November 7, 2025 • 60 mins
It's time for us to move beyond our understanding of the work of the cross as a simple ransom or covering of sin; It's deeper than our wildest dreams. A full legal restoration of our relationship with the only perfect, non-created being.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New Testamentframework.
Today, the full lesson fromJeremy Thomas.
Here's a hint of what's to come.
SPEAKER_01 (00:10):
By the way, this answers one of the most
complicated passages in the OldTestament, Leviticus 40 to 40.
I'm sorry, Ezekiel 40 to 48.
There's not 40 chapters inLeviticus.
Ezekiel 40 to 48, which talksabout sacrifices in a millennial
temple.
Remember that passage?
I mean, you've got eightchapters.
(00:32):
Many of those chapters talkabout atonement being made
during the Messianic kingdom asoffered by the priests.
And this has been a trouble spotfor many believers.
What why are there millennialsacrifices?
Christ is the final sacrificefor sin.
Why do we have these millennialsacrifices?
SPEAKER_00 (00:48):
It's so easy to have a simple view of the cross.
To look back at what Jesus didand think He saved me.
He did what was necessary tosave me.
That's absolutely true.
And yet there's so much depth tothe things that Christ
(01:11):
accomplished on the cross.
Far more than an accovering forsin, far more than a ransom
paid, far more than any sort offree gift given to us.
The depth of what occurred andthe ramifications of what
happened are so deep and moving.
(01:35):
How can we not fall upon ourknees and thank God for the
beauty of what his sonaccomplished?
Today Jeremy's going to coverjust a few of the things.
And they should amaze you andcause you to worship.
SPEAKER_01 (01:52):
Okay, the doctrine of atonement.
I want to talk a little bitabout this word first.
Then what we'll do is ask thebasic question what is the
nature of the atonement, or whatdid Christ accomplish on the
cross?
And then I want to take youthrough four views down through
church history in the process ofthe development of this doctrine
(02:15):
as Christians throughout thecenturies have studied and
attempted to unravel the meaningand nature of the atonement.
The reason I will take youthrough some church history is
to because there needs to besome respect in our modern day
for the process that the Spirittook the church through in terms
(02:41):
of our understanding of the NewTestament writings as they built
upon the Old Testament writings.
And it's not like people justwoke up after the New Testament
was written and they had allthis clarity of doctrine that we
have today.
It took centuries of mensearching the scriptures and
(03:02):
trying to understand to developthe real clear doctrinal
articulations that we havetoday.
The other reason I want to takeyou through these four views in
church history is because what'sinteresting about them is that
all four views have elements oftruth, but only one is the truth
in whole.
(03:22):
So it's it's this is commonactually.
I think sometimes when we hear aperspective, a perspective on a
certain doctrine that wedisagree with, we we say, well,
that's wrong.
Whereas sometimes in these viewsthere are truths.
(03:44):
But in the end, the way they'veorganized all the ideas, it's
not true.
But you can accept parts of it.
And I think it's in those partswe want to accept that.
We want to understand that truthbecause it's true.
Um, so in this sense, what I'msaying is not always to throw
the baby out with the bathwater,right?
(04:04):
Um, I may not be a Calvinist,but there are certain Calvinist
teachings that are true.
See, that's what I mean.
Um but at any rate, um, that'swhy I want to take you through
these four views because eachone of them does have a truth to
it.
So the doctrine of theatonement, first, let's just
talk a little bit about theword.
And I don't, yeah, I made aslide for this.
(04:26):
You know probably as well as Ido that when someone talks about
atonement, the first thing thateverybody thinks about is the
idea that in the Old Testamentthe sins were covered.
How many have ever heard thatview?
Have you heard that idea?
That, you know, they offeredthis animal sacrifice and the
sin was covered until what?
(04:46):
Until Christ came and took itall away.
I'm I'm here to tell you thatview is wrong, first of all.
I'm just gonna state it bluntly.
That's not correct.
That's not that is based on anolder uh Hebrew lexical meaning
of the term uh to uh kipper,okay, the Hebrew kipper, uh,
from which we get the atonementseat, the mercy seat, you know,
(05:08):
atonement, that word, and soforth.
So that's the most common uhview.
Now that view assumes something.
It assumes, and this is actuallya deadly assumption.
I consider this to be the mostdeadly assumption of the word,
uh, that animal sacrifices inthe Old Testament function in
the same spiritual sphere asChrist's sacrifice.
(05:29):
Now, if that's the case, ofcourse, they did not atone for
people's sins or for bringforgiveness, did they?
Because that would mean you'resaved by animal sacrifices,
right?
If those sacrifices werefunctioning in the spiritual
sphere or spiritual cleanliness,spiritual forgiveness, then that
(05:52):
would mean that you could besaved by animal sacrifices in
the Old Testament.
And that's just not true, is it?
So that's the deadly assumptionof this idea, of this uh
covering thing, or covering ideaof atonement.
Um, the these animal sacrifices,I'm gonna just ask you a
question, and it may becontroversial because people
(06:14):
have ideas, but did the OldTestament animal sacrifices
atone for sin?
Yes or no?
100% yes every single time.
And it says this all over yourOld Testament, it says it every
time in the Old Testament, everysingle time it says that they
(06:34):
were atoned for.
Now that creates uh a problem ina lot of people's mind.
But again, it's because it'sunder the assumption that it was
functioning in the samespiritual sphere that Christ's
sacrifice functioned in, andthat is patently false.
It is biblically stated to befalse.
That's why I'm taking youthrough the word.
(06:54):
Now, let's go to um the secondmeaning here, which is the
actual more accurate meaning.
This word means to, kipper meansto smear or to so as to cleanse,
to smear so as to cleanse.
It's the idea that when theanimal sacrifice was brought, it
cleansed the offering, offerer,I'm sorry, and brought
(07:16):
ceremonial cleanliness orforgiveness in the physical
sphere.
You picked up impurities bodilyunder the Old Testament Mosaic
legislation.
And because you picked up theseceremonial bodily impurities,
(07:37):
you could not be in the presenceof God who dwelt in the physical
temple, right?
That's why you couldn't go therewithout sacrifice, because God
is holy, and here you haveceremonial impurities on your
physical flesh that you pickedup, and that barred you from
being in his presence, okay?
(07:59):
So therefore, the offerer would,for these purposes, have
sacrificed, animal sacrifice, inorder to cleanse so they could
be in the presence of God whodwelled in the temple.
Now, he doesn't dwell in thephysical temple today, does he?
Where does he dwell?
In us, spiritual temples, right?
(08:21):
This you'll see is thedifference.
Okay, now that Christ has come,there's going to be a difference
in his sacrifice and the spherein which it is applicable for
our salvation, so that he candwell in us, okay?
Um, so that's where we're goingwith all this.
But let's look at Leviticus 17,and then we'll go back to
Leviticus 4.
And then we'll go to Hebrews toshow you that this is uh even
(08:46):
exactly what Hebrews 9 saysexplicitly.
There's a physical sphere forthe animal sacrifice, there's a
spiritual sphere for what Christwas doing.
Leviticus 17.
And I've taken you this beforeearlier in discussing sacrifice
(09:07):
in this series just a few weeksago.
Remember, 1711, the life of theflesh is where?
In the blood, okay?
And I've given it to you on thealtar to make what?
To make atonement.
It's there for what?
To make atonement.
Does it do that?
(09:27):
Well, yeah, that's what it'sfor.
That's what it was happening inthe Old Testament, okay?
Therefore I said to the sons ofIsrael, No person among you may
eat blood, nor may any alien whosojourns among you eat blood.
So when any man from the sons ofIsrael or from the aliens who
sojourns among them in huntingcatches a beast or a bird which
may be eaten, he shall pour outits blood and cover it with the
(09:50):
earth.
Why?
Well, because the life is in theblood, and so you would pour out
the blood and cover it with theearth, because the blood
belonged to God.
And therefore the hunter was notsupposed to consume it.
Or verse 14, the life of allflesh, its blood, the life is
(10:12):
the is the blood, with its life.
Therefore I said to the sons ofIsrael, you are not to eat the
blood of any flesh, for the lifeof all flesh is its blood.
