike argues it isn't necessary, but is more symbolic, and of course that it's commanded. So what I'm getting at is, "In that light, to what extent should we also understand Christ's sacrifice as symbolic - necessary because it was commanded (i.e. prophesied and foreshadowed), rather than necessary for some mechanical reason where the act directly produces some aspects of reality in & of itself?"
It is difficult to understand how one can put forth a theory on atonement and not begin with Adam and the result of his actions. If Adam, who he was, and the affects of his actions upon life itself is not understood - no real understanding of the work of Christ on the cross can be understood.
How was Moses able to see The God of Israel “face to face as a man with a friend”, so close the his face was shining even though he was a murderer, disobedient and unbelieving (Which are Israel’s chief sins according to the Bible) nearly being put to death by God, and filled with fits of rage. God was “pleased with him and knew him by name.” Why did Yahweh’s presence not lash out against Moses?
@Sando Raouf I haven't even listened to Pastor Winger's presentation and I already have my guns loaded! You are going to have to explain away truckloads of scripture in order to make the case that Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not exist in the OT! Give it your best shot.
@@63stratoman I'd love to hear what you mean by "everywhere". I don't think you could point to anywhere actually. Let me know and I will clearly show you how you have been lied to. Jesus is not prophesized anywhere in the ot. Not 300 times. Not 3. Never.
it sounds like the law that a murderer who leaves a sanctuary city before the high priest dies must be killed is a precursor or “type” of Jesus’s death being an atonement for sin…?
@New Eyes To See or its just plain NOT there, unless someone has been blinded by attractive concepts from " intellectuals" that is utterly paper thin and not Christian.
The Passover sacrifice was never substitutionary. Just look at Exodus: what just punishment was Israel saved from? Even setting that aside, a lamb is not a fitting substitution for a human. And even if it were, why isn’t it described as a substitution in the Old Testament?
Hebrews 10 Hebrews 10 King James Version (KJV). Start 1:01:10 1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; 33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. 34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
What gets about the word fulfilled some people say it does not mean abolish. Actually it does mean to bring an end to it. Once it is fulfilled it is ended. One reason is because God made a new covenant with Israel after he fulfilled the other one. He said it wouldn't pass till it was fulfilled. The heaven and earth passed away of old covenant. 🙄
I am absolutely in love with this content, this video, and the reality of the punishment Christ took for us. The OT foreshadowing is amazing. I do have a couple of questions that I would love to have answered. This may be slightly off topic, but I’m wondering about the OT sacrifices. I know that they didn’t take away sin.. and that it was a symbolism of the way Christ would take away sin.. but in that case, if sin wasn’t literally taken away by the sacrifice of animals, how was God able to dwell among them? And if it was because of the blood of Jesus, what would be said to the person trying to make baptism a necessity for salvation who would say, “the blood of Jesus did not take away sins until they were obedient in this act of sacrifice, and in that way, the blood of Jesus doesn’t wash your sins until you are obedient in the act of baptism”? Thanks in advance!
I hope my response based on what I understand will be helpful. The oblations performed by the Levites did indeed remove guilt for the sins of the people from the prior year. While it foreshadowed Christ on the cross, it wasn't just symbolic. Regarding baptism. Jesus said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16) Obedience to the Gospel is more than believing, it requires follow through.
@@PETERJOHN101 Obedience to the gospel is putting faith in Christ. The first act of a believer is baptism.. But the second that you start requiring any sort of physical works in order to have salvation, you’re earning your own salvation.. I understand that you wouldn’t look at it as though you were doing anything to earn it, but Romans 4:4-5 says “Now to the one who WORKS, his wage is not counted as a GIFT, but as his DUE! But to the one who DOES NOT WORK, but TRUSTS IN GOD, his FAITH is counted as righteousness” .. that excludes water baptism from being a requirement for salvation. Even though Mark 16:16 was not even part of the original text, it’s still certainly true.. whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.. in that last section of mark 16, some form of the word believe is used like 6-8 times.. obviously faith is the emphasis of that text.. and if you believe, you get baptized. In addition, if you make baptism an absolute requirement, you know what you’re doing? You are literally giving the power to withhold salvation to the person doing the baptizing.. that’s a scary way to think of it
No. 1:10:16 belief in Penal substitution is not necessary for salvation and does not cause a problem with “what you believe about Jesus” because it was not commonly thought of or taught in the historical church and it is not clearly expressed in scripture. You might as well just keep adding things to the “what you believe about Jesus” list of required beliefs and keep anathematizing people who don’t agree with you.
The blood of Jesus cleanses you when you are obedient to Him. We will be judged according to our own works on judgment day. Unless our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the pharisees we will not enter into the Kingdom of God.
Mike if you are not obedient to Christ you are not a Christian. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 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.
4 years later and your teachings are helping a young Christian here in the state of KY at 1am.
Thank you for your teachings!!!
Hello Mike, im a 7th Day Adventist, and on the last few weeks I have watched a lot of your content. Let me tell you that I really respect and apreciate what you do, teaching the bible from the bible, going deeper, exposing false doctrines and cults; even if we disagree in some points. I have specially found your videos on Chatolic, JW, Mormon, and Church of God enligthening. Would you consider doing a study on the 7th Day Adventist Church and Ellen White? I would like to know your perspective. Thank you, and God bless you.
The whole book of Hebrews is like BAM BAM BAM, hitting you with absolutely golden wisdom and insight. It’s just jam packed with Godly goodness. I love it so much.
My favorite NT book along with the gospel of Matthew!
Anonymous letter of questionable authority
This is the kind of stuff Christians need to learn to better understand what we believe in. This is what was preached in the early church and it’s awesome to hear it today also. Excited to learn more and share it with others!