Whoever eats it shall be cutoff.
Alright, so it was somewhatserious, right?
Well, let's read on a little bitso we see more.
When any verse 15, when anyperson eats an animal which dies
(10:33):
or is torn by beasts, whether heis a native or an alien, he
shall wash his clothes and bathein water.
What did I say earlier aboutcertain sacrifices being related
to uncleanliness of the body,physical, which barred you from
(10:54):
being in the presence of God?
I said that, right?
Because uniquely in the OldTestament, you have God
indwelling in the tabernacle andlater the temple, and you had to
go up to Jerusalem or to thetabernacle, right, in order to
worship.
Now, do we have to do that now?
Do we have to go to Jerusalem?
Do we have to bring sacrifice?
Do we have to make this annualjourney?
(11:17):
No.
Remember what Jesus said?
There is coming a day whenneither here or there will you
worship, you know, this mount orthat mount, you worship God, but
all men will worship me inspiritual truth, right?
Just wherever you are.
Why?
Because the temple's in you.
You don't have to go to it.
It's in you, right?
So things have changed with thedeath of Christ.
(11:37):
But in the Old Testament, youhad to go.
And you couldn't go into God'spresence if you had physical
impurities.
And that's what it's sayinghere.
You're unclean.
You have to do this ritual ofgoing through washing the
clothes and bathing in water andremain unclean until evening,
then you will become clean.
So there's different proceduresfor ceremonial purity in the Old
Testament.
This one did not requiresacrifice, but others did.
(11:59):
Let's go back to chapter 4,Leviticus chapter 4, which also
speaks about atonement.
Chapter 4 and verse 20.
It's talking about bringing abull and what the priest will do
and so forth, how he cuts up theanimal, what is offered, and so
forth.
And then in chapter 4, verse 20,he the priest, the priest shall
(12:25):
also do with the bull, just ashe did with the bull of the sin
offering, thus he shall do withit.
So the priest shall makeatonement for them, and they
will be what?
You can say it.
It's okay because the Bible saysit.
It's just that modern you knowtheology hasn't quite clearly
dealt with it all the time.
(12:46):
So the priest is going to makeatonement for them with this
bull of the sin offering, andthe individual will be uh
forgiven.
Um that's what I'm saying.
They they were forgiven, butthis forgiveness relates to
ceremonial impurities that theofferer had brought.
It was physical impurities, itwas not providing for their
(13:06):
spiritual well-being orspiritual salvation.
That's something that onlyChrist could do.
Right?
Does everybody agree with that?
Well, let's go see if the authorof Hebrews agrees with that.
Hebrews chapter 6.
On the way, as we go, I'llmention that the first usage of
this word kipper atonement iswith respect to the ark, Noah's
(13:31):
Ark.
You remember that after theybuilt the ark, they put a pitch
on the external surface of theark to waterproof it, right?
We don't know exactly what thissubstance was.
We think of something like a taror something like that, bitumen.
Whatever it was, though, it wassmeared.
(13:52):
See, it was smeared on the arkso as to signify that all its
inhabitants were cleansed.
It is our for first idea orpicture of what atonement will
do.
Okay, that it will cleanse thosewho are smeared, so to speak.
Okay, and the ark was smeared,so those within it were cleansed
(14:14):
before God.
Everything outside the ark wasuncleansed, right, and therefore
destroyed.
Um Hebrews chapter 9, did I say?
Yeah, 913.
Notice the distinction of spherebetween the physical sphere here
and the spiritual sphere, andthat what was happening in the
(14:36):
Old Testament with the animalsacrifices in the physical
sphere was foreshadowing whatthe Messiah would do for us in
the spiritual sphere, so hecould come dwell in us, and we
could become the temple.
9 13.
For if the blood of goats andbulls and the ashes of a heifer
sprinkling, those who have beendefiled, sanctify for the
(14:58):
cleansing of the what?
Flesh.
These sacrifices in the OldTestament had to do with
cleansing the flesh forceremonial purity purposes,
because God dwelt among them inthe tabernacle or temple, and
you couldn't go up in thatcondition and live.
(15:21):
You would be killed.
How much more, verse 14, willthe blood of Christ, who through
the eternal spirit offeredhimself without blemish to God,
cleanse your conscience fromdead works to serve the living
God?
Now, this then, Christ'ssacrifice, is functioning in a
different sphere.
It's not for the flesh, it's forthe cleansing of the conscience,
(15:42):
which is an aspect of the humanspirit.
Right?
So his sacrifice is functioningin the spiritual sphere, not in
the same sphere as the animalsacrifices.
Because under the Old Testament,nobody was saved by animal
sacrifices.
Right?
Of course not.
Um, but these sacrifices didpicture what it would take to be
(16:07):
in God's presence eternally.
We would have to be cleansedboth bodily, ultimately through
resurrection, right?
And spiritually throughregeneration, so that we can be
with God forever.
So the meaning of atonement thenis really to smear so as to
(16:29):
cleanse.
The Old Testament sacrificeslook forward to this because
they were actually atoning forpeople's sins and providing
forgiveness that in the sensethat it cleansed them from their
physical impurities so theycould enjoy ceremonial
fellowship with God at thetabernacle or temple.
But they all looked forward toor foreshadowed a sacrifice of
(16:51):
the Messiah who would providespiritual cleansing so that he
could actually come and dwell inus.
Okay?
So I know this is a littledifferent than what you've ever
heard before, probably.
But I've I have taught it sinceprobably 2005.
But anyway, it's such a newconcept in our generation that
(17:12):
people typically have troublegrasping it at first.
But that's normal, that'snormal, it just takes time.
Um by the way, this answers oneof the most complicated passages
in the Old Testament, Leviticus40 to 40.
I'm sorry, Ezekiel 40 to 48.
There's not 40 chapters inLeviticus.
(17:32):
Uh Ezekiel 40 to 48, which talksabout sacrifices in a millennial
temple.
Remember that passage?
I mean, you've got eightchapters.
Many of those chapters talkabout atonement being made
during the Messianic kingdom asoffered by the priests.
And this has been a trouble spotfor many believers.
What why are there millennialsacrifices?
(17:52):
Christ is the final sacrificefor sin.
Why do we have these millennialsacrifices?
See?
Well, they're functioning in adifferent sphere.
Again, they have to do with thefact that God is now dwelling on
earth again with men in aphysical temple.
So all the nations have to goup, right, annually to worship
(18:13):
the Lord for a thousand years.
If they're going to go up andthey picked up, we're talking
about mortals, mortal peoplegoing up.
And if they picked up ceremonialimpurities, physical
contaminations of the flesh,which bar them from being in
that proximity to God, they willhave to have sacrifice offered.
Okay, it doesn't have anythingto do with their eternal
(18:34):
salvation.
That's always by grace throughfaith and the finished work of
Jesus Christ.
That's that's a give, should bea given.
Um, but there are other purposesfor these sacrifices.
And by the way, they're notgoing to be returning to the
Mosaic law, so that's different.
They're going to be under theNew Covenant.
But the New Covenant also hasprovisions that in this sense
are similar and teach us aboutthe sphere.
So it resolves all of that.
(18:54):
That all falls into place.
If you want to read more aboutthis, I would encourage reading
something like Jerry Hollinger'sarticles on uh animal sacrifice
and so forth in atonement,kippur, and all that.
It's all very interesting stuff.
So understand atonement.
Now, now when we go to the NewTestament, what the New
Testament, guess what?
The New Testament never uses aGreek equivalent for the Hebrew
Kippur.
(19:15):
Never.
There's not one use of a Greekword for atonement.
It doesn't exist.
What happens when you come tothe New Testament is it breaks
the Old Testament concepts ofatonement into three ideas.
Some say four, but ideas,redemption, reconciliation, and
(19:38):
propitiation.
And you know all those words.
Um and some people say thefourth would be expiation.
They would separate it frompropitiation and say it's doing
something else.
So we'll talk about those wordsnext week as the New Testament
does.
But what we want to do is wewant to say, okay, we we're
pretty, are we all prettyconfident that Christ made an
atonement on the cross?
(19:59):
Yeah, I think we're all prettyconfident in that, even though
there's not a Greek word forthat.
It's described these other ways,like his redemption, that
reconciliation work, hispropitiation work.
Um, so we want to fill that outand ask the question, well, what
did it accomplish?
What is the core of what Christaccomplished on the cross?
Whatever he accomplished on thecross, it has to meet the
(20:22):
requirement of the justice ofGod.
That's what we've been harpingon for the last four or five
weeks.
God's justice, we've said, isinextricably linked to blood
sacrifice.
You know, man offended God bysending in Adam, and they
brought immediately fig leaves,right?
They went the vegetation route.
Adam and Eve did, and thatwasn't acceptable, right?
(20:44):
So God took a lamb and he slitits throat and he literally
cleaned the animal right therein front of them, and then he
took the skins, and this is thefirst uh leather clothes that
anybody wore.
So it wasn't invented by peoplewho ride Harley Davidson.
Um, leather clothing wasinvented by God, and he clothed
them, and this was saying, No,you can't come to me by way of
(21:08):
vegetation, plants, becauseplants don't have life in them,
they don't have blood, so theydon't have life.
Animals do have blood, so he wassignifying um that atonement
requires the sacrifice ofsomething living, right?
Or the lamb was dying for Adamand Eve, of course.
(21:28):
It was a picture.
Okay, now so there are two waysthen people have tried to come
to God essentially, um, throughnature in the sense of
vegetation, life, plants, and soforth, and then of course,
through sacrifice of uh livinganimals.
Um, so whatever happened on thecross, it has to fit into this
(21:49):
idea that God's justice wasbeing satisfied by the offering
of a person who shed theirblood.
And we know that.
That's well, but not everybodydoes in Christian circles.
So it has to be said.
Now, there's a history again ofhow this doctrine developed.
James Orr wrote the book,Progress of Dogma.
Just an interesting book to seethat down through church
(22:10):
history, as men study the Bible,the Holy Spirit is teaching as
we study, right?
We walk in fellowship, we studythe word, and he teaches, but it
does, he doesn't teach it all atone time, is what we've
discovered.
But he's done it over thecorridors of church history.
So uh charte this out, like theway that you can see the
doctrine develop.
In the first three centuries,the church was focusing on
(22:32):
Christology, Christ.
Who is Christ?
They knew that there's only oneGod, but the problem is that
you've got the Father.
This is very clear in the NewTestament.
You've got the Father, and weknow He's God, and then you've
got Christ, and there's so manyindications in the New Testament
that He's God too.
So they thought, well, how canthis be if you've only one God,
but you've got the Father andyou've got the Son, right?
(22:54):
So they tried to sort that outfor 300 years, and they did.
And they formulated this at acouncil and developed it.
Then they had, well, there'salso this person in the New
Testament called the HolySpirit, and he's also God.
So how do we articulate this?
(23:14):
It wasn't much harder, it onlytook about another 60 years.
By 389, they had that sortedout.
Then they were like, okay, sowe've got one God, three
persons.
How do these all work together?
And by 451 AD, they sorted itout in what we call the Trinity.
Okay.
So you can see this is takingtime.
(23:34):
We've got Christology, we've gotpneumatology, now we've got
Trinitarianism.
And then you go into the periodwhen Roman Catholicism, under
allegorical interpretation ofthe Bible, began to rise.
And for about a thousand years,you don't see a lot of
development.
But there is one figure in thisperiod that we're going to look
at in a few moments who did makesome good contributions.
(23:58):
Um by the time you get to umnow, by the way, this is the
middle, we call this the MiddleAges, not the dark ages.
Um, who do you think called itthe dark ages?
What comes after after theso-called Dark Ages?
What period?
The Enlightenment, right?
This was a humanistic movement.
Okay, they were they weresaying, oh, well, human reason
(24:19):
is ultimate.
And so what'd they do to whatwas technically the Middle Ages?
They looked back and they dubbedthat the Dark Ages.
Because that was when, you know,there was just religion and
stupid people and uh things likethat.
By the way, though, did anythinggood come out of the Middle
Ages?
Well, sure.
Hospitals, schools, well, youknow, help taking care of the
(24:42):
needy and the poor.
These were all things that thechurch developed.
I mean, humanists and pagansdidn't develop that stuff.
So there are good things thatcame out of the Middle Ages, but
you'll the history you get todayis contaminated because people
will call it the Dark Ages, andthat's to be an attack on
Christianity in any of itsforms.
Okay.
You know, the crusades and allthat.
Okay.
(25:02):
Yeah.
So anyway, some good things didcome out in the Reformation.
You've got some soteriology isdeveloped, justification by
faith, right?
That's clarified.
And then you enter into a periodin the 1800s where what we call
(25:23):
eschatology or prophecy began toreally get worked out.
So there's a progress, see?
Christology, pneumatology,trinitarianism, soteriology, and
then last thing.
Which does kind of indicate thatif we're now developing last
things and have been for 200years, we may be close to those
last things.
You know, what else would therebe to develop?
(25:44):
Most of theology has beendeveloped very carefully.
And so we may be uh close to theend of all that.
But and the church age may bealmost over.
Okay, but in the midst of this,in the Middle Ages, there is the
development of a doctrine ofatonement that I will point out
under a man named Anselm.
Okay, A-N-S-E-L-M.
(26:05):
Anselm.
But before Anselm developed, Iwant to show you what for 1100
years most Christians believedabout the atonement.
It was a ransom.
Jesus Christ was paying a ransomto Satan for Satan to release
(26:26):
the human race who was heldcaptive to him.
That was the prevailing view ofwhat Christ was doing on the
cross.
He was making a payment toSatan.
For 1,100 years, that's whatmost Christians believe.
(26:51):
Really?
For 1,100 years.
Lots of people had Bibles andread Bibles and they didn't
figure out the atonement.
So God, their idea is that Adamand Eve sold the human race over
to the devil.
God set a trap then with thecross.
This is interesting.
God set a trap with the cross.
So that the devil would fallinto that trap, right, and
(27:14):
accept Christ's blood as aransom.
You've actually already seenthis if you've read the Narnia
Chronicle.
C.S.
Lewis?
This is his view of theatonement.
By the way, C.S.
Lewis had a lot of veryunorthodox doctrine.
He believed in universalism,that everybody be saved, things
(27:35):
like that.
He believed some of the Psalmswere not inspired.
So as wonderful as he ispronounced to be, you know, in
mere Christianity, the greatestChristian book and all this
stuff.
Really not.
But um he had a lot of veryunorthodox views.
This is one of them.
He held to the ransom theory ofthe substitutionary blood, of
(27:55):
the blood atonement of Christ.
It wasn't a substitution, it wasa trick.
Remember the white witch thoughtshe had Aslan, right?
By killing him on the what wasthe rock, whatever.
Yeah, the table.
And then, you know, since shefell into the trap, and then she
(28:16):
finds out, oh God, he rose.
Uh-oh, I'm in trouble, you know.
Now, does God set traps?
I mean, is this this does castsome shadow on God's character,
as maybe he's a deceiver, maybe,in that he set a trap for Satan
to fall into.
Um, this view is also somewhatrevolting since the devil could
(28:38):
not have a just claim on thehuman race, and God somehow had
to meet the devil's demand.
God is somehow uh required, youknow, to appease Satan, and he
does that through Christ.
So you can see this view hassome really strange things to it
that probably don't gel too wellin your mind with what is
accurate or true.
(28:58):
But it does have a true part.
There's some there's some truthto this.
It's true that a ransom pricewas paid.
Matthew 20, 28.
Let's look at Matthew 20, 28.
This word ransom is isdefinitely used, Lutron or
anti-Lutron.
Um Matthew 20, 28.
(29:20):
Jesus said this.
We'll just read 26 to 28,because I like to emphasize that
a couple things here aboutChrist and what it looks like to
be Christ-like.
Matthew 20, 26.
He says, it's not this way amongyou, but whoever wishes to
become great among you, youshall be uh your servant.