Mike's video didnt address any of the unique claims of PSA and instead confused PSA with Recapitulation, Ransom and Moral Influence which are orthodox, unlike PSA.
@@warrenmcgrew8129, would you please elaborate on how penal substitutionary atonement differs from the Orthodox teaching? I recently became Christian when I read the Bible for the first time, and my knowledge of the concept of PSA is limited to what Mr. Winger has said about it. What he has taught, has been a more eloquent and articulate explanation of what I understood in my reading. If what he is teaching, and what I understood, is the Orthodox view, and not PSA, in what ways does PSA substantively differ?
Warren McGrew as he said, no need to build up false dilemmas and trilemmas. It’s PSA and
Warren McGrew pretty sure he said PSA has aspects of all of those things.. so this whole confusion is from this people chopping up the Gospel and calling it different "theories" and juggling them around in a circus of confusion.
@@kelvyquayo Good to see you giving Warren McGrew’s idol of Ransom theory some pushback. He needs propitiation as well as redemption.
I have tried to listen to other perspectives on the atonement, and each time I listen they never answer the question of why Jesus had to die and what that means. Hebrews is awesome to gain understanding of, not only they "how", but the "why." Love this series. Thank you
"It's all about Jesus!" AMEN brother! Thank you so much for this, what a blessing. 🙏🏻❤️
check out orthodoxy... what did the early church believe
I just had a chance to finish watching and what I am left with is a great sense of thankfulness!
It is just beautiful to me to hear Christ through the lens of the OT. I need to watch your series on Christ in the OT. This is such a blessing especially as we approach Passover and Easter to more fully understand what Christ has done.
I want to watch that series also
Thanks Mike. These biblical deviations can only come from satan, who's sole desire is to deny humans the gift of salvation. May God help us.
I love that I just read an article on X denying penal substitution and I can just go on TH-cam and watch this video that was posted 4 years ago elaborately confirming what I already knew was true. Thanks Mike! You’re awesome!!!
It is beyond me how anyone doesn't understand this topic from a Biblical stand point... Unless that is you're just trying to get out of being held accountable for your sin. Praise Yeshua Hamashiach, our Savior Jesus Christ, who selflessly suffered until death on a cross and rose on the third day in accordance with the Word. His love for us is humbling to say the least.
Indeed we are waiting for HIM eagerly.
This is my favorite series on TH-cam. Thanks for the effort, Mike. Thanks for glorifying our Father in Heaven and the Lord Jesus Christ !
Thank you Mike for doing this important series, even if it is not as popular as some other topics. This is really important, and it's blessing me a lot, thank you so much!
While it is still October, I want to wish you a Happy Pastor's Appreciation! I appreciate your teaching of the truth so much!
Catherine Westholt
I will be celebrating the Protestant reformation on the 31st
It’s October again. Happy pastors appreciation. @MikeWinger.
I can't thank you enough for what I learn with you. I love the way you explain things. You are thorough in every way. God bless you, and keep you safe. 🔥🔥🔥
The more I understand these things, the freer i feel and the guilt of my past fades away.
I now understand what no condemnation means for christians.
I wish all christians would learn more about what christ actually did and how wonderful that is. Because its given me such freedom, i know it will give others that same freedom that is found in Jesus
You explain things so well Pastor Mike! Thank you for everything you do and the information you give to us Christians looking for the words to explain our beliefs. These videos have been a very valuable tool for me as a new Christian to strengthen my understanding of God's word. This all seems so basic, and it is quite crazy in my mind that people will not accept this knowing it is straight from the BIBLE?! God bless you!
Praise God for both his love and justice displayed in the cross of Christ. Atonement is one of the main differences between Christianity and other religions. In Christianity God offers atonement and shows his justice in loving those believing in His Son. Romans 3:25. Good and much needed biblical clarification Mike. 👍
Ok I just want to say I didn’t know this was something that is under debate, I didn’t know there was a term for it. BUT it is crazy that you have to go through at this depth and teach that this is what it means. That is the most basic tenet in Christianity that Jesus died to take our place! I’m flabbergasted...
Man made tradition, give me a scripture that clearly says that
@@fredarroyo7429I hope you listened to the entire series, because this important doctrine is spread throughout Scripture (it’s not named PSA in Scripture, however, just as “Trinity” is not listed.”
I honestly cannot understand how people do not get it. 1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Because suffering for sin doesn't equal suffering God's wrath.
@@Conservativevoiceify ...
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9)
After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:28-30)
@@Cosigner22 Read Romans 5:9 in the original Greek; you will not find the phrase "wrath of God". In fact, "of God" is added commentary provided by the translator to help you make sense of the text; but then again, it is only "help" from their own theological perspective.
Wrath is implied to be of God, otherwise language has no meaning. This is deconstruction of language and meaning. It does mean "wrath of God", otherwise this new rule means "nothing can be clearly implied". Apply that rule to the rest of the Bible or to everyday conversation.
Cosigner22 Are you saying that by saving us from wrath that it automatically means he had that wrath poured out on him in Romans 5? So where does the wrath that remains on unbelievers come from? Does it somehow dematerialize when they accept Jesus?
I think its important that we know the elemental things and reasons behind our Lords sacrifice, thank you for doing these videos
Hebrews is much more amazing after hearing the verses in the OT ❤ Wow!
🤔 I may have to listen to this 2 or 10 times to get the whole scope of this. Thank you a good think!
Just pause when you need to and write out the concepts and phrases/ verses...it will help you
Is there an example of where wrath is poured on an OT sacrifice; as in, Abraham offering his son, Passover, or any type of sacrifice given with wrath?