(29:41):
Um and whoever wishes to befirst among you shall be your
slave.
In other words, how do youbecome great in the coming
kingdom?
Well, you become a slave.
How do you become greater thanall?
You become slave of all.
Well, you can't do that, butguess who did?
Guess who did become slave ofall?
Christ.
And that's verse 28.
Just as the Son of Man did notcome to be served, but to serve
(30:05):
and to give his life a ransomfor many.
There's the word ransom, right?
So a ransom, he was making aransom or paying a ransom price
on the cross.
But the question is, to whom wasthe ransom being made?
It's not stated here, but theseearly theologians said it was
being paid to Satan, but trulyit was actually being paid to
(30:28):
who?
God.
The payment was being made toGod.
So we've also got, let's see, 1Timothy 2.
Look at 1 Timothy 2.
By the way, all the T books aretogether, right?
1 2 Thessalonians, 1 2 Timothy,and Titus.
Five books all stuck together.
All start with T.
That makes them easy to find.
(30:48):
If you find one, you can findthe others.
1 Timothy 2, 5, and 6.
SPEAKER_02 (31:03):
1 Timothy 2, 5 and 6.
SPEAKER_01 (31:09):
For there is one God and one mediator also between
God and men, the man ChristJesus, who gave himself as a
ransom for who?
Paul.
Now we'll get into the extent ofthe atonement here in the next
few weeks.
In other words, for whom didChrist die?
Did he die for all people, ordid he die just for a subset of
the human race?
(31:30):
And we'll look more at thosepassages.
But he gave himself here as aransom for all.
So there again, ransom.
There's a sense in which aransom price was being paid on
the cross, but again, it's notbeing paid to Satan, it's being
paid to God.
And the reason is because he'sthe one who requires the blood,
Genesis 9.5.
Three times in one verse,Genesis 9 5, it says, I require
the blood.
(31:50):
It's required.
For me, it's required.
It's required.
So it's not being paid to Satan,it's being paid to God, the one
to whom blood was required.
But that's the first theory,again, held for 1100 years.
Then came a man named Anselm in1033 to 1109.
And toward the end of hiscareer, he was sort of a mystic
(32:11):
and a little bit odd, separateda lot from the common people.
But he developed what's calledthe satisfaction theory.
And he introduced this in a bookcalled Curdeus Homo, which means
why the God man?
Why did God become a man or taketo himself humanity, right?
Why is this individual, theMessiah, come into the world?
(32:33):
He said, God's honor wasoffended by man's sin.
Now you'll notice that wordhonor, that's the key word to
his view.
Okay, it's a satisfaction, butthe problem he says in the
garden with Adam and Eve is thatthey offended God's honor.
And restitution of his honor,actually greater restitution or
honor, was due.
(32:54):
But man can't give it.
We cannot give him this honorbecause we can't do enough good
works to restore God's honor.
Nevertheless, it has to beprovided by human, so it can be
on behalf of humans, but he alsohas to be God, so the payment's
valuable enough, and the honoris enough to make it uh satisfy
God.
(33:15):
And he says this was provided bythe sacrifice of the God man.
So you see the problem?
The problem is, in his view,God's honor was offended in the
garden.
Man has to give God his duehonor, but he can't do that now.
But it still has to come fromsomeone in the human race, and
(33:36):
yet it has to also be God whogives it, because only then
would it be valuable enough togive God back enough honor.
Essentially, that's Anselm'sview.
And therefore, the Messiah hadto be God and man.
Now, his book is actually moreof a justification for the
concept of the God-man, like whythe Messiah must be God and man,
(33:58):
than it is a theory of theatonement, but the two are
linked because he has to be Godand man to make the atonement
and restore God's honor.
Okay, so that's his view, and itit has some problems, but it
also has some truth to it.
Um, it's we should state veryclearly, point two, Anselm's
satisfaction view was not thepenal substitutionary atonement
(34:21):
view that we typically think of.
That Jesus Christ was paying aprice, making a payment.
That's not what he was thinking.
Okay, um, but rather God's honorwas defrauded by the rest of us
as mankind, and honor his honorneeded to be restored, and
Christ's death pays our honordebt.
(34:41):
Okay, it's an honor debt.
It's not to satisfy God'sjustice, see, it's about God's
honor.
So that's a problem.
But it is true that Christ didprovide satisfaction on the
cross.
That's why I said you have to gothrough these views because
there's an element of truth inevery one.
In the ransom theory, Christ didpay a ransom.
(35:02):
He just didn't pay to Satan.
But it is true he paid a ransom.
So we don't throw the view outentirely, we just accept the
ransom concept and apply itwhere it should be applied.
Same thing here.
There's a satisfaction that wasmade on the cross.
We would say it just what he'snot just satisfying in order to
provide honor, he's satisfyingGod's justice.
(35:26):
He's satisfying God's justice.
But the satisfaction aspect istrue.
Um turn to 1 John 2, 2.
Because see that there's there'struth in this.
1 John 2, verse 2.
This is another one that we'lllook at when we get into the
(35:47):
extent of the atonement.
For whom did Christ die?
Into verse 1, Jesus Christ therighteous, and he himself is the
what?
Propitiation.
Now that's that's kind of a bigword.
So this word basically meanssatisfaction.
Sometimes it's a marginal notethat'll say satisfaction.
He is the propitiation orsatisfaction for our sins, and
(36:11):
not for ours only, but also forthose of the whole world.
The whole world.
So there is a satisfaction truthin what Anselm said, right?
It's just errors because hisclaim is that the satisfaction
is directed to restoring God'shonor.
And our view today is that no,he was he was doing it in order
(36:35):
to pay the penalty of sin, tosatisfy God's justice.
So this view was a significantstep forward from the ransom
theory that had been held for1100 years.
And uh so, in that sense, it's agood thing.
Now, there was a guy born notlong after Anselm died.
His name was Peter Abelard, andhe really did not like Anselm's
view.
(36:56):
Um so he wrote against it.
He was actually kind of a cowboyin a lot of areas, and he
lectured on philosophy andtheology and um in Europe, and
he was always taking opposingviews.
He was just kind of acontrarian.
But um, that's okay if you'reright, but if you do it on
everything, you're probably notgoing to be right every time.
(37:18):
So Abelard introduced a viewcalled the moral example theory.
In other words, what was Christdoing on the cross?
He was providing for us a moralexample to follow.
That we should, you know, bewilling to die for our beliefs
and so forth and so on.
So he claimed that Christ'sdeath was supposed to influence
mankind to moral improvement, tomorally improve.
(37:45):
So when men see Christ's death,it's it's a picture of God's
love, and this is supposed tosoften our hearts and lead us to
repentance and right action ashumans.
And this was later adopted bythe Socinians in the 16th
century, and it gave prominenceto what we know today in liberal
circles, liberal Christianity.
Um a lot of churches you go to,they they believe in the moral
(38:09):
example theory.
They do not believe in thesubstitutionary blood or penal
view of the atonement that webelieve in.
Okay.
But this all started with PeterAbelard.
Um his view of the atonement, itsays is not directed toward God
to satisfy his justice, but theatonement is directed to man to
persuade men to right action.
Well, I mean, what happens tosalvation here?
(38:31):
Salvation just becomes theprocess of you making yourself
better, moral improvement,reformation of life, right?
Not transformation of life byfaith in Jesus Christ, but just
living a better life, beinginspired by Christ's example to
do better.
Well, that's not salvation, isit?
(38:53):
That's salvation by works, ifit's anything.
Not salvation by grace alonethrough faith alone in Christ.
But still, there's a truth tothis.
It is true that Christ's deathis supposed to influence men to
believe in him.
Right?
I mean, John 3.16, for God soloved the world that he gave his
only begotten son, thatwhosoever believes in him shall
(39:14):
not perish but have everlastinglife.
So, how did God love the world?
In that he sent his son to dowhat?
To be raised up on the cross inorder to do what?
To draw all men to himself.
John 12.
If I be lifted up, I will drawall men to myself.
So there is a truth to whatAbelard said, right?
(39:37):
That the cross is to influencemen, not to improvement of life,
though, right?
It is to influence men tobelieve in him so they can be
given salvation as a free gift,right?
So despite some of the problemswith his view, we still again
want to pull out the idea that,well, indeed, yes, the cross is
(40:01):
there to influence men.
And if we understand the crossright, it is attractive, right?
Because we realize that we'resinners, or as put as Jonathan
Edwards said, sinners in thehands of an angry God, right?
We're in trouble.
We're in trouble, mate, here inAustralia.
Um, I have to keep you awake,everyone.
Um we're in trouble, but whathas Christ done on the cross for
(40:25):
us?
He's taken all our trouble uponhimself, right?
He's borne the penalty that weowed, and then he offers us his
life in exchange if we believein him.
So it's attractive in thatsense.
We're like, wow, okay, mypayment's been made for me.
(40:45):
I just have to accept it.
I just have to accept it.
And it's a free gift.
So it does influence us.
It also is supposed to influencebelievers to love one another.
Look at 1 John.
Well, we're already there,right?
419.
1 John 4.19.
SPEAKER_02 (41:07):
Why do we love others?
SPEAKER_01 (41:12):
We love because he first loved us.
Well, what's the preeminentpicture of his love for us?
For God so loved the world thathe gave his unique son.
It's the crosswork of Christ.
That's the preeminent picture ofhis love for us.
Remember, he didn't he didn'thave to die, right?
He didn't have any sin.
He says, No one can take my lifefrom me.
(41:33):
I lay it down of my own accord.
And he's the only person inhistory who decided the exact
moment of his death.
He says, He said, It isfinished, and he breathed his
last, and his spirit departed.
He chose it.
Why?
Because he was done doing hiswork.
And so he said, I'm done.
Okay, I'm going.
And he gave up his spirit.
(41:55):
So he didn't have to die, but heshowed us his love by giving his
life for us, and that's why welove others.
That's why we love people whoare unlovely.
Right?
Why?
Well, I mean, because God lovedthem.
God loved them so much he senthis own son to pay for their
sins.
You mean that nasty coworkerthat I can't stand?
(42:17):
And I wish we'd just get fired,and I keep trying to set up so
they'll get fired?
Yeah, God loved them too.
So much that if they were theonly human in the world, Christ
would have come and died forthem.
See?
That's how much is love.
So we love others.
See?
So there is an example that helaid down that should influence
(42:40):
us.
So this view does have a truthto it.
See, you can't throw the babyout with the bathwater, can you?
You can say, it's wrong.
That's not the right view.
Yeah, that it is the wrong view.
I get it.
Right?
But the idea that the crossshould influence us isn't truth.
It should change how we viewother people and it should
change how we live our lives.
(43:02):
But that's still not enough.
That's not going to get you toheaven.
Just morally improving isn'tgonna help that at all.
So this view, in a sense, wasreally a significant step
backward for from Anselm becauseAnselm said, Well, hey, look,
God has to be satisfied.
And he does.
It's just not his honor thatneeds to be satisfied, it's his
(43:23):
justice.
So at the time of theReformation, the penal
substitutionary, the fourthview, um, became prominent and
it's stuck with us to this day,right?
This is a view that we all holdin modern Orthodox conservative
churches.
So the reformers, 16th century,developed Anselm satisfaction
(43:44):
theory.
They realized that truth andthey clung to it.
They saw that Christ died asubstitutionary death on the
cross to satisfy, there's theword satisfy, God's justice.
So we say penal, it's a penalsubstitutionary theory.
Penal is the legal aspect,right?
Because it's satisfying God'sjustice.
Substitution means he's doing itin our place, right?
(44:06):
We owed God, but Christ ismaking the payment to satisfy
God's justice.
And this allows God to justifysinners freely without
compromising his own justice.
So take a look at Romans 3.26real quick.
Romans 3.26.
(44:34):
Well, back up to there's so muchin this Bible.
Just teach Romans 3 today.
But this is really good section24, 3.24, 3.24, Romans 3.24.
Being justified as a gift, see,justification is a gift of God,
by his grace, through theredemption which is in Christ
Jesus.
There's a word we'll look atnext week, redemption, whom God
(44:56):
displayed publicly as apropitiation.
There it is, the satisfaction.
We'll look at that word too, inhis blood through faith.
This was to demonstrate God'srighteousness, because in the
forbearance of God he passedover the sins previously
committed.
It's talking about the spiritualsphere, right?
That Christ was satisfying onthe cross for the demonstration,
I say, of his righteousness atthe present time, so that he
(45:18):
would be just.
See, he's got to maintain hisjustice.
He can't compromise.
He can't say, well, you know,I'll just set that on the side,
backburner for a while, myjustice, and I'll just justify
people on the basis of I lovepeople.
You know, I just really lovepeople.
I'd like to be with thesepeople.
He can't do that because thenhis justice is never satisfied.
There's this there's thispayment that hasn't been made.
(45:38):
See, so he's not gonna justifyjust on the basis of love, so
that he would be just and thejustifier, the one who has faith
in Jesus.
See, he doesn't compromise atall.
He's just because the penalty'sbeen paid by Christ.
So there's no more penalty to bepaid.
Now he's free to justify anyonewho has faith.
(46:03):
Because Christ's work has freedhim to do that, so to speak,
right?
So that's the penalsubstitutionary view.
This penal view of the atonementis substitutionary, and it's
directed towards satisfyingGod's justice, not just his
honor or something like that.
Is this obvious from the OldTestament?
We'd say Exodus 12.
What is Exodus 12 about?
(46:23):
We've been through it in thelast few weeks.
You know, you got the tenplagues, and then the night of
the Passover, they, firstPassover, they go out, right?
They go out of Egypt.
Um, what what the blood of whatdid they put on the doorpost and
lentil?
(46:44):
They take that blood.
If the angel of death saw it,they'd pass over, right?
So was there a substitutionbeing made?
Yeah, it was the lamb insubstitute for the firstborn son
and firstborn of their herds,their flocks.
Okay.
Isaiah 53.6 is worth looking at.
Isaiah 53.6.
These are all worth looking at,but the point is to get the
(47:08):
point through and see itclearly.
Isaiah 53.6.
This is one of the passages thatsay when we do communion, turn
in your Bible to this passage.
And as we're passing out theelements, just read through this
chapter.
Okay?
(47:29):
Because it says, remember, whenwe take Lord's Supper, we're
supposed to do what?
Remember.
How do you remember?
Well, you read the words andthat reminds you of things,
right?
It's remembering.
Isaiah 53, 6.
All of us like sheep have goneastray.
Each of us has turned to his ownway.
Now that's Israel, but by theway, it also applies to the
whole human race, right?
Every one of us.
But the Lord has caused theiniquity of us all to fall on
(47:52):
him.
This is 700 years before theMessiah died, but it's prophetic
of his the death that he woulddie.
And is that not asubstitutionary death?
The Lord has caused the iniquityof us all to fall on him.
What we owed, he paid, right?
That's substitution.
Also, verse 12, come down a fewverses.
(48:15):
Therefore, I will allot him aportion with the great.
This is the Messiah.
He will divide the booty withthe strong, because he poured
out himself to death and wasnumbered with the transgressors.
Yet he himself bore the sin ofmany and interceded for the
transgressor.
See, he was bearing our sin.
He didn't have any sin of hisown to die for, right?
(48:35):
He was bearing his own our sin.
So it's substitutionary and it'spenal.
He's paying the price that we'dowed.
So the penal view point two hereof the atonement says the main
issue is the legal penalrequirement.
That's the fundamental thingthat's going on in the cross.
So while he did pay a ransom,right?
He paid a ransom price.
(48:55):
He wasn't paying it to Satan, hewas paying it to God.
It was to God that it was owedbecause God requires the blood,
the life.
Second, it was a satisfaction,right?
Anselm said that.
It wasn't a satisfaction ofGod's honor, though.
It was a satisfaction of God'sjustice.
Third, it is to influence men,the moral influence view, but
(49:16):
not to moral improvement.
It's to influence men to believein Christ.
And then for those who havebelieved in Christ to love as he
loved us, see.
But the penal view puts all itputs the focal point on the
legal aspect.