No not really. The sacrifices were not to suffer. The only time sins were placed on an animal was the Goat for Azazel, and it is not killed. If sins were ever placed on a sacrifice the animal but that act would be unfit to be sacrificed.
This is where we need to recognise that there are multiple forms of typology that are fulfilled in the Cross. The Old Testament talks about the Cup of Wrath that God mixes as judgement for the nations, which I believe is the same 'cup' Jesus mentions with dread in the garden of Gethsemene. Jesus is not crying tears of blood because he fears the physical suffering only, but because he understands all too well what it means to take upon himself the sin of the world and drinking the cup of wrath down to the last drop.
I still don't get *their* argument. I thought that is the point of Christianity. I fell away from the church for years because I couldn't wrap my head around "deserving" his sacrifice for me. A "too good to be true" kind of thinking. When God showed me that Jesus knew what he was doing and that he went to that cross voluntarily (and therefore the depth of His love for me, a sinner through and through), I came back to the Church. But I always, even when I didn't consider myself a Christian, believed in PSA.
i strongly admire your fidelity to context and truth.
There is a Catholic program called Called to Communion in which David Anders continues to deny the substitutionary atonement of our salvation. This video is really helpful to justify Protestant's view of this concept. In attempting to refute his idea I do think Isaiah 53 is the best source text but the idea of the scapegoat which you teach about here really hammers this notion home. Thank you!
Were any sacrificed goats resurrected from the dead back there in the OT times? Or did that crucial question not even appear on your radar?
Does Mike even understand the difference between substitutionary atonement and penal substitution?
I've watched way too much political content lately, and so of course the YT algo just swamps my feed with 10 times more of it, but then there was this gem sitting there amongst all that noise. A Mike Winger teaching on Penal Substitution from 4 years ago? That sounds like exactly what I need!
How does the passover sacrifice involve a penal element? The animal was killed, sacrificed, but I don't think you can scripturally say that the lamb was punished.
Hal Chaffee it was put to death. What more punishment do you want?
stewart parker people/animals die/are killed all the time without punishment. Death is not equal to punishment. The animal was sacrificed, not punished.
Exactly.
You’re just being nit picky about the concept, the animal was sacrificed and punished for the sins of the people. I hope you changed your mind in 4 years.
So you see this in the Levitical practice of placing their hand on the head of the animal, through which they are establishing the animal as their substitute before it is sacrificed. It's not enough to merely shed the blood of the animal, it must be understood that the lamb or other sacrifice is dying in the place of the people who have fallen short of fulfilling the Covenant laws given through Moses.
This is major part of the Torah and without understanding the way the Old Testament community looked at sacrifices for sin we're bound to misunderstand atonement in relation to Jesus being the lamb who was slain as well.
This is exactly the problem I had when I was looking into the Orthodox Church. They seem to have a difficult time clearly laying out the Gospel when they remove PSA.
Every time i watch these videos I’m not sure if i should just watch or take notes. I try to take notes though
You should do a video about NT Wright's teachings about the atonement. He seems to be one of those who either deny PSA or diminish its importance.
Winger achieves his conclusion by loading the definitions. He characterizes God's actions based on his perspectives, being unable to see things outside his worldview.
For instance, Passover is NOT about punishment for sin, where sin is an individual's infraction of God's righteousness and punishment is exacting a moral recompense to balance the moral scales. Passover was a demonstration that God was God, and Israel was God's firstborn to the end that Egypt and the world would glorify God then and throughout the ages.
Why can’t it be both (if I understand your statement correctly)?
@bethl Because there is no evidence suggesting that it is both. The idea of moral punishment is not found in the passage, but interpolated from a foreign framework.
Mike addresses this in the video. 22:31 is where he goes into this in case you missed it. The passage is Ezekiel 20.
@zacdredge3859 Thank you brother. I have reviewed you marker. I did not miss anything. Mike frontloads the substitutionary atonement into his readings of the text. It is not present in the text, saying nothing about Passover being used to expiate sin.
I actually think that PSA has a poor explanation of the blood sacrifice in the OT. I do believe in PSA, but I think it's a minor (but true) analogy for what Christ did on the cross. Studying Leviticus and the blood sacrifice is really what led me AWAY from PSA and made me realize that we need better explanations than PSA. If you look at what they did to the sacrifices in Leviticus, cutting them up, separating entrails, and sprinkling of blood... there was a lot more to it than just the animal taking on the penalty or punishment for sin. It's not just about sacrifice. It's about getting the blood and arranging the entrails in certain ways. The blood itself had to be sprinkled on the altar. It had to be marked on the ear. The passover lamb's blood had to be put on the door. The blood itself actually does something. It's not really about the death of the animal in Leviticus. The death gives you the blood and the fragrant aroma and other things so that those rituals can be performed. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22). The actual shedding of blood is important... not just death. Blood is not just a symbol for death.
Understanding the OT perspective of sin is VERY different than what we understand today, and very different from your understanding of sin. Sin is consistently pictured as a disease in the OT which you're not emphasizing. You're emphasizing the presence/nearness aspect of sin and holiness, but you don't mention the disease aspect of sin and holiness. The clean/unclean/disease sense of sin is actually primary in the OT. Blood is used as a cleansing agent in the OT. And THAT is actually one of the ways to look at Christ's death. Shedding his blood provides a powerful cleansing agent for sin than animal blood was not powerful enough to cleanse. THIS is why the NT God seems so forgiving versus the OT god... its actually that we have a powerful cleansing agent in Jesus' blood so that we can be saved.
If there is a piece of clothing that is horribly stained and your detergent can't clean it, you have to throw it away. And if its stained by something contagious like a disease, it actually needs to be burned. That's what happened in the OT. But in the NT, Jesus' blood is the powerful cleansing agent that can cleanse any sin, which is why we don't need to stone people like Achan (and his entire family... even though they didn't do anything wrong except proximity to the sinner). There's a cleansing agent, Christ's blood.
Again, it's not that I think PSA is incorrect, but I don't think its adequate. The OT provides more than that. I think you're correct in that we need to really let God's Word tell us what happened in the sacrifice. Once we do that, we see that while PSA is one of the analogies that is used for what Christ did, it's really not the main analogy in scripture.
One year, near Yom Kippur, a nurse I work with had gone to borrow my computer station. She noticed the (Yom Kippur) greeting card propped up on my computer. It was a beautiful card, and it said that forgiveness is a beautiful thing, and may I have time to reflect on the things for which I might need forgiveness. It didn't say "Yom Kippur," It just talked about forgiveness. The nurse who had found the card asked me where I had gotten it. I told her that Theresa, another nurse on the unit, had given it to me. Her eyes got huge and she whispered, "What did you do to her?''
Lol
This is good. Thanks so much for your hard work. This is hard for modern Christians to hear but so needed. I needed to hear this. God bless you!
Thank you for your thorough teaching. It takes much study and thought. I appreciate your taking the time and then explaining the topic so well.
This is all very helpful for rebutting NT Wright and his minions. Thanks
Something interesting about the OT sacrifices: the sacrificed animal did not rise from the dead. So it was incomplete and had to be repeated. It didn’t fully satisfy the judgement of God. Thank God he did raise Jesus from the dead, the sacrifice is complete and we can be free not only from the consequence of our sin, but also from the guilt thereof.
I can’t believe how beautiful Hebrews is when I, at the very least, somewhat understand the OT.
PSA is shown in 1 Cor 15, Paul states that it is of first importance, so I don't think it can be a secondary issue.
Thanks Tim, I appreciate your overview of the topic from a PSA perspective. Just to pick up on one thing you said - "Those who deny penal substitution sometimes want to say that Jesus' death has nothing to do with dealing with sin in the sense of achieving forgiveness for our sin." I believe Christians should not preach that the Cross allows God to forgive us. Rather because of the Incarnation, teaching, submission unto death & resurrection of Jesus we should now preach "repentance for the forgiveness of sin" (i.e. the basic unchanged message) "in Jesus' Name" (Luke 24:47). Because when people hear about the Cross their hearts are softened and emboldened to repent. This is why it is "THE MESSAGE of the Cross" that is the power of God for salvation - NOT the Cross per se!! In other words the Cross doesn't change the Immutable God but the human hearers of the Gospel. Salvation is all about Revelation and Faith - with, in my opinion, ideas of Atonement being anathema. From what I can see "Atonement" adds nothing to the concepts of "covering" and "reconciliation" except PSA, which has been imported from secular (and fallen) criminal justice systems. Biblical justice is akin to social justice and foreign to human criminal justice; the latter being nothing but state-mediated revenge for those with only hatred for their enemies. Thank God for secular governments who wield the sword against wrong-doers in this fallen world but what a tragedy that the Church has reverted to using fallen human justice as a model by which to understand God's transformative justice of Christ!
This was very good,learned a lot.Thankyou
I missed the live stream yesterday :-( I am not quite understanding what the opposing teaching is. Are they teaching that we don't need someone to take our sins? Or is it like the wages of sin are death so we die to our sins? I don't understand. Anyone know a video where I can see this non-penal substitution teaching?
Liz Evans that’s what I want to know. How are we saved in their theology?
Watching these videos and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the argument against penal substitution! I didn't realize this was even a question, & googled opposing views so i could understand what is going on here!... But thank you for the in depth recap... You know, of basically the entire bible haha 😁😂
2nd corinthians 5:21 is most likely a reference to the asham. The septuigant translates verses about the asham as simply "hamartiia." Most scholars now acknowledge "He became sin" should read "he became the trespass offering."
It really confused me that Jesus can became sin and still rose and be sinless
@@repentandfollowjesus3474 Right. The sacrifice was a food gift given to God which is why the "sacrifice" was actually the eating of the animal meat, eaten by the priests in the temple with a portion of the food including oil, salt, grain, animal products, flour, and other foods eaten as a meal shared with God. God's portion of the meal was sent up to God as a burnt offering. Sharing the meal with God in the tabernacle was what made the atonement. This offering in many cases had no animal products whatsoever. but was strictly flour fired in oil and salted with a handful of the flour given to God as a burnt offering. Mike appears to have no knowledge of the sacrificial system. The blood of a "spotless" animal could be used for cleansing. It does not make sense for Jesus to become sin then be offered to God as a gift nor could he become sin then his blood be used to cleans from sin.
I'm confused, how are so many believers confused?
1 Corinthians 14:33
Also, the Hebrew word for "ransom" (in Numbers 35:31) is "Ko-Fe-R" and is the same root as the word for "atone"/"cover up".
I have another interesting question for you. Why is it that no sacrifice was ever offered for sins that are punishable by death if all sacrifice is the death penalty? Why are we to die just as Jesus did if he died so we don't have to?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 I suspect you misunderstand this passage given the context where you posted it. There are two problems. One is you probably think "forgiveness" here means God forgiving. Two is you probably think "justified" means legal declaration or righteous. Fix those two problems and you're good.
Forgiveness here is "aphesis" in the Greek which means "sending away" and "justified" is "dikaious" meaning to be made into a righteous person. Christ enables us to become righteous (good trees bearing good fruit) and to for our errors to be "sent away." This passage is about transformation of the person. It has nothing to do with legal justification or changing God's attitude towards anyone.
Can you please review “idol killer’s” video on atonement? He has a clip of you in his video and tries to refute you. I actually find him sound in a lot of ways and he does not seem like a progressive but his view atonement is very confusing. I feel his video is particularly dangerous for Christians because he is not a progressive as far as I know, but has a strange view of atonement that many Christians are hearing and listening to.