It is the core of the truth.
I just don't want the othertruths to get lost, see?
(49:38):
Those other truths are there.
But this view is the core ofwhat is happening on the cross.
Okay?
The main issue is the legal,penal requirement of God's
justice that must be met.
Let's look at Galatians 3.13because we haven't looked at
this one in previous weeks.
Galatians 3.13.
(50:04):
This captures a lot of it,including substitution.
Paul says to the Galatians in3.13, Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, havingbecome a curse for us.
See, that's the substitutionarything, right?
(50:24):
We were under a curse, but hebecame a curse for us.
Substitution.
For it is written, cursed iseveryone who hangs on a tree.
What, Deuteronomy 21, 21, 2, and3?
That's why we said when the Jewssaw him on the cross, what did
they think?
Oh, he's hanging on a tree.
(50:44):
Deuteronomy said that's thathe's cursed of God.
So Jesus isn't the Messiah, he'sthe cursed of God.
And Jesus said, they don't knowwhat they're doing, didn't he?
Forgive them, Father, they knownot what they do.
They thought he was the cursedof God.
Well, he was, because he tookour curse on himself on the
tree.
(51:04):
He wasn't paying for his owncurse, he wasn't under the
curse, see.
Galatians, I'm sorry, uh 2Corinthians 5.21, and we'll
close with this.
2 Corinthians 5.21.
What was happening?
Did Jesus become a sinner?
Did Jesus sin in his life?
First of all, did he have uh,well let's back up even further.
(51:25):
Did he have a sin nature?
No.
Because why?
Well, because he was virginborn, and it said the child
shall be called holy, right?
Luke 1.35.
So he's born without a sinnature.
Now, was he tempted in thisworld to sin?
Yeah, tempted in all things aswe, yet without sin, right?
(51:45):
Remember, he's impeccable.
Now, that qualifies him.
He is the only human who's everwalked around his whole life,
and he had life in himself thathe could give to others, right?
So he's not a sinner, right?
Now, did he become a sinner onthe cross?
(52:06):
In other words, were our sinsput on him in the sense that he
became a sinner?
That's what I'm asking.
No.
They were legally imputed tohim.
They were legally, he didn'tbecome sin, but our sin was
imputed to him.
That's what 2 Corinthians 5.21is saying.
He made him who knew no sin sinon our behalf.
(52:27):
There's a substitution.
Why?
So we might become therighteousness of God in him.
What happened in this himbecoming sin on our behalf is
our sin was imputed to him.
He paid the penalty for all thesin of the whole human race,
including Hitler, Mao, andanybody else who's vilely been a
member of the human race.
And he paid for all of it,right?
(52:48):
Including your sin, my sin,everybody's sin, which is all
vile.
Nasty, despicable stuff.
They can't be in God's presence.
He paid for it all in thosethree dark hours on the cross,
right?
And when he was done paying forthe sin penalty of the whole
world, he said what?
It's finished.
It's finished.
That's why it's called goodnews.
(53:12):
The problem is no longer the sinproblem between man and God.
In fact, in this verse, look atthis passage, 518.
Here we go.
All these things are from Godwho reconciled us to himself
through Christ and gave us theministry of reconciliation.
This is your ministry, myministry, our ministry.
Namely, this that God was inChrist reconciling the world to
(53:34):
himself, not counting theirtrespasses against them.
See, that's not the problemanymore.
He already paid for that.
That's paid for.
But he's committed to us, itsays this word of
reconciliation.
Therefore, we are ambassadorsfor Christ.
This is who we are, right?
This is what we're supposed tobe doing.
As though God were making anappeal through us, we become the
(53:56):
vehicles for his appeal.
We beg you, he says, on behalfof Christ, be reconciled to God.
See, God has already beenreconciled to the human race.
That's not the problem becauseChrist solved it.
And God is satisfied, He'spropitiated, He's good to go.
But people aren't reconciled toGod.
Isn't that what verse 20 says?
People aren't reconciled to God.
(54:16):
Reconciliation has in view warbeing taken away, right?
If you have two people, let'sjust say, let's just say
something crazy here.
Let's say Israel and Hamasdecided they were going to
reconcile.
Never, but anyway, you have warin the background, right?
(54:36):
To get past that, there has tobe reconciliation.
The whole human race was at warwith, or is at war with God.
God said, Hey, I'm at peace withyou.
It's been resolved by Christ.
And the whole, and everybodywho's an unbeliever is still
saying, Well, we're still at warwith you.
We're still at war with you.
Those of you who believe, yousaid, I don't want to be at war
(54:58):
with God.
I want the peace of God.
So I believe in the Lord JesusChrist, and we have peace with
God.
We've been reconciled from ourwe have reconciled ourselves
toward Him as well.
But the rest of the human race,see, no.
They're still at war with God.
Now, does that mean they'reneutral?
Are unbelievers neutral towardGod and the things of God and
toward Christ?
(55:20):
They're at war with God.
At war.
Psalm 2 was read this previoushour in the teaching on uh
Zechariah.
Psalm 2 is when that hatredthat's inside man explodes, and
you see it come out veryvisually.
We don't always see that withpeople today.
(55:41):
You see it sometimes, but theirhatred for God.
But it's all gonna come out inthe future time of difficulty,
tribulation, that time, it's inthe future.
Hatred from God, shaking theirfists at God, taking up horses
and mounting up to go to warwith God.
Right?
Psalm 2.
Um says, let them cast off theircords from us.
(56:06):
You know, man wants to beautonomous.
Man wants God out of the pictureand he wants to do whatever he
wants to do.
Here's the problem.
God gives every man everybreath, every moment.
You can't you can't live withoutGod.
You can't breathe without God,you can't speak a word without
God.
Van Til used to make.
(56:27):
He'd say, um he said he was on atrain one day and he saw a
little girl and her daddy washolding her.
And the little girl slapped herdaddy in the face.
And he said, he said, gosh, itbecame a memory I could never
put away from me because Irealized that people who hate
(56:50):
God are like that little girl.
SPEAKER_02 (56:53):
God holds them up to do it.
SPEAKER_01 (56:57):
He gives them every life, every breath, every
capability they have.
And what do they do?
They slap them in the face.
But look what look at theattraction of the crowd.
What look at what Christ hasdone for us?
There's no reason to hate God.
God has loved us so much that Hesent the second person of the
(57:21):
Trinity into this filth.
SPEAKER_02 (57:25):
Can you imagine sending your own son into a
filthy place?
SPEAKER_01 (57:32):
I don't know, somewhere like Afghanistan.
Send one of your sons as asoldier to go into that mess?
I mean, is that what you want,mothers?
Is that what you want, father?
Would you send that's nothingcompared to what God sent his
own son into, but it's just somesomething short of a good
analogy, right?
You wouldn't want to send yourown son into the field, but he
did.
Why?
Because he loved us.
(57:53):
That's why.
And yet through it all he wasn'tcontaminated by any of the
filth.
And so he has a life to give usand he gives it.
I mean, he experienced ahorrible death.
Did God have to experience thatby taking to himself a humanity?
(58:13):
Only if he loved us so much hewanted to restore the
relationship, see.
That's why a penal view of theatonement is not bland.
It can be bland if you justpresent as legal justice.
But if you understand that thejustice grew out of his love,
then you have a deeperappreciation.
(58:34):
And you want to love him as hefirst loved you, see?
You want to love others, yeah.
Why?
Because he did that for themtoo.
I used to in the final story onthe quote.
I used to have well, I stillhave believers that get mad at
me sometimes.
I've had people say absolutelyterrible things to me.
(58:56):
Um and these are believers, ofcourse.
You know, I always go back and Isay, you know what, I'm spending
eternity with that person.
The first thing I say, I'm goingto spend eternity with that
person.
So I may not see them again tillthen, but am I should I really
(59:17):
be mad at them?
I mean, what is this gonnaaccomplish in the grand scheme?
Nothing.
So the first thing to do afterthat is just to pray for them,
right?
And to promise yourself that ifyou see them again, you're gonna
do what?