It's not a strange view but actually the view of the early church. Its a participatory view in which we look at Jesus' death as how we are do live our lives. Jesus suffered and die so we can suffer and die. All those verses by Paul where he says I am crucified with Christ is the essence of this view and it contradicts PSA. You will hear people talking about all their sins being nailed to the cross, but Paul talks about himself being crucified and knowing the fullness of his death. The power of the cross is not God's wrath being poured out but in that I can participate in his death and be raised to new life by the Spirit.
Mike you are definitely doing the right thing. These things after almost 2000 years . Someone dropped the ball, right.
Happy Pastors Appreciation Day..🤒🤤
Fast forward 4 minutes and miss kitty cam!? N E V E R
Haha
The text says that is how God will know to Passover a house. It doesn’t say He wanted to judge them too. It was a distinguishing sign.
Would they have been judged if the blood wasn’t on the door?
Pat Eunuchity yes there would not have been a way to distinguish them from the Egyptians
JP Charlebois
therefore the judgement was not passed upon them because of the blood of the lamb. Very powerful truth!!
@@pateunuchity884 I agree it is a powerful truth! The subject of this video is debating Penal Substitution. This is another one of those subjects that we would be better off having no conclusion for.
Great study, Mike! Appreciate your in-depth treatment of the topic. Your studies grow my knowledge every time. Thank you!
Now 5,199 views and 183 comments.
Thanks for the serious message. It is really speaking to me. I like the fact PSA is essential for our understanding of the cross..
Hebrews 9 - he says there is a wealth of connection between the OT and new..,so he reads two chapters.
Heb 9 and 10 read in context..
262 likes and 9 non.
Whats your opinion on Father Son theology?
I was raised as a Mormon, but I have learned more about Mormonism after I came out of the church, than I knew when I was in the church. But, I was a lousy Mormon. I couldn't do anything right. One of my sisters came out ofcthe church and is now an agnostic. I tried to witness to her and tell her things about Mormons, but she doesn't believe me. The motions don't tell you everything all at once. When you prove yourself, they will tell you more a little at a time.
The Mormons don't tell you everything all at once.
You should do a video reacting to Kanye's Jesus is King album
??
Question: If Jesus' death is understood as substitutionary punishment for the sins of the world, satisfying God's wrath once for all, how do we reconcile the existence of Hell and eternal punishment for many? This implies Jesus’ punishment was insufficient to cover the penalty or impotent to some degree, or is conditional. If conditional, then a person’s response negates Christ’s sacrifice and overrules God’s authority and sovereignty. Or atonement is unconditional and universal. If not universal, then Jesus’ punishment did not atone for all sin but just a select few.
Love the cat cam 😂
I appreciate the heart in which this is shared... not sure I agree that Exodus represents a substitionary sacrifice though. In the Exodus... it was not one lamb per person or not even one lamb per home, but you could invite your neighbor over and they could stay in your house as long as the blood was on the door post. Sounds more like obedience to me. As far as judgement goes, I agree, however, God said the judgment was on "all the gods of the Egyptians." Ex. 12:12, just some thoughts.
"Substitution" doesn't say it's 1 per person or 1 per household. In fact PSA teaches that Jesus is the substitute for *everyone.* So what's your point there?
The judgement was not only on the Egyptians but also on all Israelites for their idolatry. The Israelites worshipped the gods of the Egyptians, and Ex 12:12 that you quoted literally says that God punished that idolatry with the 10th plague. In Ezekiel 20:5-8 it says the same.
Substitution just fits the devil Christians lie of they can sin and surely not die.
@@friedrichrubinstein Thanks, I still don't see a mention in the OT that the lamb "took the place" for anyone. It was the blood that caused the death angel to pass over, not the death of the lamb... thx
Could you do a video about the Harrowing of Hell?
That teaching although that of the vast majority of the church hangs on just 2 texts Eph. 4:8 "When He ascended He led captivity captive". Some translations say "... a host of captives" but this is not in all the Greek manuscripts.
Those who reject the harrowing of hell teaching say this is a reference to Christ defeating death and leading death captive to His resurrection life.
The other text is 1 Peter 3:18-20 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water."
The objections against this text for the harrowing of hell ae as follows:
a) If it was such why is Jesus only preaching to spirits from Noha's time?
b) Deceased humans are never elsewhere referred to as spirits and it is said these spirits relate to the 'Sons of God' angelic being that sinned with the daughters of men in the times of Noah.
If the rejectors of the harrowing of hell teaching are correct the souls of the righteous dead the saved remain in Paradise awaiting the first resurrection of the dead at Christ second coming. See Luke 16:19-31 & 23:43. Which to say they would be in Sheol the same state as the righteous saints as in Old Testament times.
I tend to agree with this minority view.
Hebrews 9 reading (about minute 59:00 ). It’s 55:30 exactly.
Hebrews 9 King James Version (KJV)
Chapter 9
1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Andrew Rillera’s new book Lamb of the Free completely dismantles this video and your others about PSA.
Hello Mike , Exodus 8 v 22 the Bible says AMP Version :
But on that day I will separate and set apart the land of Goshen, where My people are living, so that no swarms of insects will be there, so that you may know [without any doubt] and acknowledge that I, the LORD, am in the midst of the earth. I will put a division (distinction) between My people and your people. By tomorrow this sign shall be in evidence.”’”
The Hebrews were Not included in God's Judgement of Egypt ... God preserved them and showed them favour.
I agree with you regarding the Passover Lamb and How the Application of the Blood speaks of Deliverance of God's Judgement , But we know that it was a foreshadowing of what Jesus would accomplish through the shedding of his own Blood on the Cross .
Is your salvation works based? Please make a video?
th-cam.com/video/Vlzi6NyZuqg/w-d-xo.html
Mike Winger do you have a shorter gospel presentation, like 5 mins simple?
@@devanvelo3725 Where you spend eternity should be worth more than 5 minutes of your time.
Mark Horton does god explain salvation within five mins?
Salvation is not works based. Good works are an outward representation of what Christ has done in us. In other words, if we believe what the Bible says, then obedience is the only course of action that makes sense.
I wish these were numbered
I love that he used to call an hour-&-a-half video "long" compared to his present era 12 hour videos on head-coverings & so forth 😂
25:49
Just presupposes substitution .
I revisited that section and there was no presupposition. What are you talking about?
Mike, I don't understand why this guy would say:"He preaches substitution. That's not in the Bible.That is an excuse to keep sinning." I don't see it that way. I don't fully understand the theological term substitution but I am pretty sure that you don't hold that as an excuse to keep sinning. I get the feeling this person is legalistic. I have currently been struggling with the law and grace. And from what I can tell we must lean on grace. When we think we are doing "it all right" we are still falling short. What do you think Mike?
@MrJlsiii That still sounds like works to me. Because even if you think you are doing everything that Jesus did you still faith and need the grace of God. So I don't fully agree with all you said. By the law shall no man be justified.
Legalistic people often have seared conscience which makes them unable to make sense out of grace, leaving the legalistim terms of the covenant as the only possible outcome.
Always line up with your conscience. You cannot have rest if you dont obey, just as you cant receive grace if you dont fail.
@MrJlsiii "You must try with all your heart to follow the law" This is not the New Testament, you are mixing the old wine with the new wineskins and living in unstable double-mindedness. The Bible is clear that Jesus nullified the law in His body(ephesians 2:15, romans 7:4, romans 7:6, james 2:10-13 etc...) setting us free from it. You are saying that you can only follow 1 master yet ironically you are trying to follow the law and the Spirit in the same time, pointless and impossible!
@MrJlsiii You are denying the Apostles and the word that was given to them then. We are called to live in the law of freedom(james 2:10-13) not in the law of Moses which the Lord Himself made legally void, how hard is that to understand and read friend? How do you follow something that was made legally void? How do you keep something that you died to? If Apostle Paul says you are not under that master anymore but under grace, why do you choose to live under it doubting the Scriptures? Live in the bondage or receive the freedom from Jesus Christ.
Thank God we don’t have to do that anymore!
But OT lambs didn't suffer wrath. I know PSA, I was taught it, but human sacrifice seems unusual anyway. Why does God require blood in order to forgive? Pagan deities demanded blood too.
Did you ever think pagan deities are just corrupted sacrifices God instilled from Noah’s time. Noah’s was the only human left. God reinstituted animal sacrifice at that time. Generations later it is corrupted by man and they place it into worship of their pagan Gods.
I’m in min 32 and there’s still nothing on penal substitutionary atonement theory: God wrath being poured on Jesus on the cross.
"Once for ALL"... or only the elect and the predestined?
Not sure why but I'm getting bad feedback at the end of these videos. This one and the last one! Like microphone feedback.
Love your vids! God bless you!
(just my thoughts)
Substitution... Yes! Absolutely!
Sacrifice... Yes! Once and for all!
Tortured and punished by the Father 'instead' of us... ...???
It's partly a matter of emphasis, and I'm sure that if PSA is what we've been brought up with, then we will make it central to everything... even reading into certain writings what we want to see rather than what was intended by the writers within the historical context and the mind of the church at the time. (the early church fathers do not see the satisfaction of divine wrath or honour as the central significance of the Atonement... and the Orthodox Churches still dont to this day).... Bearing in mind that the juridical pictures are not the dominant ones in Scripture, and that we are dealing with ontological 'relational' realities (God is a relationship of 'Persons' - Who IS love) this surely must be a key in our interpretation (His utter holy otherness and His being Light and Love)
He did what we couldn't do. He united God and Man within Himself - the Person of the Son and Word. He identified fully with the joy and tragedy of our existence. He became a curse. He reversed every cursed result of our transgression of the Law (Reality) and the command to Love. He destroyed death by His voluntary death. Sin was condemned. He took the fall... every shameful, painful, separative, God forsaken result of our sin. He died our death... recreated our humanity, absorbed the darkness, the non being... then disarmed, defeated and decimated every hostile power - before raising us up!
'He suffered and was buried... and on the third day He rose again "
" For us"... (Isaiah 53) ... As one of us
His sprinkled blood is His Life given for our life... Poured out for us. Eternal life. Every worthy sacrifice in the Old Testament, at heart, is to do with the heart... "a broken spirit and a contrite heart O God, You will not despise"
God's heart broke
His ultimate Sacrifice was a pleasing aroma. Many of the Old Covenant offerings were only Icons that brought us face to face with the true cost of sin, and actually became food (on every level) for us and pointed us towards the true giver of life and the tree of life that would come.... The Cross
The propitiation that is 'pleasing' (Ephesians5v1) (Hebrews 12) (Isaiah 53)
The expiation that cleanses, redeems and recreates us.... "ransom"... "Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world"
The 'penalty' is yet to come for those who reject Messiah. The wrath 'is' being revealed.
He relationally and freely and cosmically righted all wrongs - that all will be "made new".