You're gonna be cordial, you'regonna be kind, and and you're
gonna love them insofar asthey'll let you.
(59:38):
Because you're gonna spend aturn with that person Christ
died for you.
So if you haven't believed inthe Lord Jesus Christ, he's paid
it all, right?
Just believe in him, that youhave everlasting life.
That's a totally free gift.
SPEAKER_00 (59:49):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls
with Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spotify.
And Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
We hope you found today's lessonproductive and useful in growing
(01:00:10):
closer to God and walking moreobediently with Him.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app.
And until next time, we hope youhave a blessed and wonderful
day.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New Testamentframework.
Today, the full lesson fromJeremy Thomas.
Here's a hint of what's to come.
SPEAKER_01 (00:10):
By the way, this answers one of the most
complicated passages in the OldTestament, Leviticus 40 to 40.
I'm sorry, Ezekiel 40 to 48.
There's not 40 chapters inLeviticus.
Ezekiel 40 to 48, which talksabout sacrifices in a millennial
temple.
Remember that passage?
I mean, you've got eightchapters.
(00:32):
Many of those chapters talkabout atonement being made
during the Messianic kingdom asoffered by the priests.
And this has been a trouble spotfor many believers.
What why are there millennialsacrifices?
Christ is the final sacrificefor sin.
Why do we have these millennialsacrifices?
SPEAKER_00 (00:48):
It's so easy to have a simple view of the cross.
To look back at what Jesus didand think He saved me.
He did what was necessary tosave me.
That's absolutely true.
And yet there's so much depth tothe things that Christ
(01:11):
accomplished on the cross.
Far more than an accovering forsin, far more than a ransom
paid, far more than any sort offree gift given to us.
The depth of what occurred andthe ramifications of what
happened are so deep and moving.
(01:35):
How can we not fall upon ourknees and thank God for the
beauty of what his sonaccomplished?
Today Jeremy's going to coverjust a few of the things.
And they should amaze you andcause you to worship.
SPEAKER_01 (01:52):
Okay, the doctrine of atonement.
I want to talk a little bitabout this word first.
Then what we'll do is ask thebasic question what is the
nature of the atonement, or whatdid Christ accomplish on the
cross?
And then I want to take youthrough four views down through
church history in the process ofthe development of this doctrine
(02:15):
as Christians throughout thecenturies have studied and
attempted to unravel the meaningand nature of the atonement.
The reason I will take youthrough some church history is
to because there needs to besome respect in our modern day
for the process that the Spirittook the church through in terms
(02:41):
of our understanding of the NewTestament writings as they built
upon the Old Testament writings.
And it's not like people justwoke up after the New Testament
was written and they had allthis clarity of doctrine that we
have today.
It took centuries of mensearching the scriptures and
(03:02):
trying to understand to developthe real clear doctrinal
articulations that we havetoday.
The other reason I want to takeyou through these four views in
church history is because what'sinteresting about them is that
all four views have elements oftruth, but only one is the truth
in whole.
(03:22):
So it's it's this is commonactually.
I think sometimes when we hear aperspective, a perspective on a
certain doctrine that wedisagree with, we we say, well,
that's wrong.
Whereas sometimes in these viewsthere are truths.
(03:44):
But in the end, the way they'veorganized all the ideas, it's
not true.
But you can accept parts of it.
And I think it's in those partswe want to accept that.
We want to understand that truthbecause it's true.
Um, so in this sense, what I'msaying is not always to throw
the baby out with the bathwater,right?
(04:04):
Um, I may not be a Calvinist,but there are certain Calvinist
teachings that are true.
See, that's what I mean.
Um but at any rate, um, that'swhy I want to take you through
these four views because eachone of them does have a truth to
it.
So the doctrine of theatonement, first, let's just
talk a little bit about theword.
And I don't, yeah, I made aslide for this.
(04:26):
You know probably as well as Ido that when someone talks about
atonement, the first thing thateverybody thinks about is the
idea that in the Old Testamentthe sins were covered.
How many have ever heard thatview?
Have you heard that idea?
That, you know, they offeredthis animal sacrifice and the
sin was covered until what?
(04:46):
Until Christ came and took itall away.
I'm I'm here to tell you thatview is wrong, first of all.
I'm just gonna state it bluntly.
That's not correct.
That's not that is based on anolder uh Hebrew lexical meaning
of the term uh to uh kipper,okay, the Hebrew kipper, uh,
from which we get the atonementseat, the mercy seat, you know,
(05:08):
atonement, that word, and soforth.
So that's the most common uhview.
Now that view assumes something.
It assumes, and this is actuallya deadly assumption.
I consider this to be the mostdeadly assumption of the word,
uh, that animal sacrifices inthe Old Testament function in
the same spiritual sphere asChrist's sacrifice.
(05:29):
Now, if that's the case, ofcourse, they did not atone for
people's sins or for bringforgiveness, did they?
Because that would mean you'resaved by animal sacrifices,
right?
If those sacrifices werefunctioning in the spiritual
sphere or spiritual cleanliness,spiritual forgiveness, then that
(05:52):
would mean that you could besaved by animal sacrifices in
the Old Testament.
And that's just not true, is it?
So that's the deadly assumptionof this idea, of this uh
covering thing, or covering ideaof atonement.
Um, the these animal sacrifices,I'm gonna just ask you a
question, and it may becontroversial because people
(06:14):
have ideas, but did the OldTestament animal sacrifices
atone for sin?
Yes or no?
100% yes every single time.
And it says this all over yourOld Testament, it says it every
time in the Old Testament, everysingle time it says that they
(06:34):
were atoned for.
Now that creates uh a problem ina lot of people's mind.
But again, it's because it'sunder the assumption that it was
functioning in the samespiritual sphere that Christ's
sacrifice functioned in, andthat is patently false.
It is biblically stated to befalse.
That's why I'm taking youthrough the word.
(06:54):
Now, let's go to um the secondmeaning here, which is the
actual more accurate meaning.
This word means to, kipper meansto smear or to so as to cleanse,
to smear so as to cleanse.
It's the idea that when theanimal sacrifice was brought, it
cleansed the offering, offerer,I'm sorry, and brought
(07:16):
ceremonial cleanliness orforgiveness in the physical
sphere.
You picked up impurities bodilyunder the Old Testament Mosaic
legislation.
And because you picked up theseceremonial bodily impurities,
(07:37):
you could not be in the presenceof God who dwelt in the physical
temple, right?
That's why you couldn't go therewithout sacrifice, because God
is holy, and here you haveceremonial impurities on your
physical flesh that you pickedup, and that barred you from
being in his presence, okay?
(07:59):
So therefore, the offerer would,for these purposes, have
sacrificed, animal sacrifice, inorder to cleanse so they could
be in the presence of God whodwelled in the temple.
Now, he doesn't dwell in thephysical temple today, does he?
Where does he dwell?
In us, spiritual temples, right?
(08:21):
This you'll see is thedifference.
Okay, now that Christ has come,there's going to be a difference
in his sacrifice and the spherein which it is applicable for
our salvation, so that he candwell in us, okay?
Um, so that's where we're goingwith all this.
But let's look at Leviticus 17,and then we'll go back to
Leviticus 4.
And then we'll go to Hebrews toshow you that this is uh even
(08:46):
exactly what Hebrews 9 saysexplicitly.
There's a physical sphere forthe animal sacrifice, there's a
spiritual sphere for what Christwas doing.
Leviticus 17.
And I've taken you this beforeearlier in discussing sacrifice
(09:07):
in this series just a few weeksago.
Remember, 1711, the life of theflesh is where?
In the blood, okay?
And I've given it to you on thealtar to make what?
To make atonement.
It's there for what?
To make atonement.
Does it do that?
(09:27):
Well, yeah, that's what it'sfor.
That's what it was happening inthe Old Testament, okay?
Therefore I said to the sons ofIsrael, No person among you may
eat blood, nor may any alien whosojourns among you eat blood.
So when any man from the sons ofIsrael or from the aliens who
sojourns among them in huntingcatches a beast or a bird which
may be eaten, he shall pour outits blood and cover it with the
(09:50):
earth.
Why?