Christ and His Church are the Ark. Judgement will come, but He is the One who saved us from all our enemies!... He Who was the Offering, the Priest, and the One to Whom it is offered... Our all in all X
"That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"
Finally someone who gets it. Its not penal substitution thats wrong as it is obviously present in both the scriptures and the church fathers. What is wrong in my estimation is what I call Satisfactory Penal Substitution that teach the penal substitution is done to appease and satisfy God’s Holiness, Justice and Wrath (all terms used incorrectly in this view as they assume a western/ more modern understanding of these words). Instead he is our penal substitution to take on the consequence of sin that according to the law of the natural order of things is death and bt defeating death he defeats sin (whose natural result is death) and the holder of death ( that was Satan who insists that the consequence of death be paid).
@@christopherbarber5213 yes... God is opposed to and holds righteous indignation towards devil's and sinners (for sin is not a thing, just a demonic potential before someone actually acts upon that demonic / flesh desire and it actually becomes a thought, word or deed)
The Father was not "angry" with the Son, for the Son had done no wrong; but the Son, entering into the place of judgement - in our stead - and the Most High - going to the lowest low and receiving (somehow, in a mystery) the culmination of the entirety of our sin, our fallen state and demonic hatred... is cut off, tastes death, separation, receives the curse and its consequence (death) that He Himself had originally ordered, and exhausts within His Divine Person all the demonic fury and broken lost humanity - before raising us up.
He is creating a safe space within Himself - the Ark of His Body the Church - by recreating our humanity - united with Himself. . .
Why ? . . .
that we might be the "righteousness of God in Him"... for He is "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God"
Yes Divine justice is satisfied. The propitiation and expiation of the cross indeed proves the Father "just, and the One Who justifies"; but the satisfaction in God the Son "Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross" and in the Father "Who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" is that the wrong had been 'relationally' righted ! via His own Righteousness / Justice / Order / Peace - through the chastisement of His passion and His full identification with us.
Using forensic terminology, the penalty has indeed 'been paid' by the entirity of His Incarnation... Culminating at the cross and victoriously completed and manifested by His resurection from the dead ! Jesus Christ our Lord.
He drank the cup of suffering, but the wrath for those Who reject God and His Lamb is yet to come.
"He suffered and was buried, and on the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures"
- The Creed
The animals signify the covering and cleansing of Sin by innocence. They are then often meals to be eaten. They iconographically reveal both the costly nature of sin and the coming of The Icon: Christ the Lamb., Who will cleanse us of the Wound of Ancestral and actual sin via His wounds, reveal His Righteousness and Righteous judgement of sin, and cover us from the wrath to come.
Seeing all the O.T in the warped 16th century model is wrong. As is labelling those (like myself) who don't agree with it as liberals and progressives! 🤔✌️💚
Did the Lord suffer the wrath of God on the cross? Is there any verse in the New Testament that clearly states that He did? I accept He is my substitute, and that He had to die on my place (the penalty of my sin is death according to the law). But since it is taught that God did pour out His wrath, there should be scriptural support. Other than that I fully agree on penal substitutionary atonement and Christus victor theory. Both make sense to me simultaneously. None of the types or shadows in the law involve wrath being poured out on the sacrifices, they simply died in the peoples place (not to over simplify the cross)
Yes Jesus suffered the wrath of God.
"Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."(Isaiah 53:10)
@@robertdelisle7309 that verse talks about the Lord bearing the weight of our sin on the cross, be was beaten and badly abused and killed by us, but I dont see wrath being poured out, there is simply not enough evidence in scripture to make this statement.
In the OT Gods wrath is represented as a cup of wrath Jeremiah 25:15, Isaiah 51:17. This is the meaning of the cup Jesus speaks of in the garden of Gesthsemane, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”(Luke 22:42) Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath down to the dregs; Jesus absorbed the full punishment for our sins that was meted out by God.
@@robertdelisle7309 for who's sins???
Either you are a Calvinist, in that Christ died for only the elect (I dont believe that) or that He died for the sins of the world, as Christ Himself said. IF God poured out all wrath due for sin on Christ, how then can He judge the world? Since there should be no wrath due for any sin.
I plan to listen to this series a few times until I know the info well enough to explain it. I'm also reading through material from M.Heiser and R.Johnson that challenges this teaching, at least in part.
I see this similar to the baptism issue. The case is strong that baptism is "required" for salvation - that there's some 'mechanical' component whereby the act of baptism unlocks something in the heavenlies. However, that concept seems out of character with the rest of the NT. So likewise, we may hear "God wants to be near his people, but there's a sin problem. How is sin taken care of? Sacrifice." But then, there's a lot of "I desire mercy over sacrifice" language in the OT. God can save without baptism, and can forgive without sacrifice. But does he? If not, does that mean those acts serve a 'mechanical' function to unlock something in the heavenlies? I say no. I think the types and pictures do not break down when the sacrifices are seen as wholly illustrative and not efficacious - in fact I'd say they make more sense that way.
But I'll keep listening and studying.
There are two types of baptisms. The baptism of water, and the baptism of the spirit. The only way that the baptism with water can be a prerequisite for salvation is if Jesus is a liar in Luke 23:43. The baptism of the spirit is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior, and not a physical baptism but a spiritual one. When you acknowledge Christ is lord and ask to be filled with the holy spirit, that is the baptism that is necessary. The water baptism is a cleansing of the flesh, whereas the spiritual baptism of Christ is the cleansing of the soul. Matthew 23:25-27 is not just a factual statement about cleanliness. It's also an explanation of this concept.
This does not mean that I hold any disregard for the baptisms of John, or that I think Christians shouldn't seek water baptism. It is merely my belief that water baptism is something that a believer would want to do to demonstrate, commemorate, and celebrate their spiritual baptism through Christ, rather than something that is necessary for salvation. I have never heard or read an argument that baptism is salvific, that refers to water baptism, that stands in light of those verses. Acts 8 further supports this position.
I realize this doesn't touch on PSA, but hopefully you'll find it helpful with the baptism issue.
@@franciscodanconia3551 Thank you. I'm not really struggling with the baptism issue. I alluded to it because Mike Winger has a video or two posted where he and a friend debate the topic, "Is water baptism necessary for salvation?" I really appreciate how they handle the issue. Mike argues it isn't necessary, but is more symbolic, and of course that it's commanded. So what I'm getting at is, "In that light, to what extent should we also understand Christ's sacrifice as symbolic - necessary because it was commanded (i.e. prophesied and foreshadowed), rather than necessary for some mechanical reason where the act directly produces some aspects of reality in & of itself?"
It is difficult to understand how one can put forth a theory on atonement and not begin with Adam and the result of his actions. If Adam, who he was, and the affects of his actions upon life itself is not understood - no real understanding of the work of Christ on the cross can be understood.
How was Moses able to see The God of Israel “face to face as a man with a friend”, so close the his face was shining even though he was a murderer, disobedient and unbelieving (Which are Israel’s chief sins according to the Bible) nearly being put to death by God, and filled with fits of rage. God was “pleased with him and knew him by name.” Why did Yahweh’s presence not lash out against Moses?
Where the Old Testament teaches Penal Substitution?
Ummm.......everywhere???
Nope it’s actually goes against it
@Sando Raouf I haven't even listened to Pastor Winger's presentation and I already have my guns loaded! You are going to have to explain away truckloads of scripture in order to make the case that Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not exist in the OT! Give it your best shot.
@@63stratoman I'd love to hear what you mean by "everywhere". I don't think you could point to anywhere actually. Let me know and I will clearly show you how you have been lied to. Jesus is not prophesized anywhere in the ot. Not 300 times. Not 3. Never.
llllllllllllm1 no you wouldn’t. You have already tipped your hand and I have no interest your willfully ignorant foolishness.
You seem really interested in this topic. Are you comfortable having a discussion and recording it for my podcast?
I think penal substitution is wrong because it mistakes representation for substitution. Don't need both. Representation is sufficient.
it sounds like the law that a murderer who leaves a sanctuary city before the high priest dies must be killed is a precursor or “type” of Jesus’s death being an atonement for sin…?
Keep reading Penal substitution into every text
@New Eyes To See or its just plain NOT there, unless someone has been blinded by attractive concepts from " intellectuals" that is utterly paper thin and not Christian.
Those who are called may receive.... Hmmm
Oh The Joy!
The Passover sacrifice was never substitutionary. Just look at Exodus: what just punishment was Israel saved from?
Even setting that aside, a lamb is not a fitting substitution for a human. And even if it were, why isn’t it described as a substitution in the Old Testament?
Sweet Lover of Souls, we aren’t poopfaces or progressives, Mike. We just don’t drink from Augustine’s well.
Hebrews 10
Hebrews 10 King James Version (KJV). Start 1:01:10
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
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?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
What gets about the word fulfilled some people say it does not mean abolish. Actually it does mean to bring an end to it. Once it is fulfilled it is ended. One reason is because God made a new covenant with Israel after he fulfilled the other one. He said it wouldn't pass till it was fulfilled. The heaven and earth passed away of old covenant. 🙄
I am absolutely in love with this content, this video, and the reality of the punishment Christ took for us. The OT foreshadowing is amazing. I do have a couple of questions that I would love to have answered. This may be slightly off topic, but I’m wondering about the OT sacrifices. I know that they didn’t take away sin.. and that it was a symbolism of the way Christ would take away sin.. but in that case, if sin wasn’t literally taken away by the sacrifice of animals, how was God able to dwell among them? And if it was because of the blood of Jesus, what would be said to the person trying to make baptism a necessity for salvation who would say, “the blood of Jesus did not take away sins until they were obedient in this act of sacrifice, and in that way, the blood of Jesus doesn’t wash your sins until you are obedient in the act of baptism”? Thanks in advance!
I hope my response based on what I understand will be helpful. The oblations performed by the Levites did indeed remove guilt for the sins of the people from the prior year. While it foreshadowed Christ on the cross, it wasn't just symbolic.
Regarding baptism. Jesus said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16) Obedience to the Gospel is more than believing, it requires follow through.
@@PETERJOHN101 Obedience to the gospel is putting faith in Christ. The first act of a believer is baptism.. But the second that you start requiring any sort of physical works in order to have salvation, you’re earning your own salvation.. I understand that you wouldn’t look at it as though you were doing anything to earn it, but Romans 4:4-5 says “Now to the one who WORKS, his wage is not counted as a GIFT, but as his DUE! But to the one who DOES NOT WORK, but TRUSTS IN GOD, his FAITH is counted as righteousness” .. that excludes water baptism from being a requirement for salvation. Even though Mark 16:16 was not even part of the original text, it’s still certainly true.. whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.. in that last section of mark 16, some form of the word believe is used like 6-8 times.. obviously faith is the emphasis of that text.. and if you believe, you get baptized.
In addition, if you make baptism an absolute requirement, you know what you’re doing? You are literally giving the power to withhold salvation to the person doing the baptizing.. that’s a scary way to think of it
check out orthodoxy... what did the early church believe
No. 1:10:16 belief in Penal substitution is not necessary for salvation and does not cause a problem with “what you believe about Jesus” because it was not commonly thought of or taught in the historical church and it is not clearly expressed in scripture.
You might as well just keep adding things to the “what you believe about Jesus” list of required beliefs and keep anathematizing people who don’t agree with you.
The blood of Jesus cleanses you when you are obedient to Him. We will be judged according to our own works on judgment day. Unless our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the pharisees we will not enter into the Kingdom of God.
Mike if you are not obedient to Christ you are not a Christian.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
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.