Well, because the life is in theblood, and so you would pour out
the blood and cover it with theearth, because the blood
belonged to God.
And therefore the hunter was notsupposed to consume it.
Or verse 14, the life of allflesh, its blood, the life is
(10:12):
the is the blood, with its life.
Therefore I said to the sons ofIsrael, you are not to eat the
blood of any flesh, for the lifeof all flesh is its blood.
Whoever eats it shall be cutoff.
Alright, so it was somewhatserious, right?
Well, let's read on a little bitso we see more.
When any verse 15, when anyperson eats an animal which dies
(10:33):
or is torn by beasts, whether heis a native or an alien, he
shall wash his clothes and bathein water.
What did I say earlier aboutcertain sacrifices being related
to uncleanliness of the body,physical, which barred you from
(10:54):
being in the presence of God?
I said that, right?
Because uniquely in the OldTestament, you have God
indwelling in the tabernacle andlater the temple, and you had to
go up to Jerusalem or to thetabernacle, right, in order to
worship.
Now, do we have to do that now?
Do we have to go to Jerusalem?
Do we have to bring sacrifice?
Do we have to make this annualjourney?
(11:17):
No.
Remember what Jesus said?
There is coming a day whenneither here or there will you
worship, you know, this mount orthat mount, you worship God, but
all men will worship me inspiritual truth, right?
Just wherever you are.
Why?
Because the temple's in you.
You don't have to go to it.
It's in you, right?
So things have changed with thedeath of Christ.
(11:37):
But in the Old Testament, youhad to go.
And you couldn't go into God'spresence if you had physical
impurities.
And that's what it's sayinghere.
You're unclean.
You have to do this ritual ofgoing through washing the
clothes and bathing in water andremain unclean until evening,
then you will become clean.
So there's different proceduresfor ceremonial purity in the Old
Testament.
This one did not requiresacrifice, but others did.
(11:59):
Let's go back to chapter 4,Leviticus chapter 4, which also
speaks about atonement.
Chapter 4 and verse 20.
It's talking about bringing abull and what the priest will do
and so forth, how he cuts up theanimal, what is offered, and so
forth.
And then in chapter 4, verse 20,he the priest, the priest shall
(12:25):
also do with the bull, just ashe did with the bull of the sin
offering, thus he shall do withit.
So the priest shall makeatonement for them, and they
will be what?
You can say it.
It's okay because the Bible saysit.
It's just that modern you knowtheology hasn't quite clearly
dealt with it all the time.
(12:46):
So the priest is going to makeatonement for them with this
bull of the sin offering, andthe individual will be uh
forgiven.
Um that's what I'm saying.
They they were forgiven, butthis forgiveness relates to
ceremonial impurities that theofferer had brought.
It was physical impurities, itwas not providing for their
(13:06):
spiritual well-being orspiritual salvation.
That's something that onlyChrist could do.
Right?
Does everybody agree with that?
Well, let's go see if the authorof Hebrews agrees with that.
Hebrews chapter 6.
On the way, as we go, I'llmention that the first usage of
this word kipper atonement iswith respect to the ark, Noah's
(13:31):
Ark.
You remember that after theybuilt the ark, they put a pitch
on the external surface of theark to waterproof it, right?
We don't know exactly what thissubstance was.
We think of something like a taror something like that, bitumen.
Whatever it was, though, it wassmeared.
(13:52):
See, it was smeared on the arkso as to signify that all its
inhabitants were cleansed.
It is our for first idea orpicture of what atonement will
do.
Okay, that it will cleanse thosewho are smeared, so to speak.
Okay, and the ark was smeared,so those within it were cleansed
(14:14):
before God.
Everything outside the ark wasuncleansed, right, and therefore
destroyed.
Um Hebrews chapter 9, did I say?
Yeah, 913.
Notice the distinction of spherebetween the physical sphere here
and the spiritual sphere, andthat what was happening in the
(14:36):
Old Testament with the animalsacrifices in the physical
sphere was foreshadowing whatthe Messiah would do for us in
the spiritual sphere, so hecould come dwell in us, and we
could become the temple.
9 13.
For if the blood of goats andbulls and the ashes of a heifer
sprinkling, those who have beendefiled, sanctify for the
(14:58):
cleansing of the what?
Flesh.
These sacrifices in the OldTestament had to do with
cleansing the flesh forceremonial purity purposes,
because God dwelt among them inthe tabernacle or temple, and
you couldn't go up in thatcondition and live.
(15:21):
You would be killed.
How much more, verse 14, willthe blood of Christ, who through
the eternal spirit offeredhimself without blemish to God,
cleanse your conscience fromdead works to serve the living
God?
Now, this then, Christ'ssacrifice, is functioning in a
different sphere.
It's not for the flesh, it's forthe cleansing of the conscience,
(15:42):
which is an aspect of the humanspirit.
Right?
So his sacrifice is functioningin the spiritual sphere, not in
the same sphere as the animalsacrifices.
Because under the Old Testament,nobody was saved by animal
sacrifices.
Right?
Of course not.
Um, but these sacrifices didpicture what it would take to be
(16:07):
in God's presence eternally.
We would have to be cleansedboth bodily, ultimately through
resurrection, right?
And spiritually throughregeneration, so that we can be
with God forever.
So the meaning of atonement thenis really to smear so as to
(16:29):
cleanse.
The Old Testament sacrificeslook forward to this because
they were actually atoning forpeople's sins and providing
forgiveness that in the sensethat it cleansed them from their
physical impurities so theycould enjoy ceremonial
fellowship with God at thetabernacle or temple.
But they all looked forward toor foreshadowed a sacrifice of
(16:51):
the Messiah who would providespiritual cleansing so that he
could actually come and dwell inus.
Okay?
So I know this is a littledifferent than what you've ever
heard before, probably.
But I've I have taught it sinceprobably 2005.
But anyway, it's such a newconcept in our generation that
(17:12):
people typically have troublegrasping it at first.
But that's normal, that'snormal, it just takes time.
Um by the way, this answers oneof the most complicated passages
in the Old Testament, Leviticus40 to 40.
I'm sorry, Ezekiel 40 to 48.
There's not 40 chapters inLeviticus.
(17:32):
Uh Ezekiel 40 to 48, which talksabout sacrifices in a millennial
temple.
Remember that passage?
I mean, you've got eightchapters.
Many of those chapters talkabout atonement being made
during the Messianic kingdom asoffered by the priests.
And this has been a trouble spotfor many believers.
What why are there millennialsacrifices?
(17:52):
Christ is the final sacrificefor sin.
Why do we have these millennialsacrifices?
See?
Well, they're functioning in adifferent sphere.
Again, they have to do with thefact that God is now dwelling on
earth again with men in aphysical temple.
So all the nations have to goup, right, annually to worship
(18:13):
the Lord for a thousand years.
If they're going to go up andthey picked up, we're talking
about mortals, mortal peoplegoing up.
And if they picked up ceremonialimpurities, physical
contaminations of the flesh,which bar them from being in
that proximity to God, they willhave to have sacrifice offered.
Okay, it doesn't have anythingto do with their eternal
(18:34):
salvation.
That's always by grace throughfaith and the finished work of
Jesus Christ.
That's that's a give, should bea given.
Um, but there are other purposesfor these sacrifices.
And by the way, they're notgoing to be returning to the
Mosaic law, so that's different.
They're going to be under theNew Covenant.
But the New Covenant also hasprovisions that in this sense
are similar and teach us aboutthe sphere.
So it resolves all of that.
(18:54):
That all falls into place.
If you want to read more aboutthis, I would encourage reading
something like Jerry Hollinger'sarticles on uh animal sacrifice
and so forth in atonement,kippur, and all that.
It's all very interesting stuff.
So understand atonement.
Now, now when we go to the NewTestament, what the New
Testament, guess what?
The New Testament never uses aGreek equivalent for the Hebrew
Kippur.
(19:15):
Never.
There's not one use of a Greekword for atonement.
It doesn't exist.
What happens when you come tothe New Testament is it breaks
the Old Testament concepts ofatonement into three ideas.
Some say four, but ideas,redemption, reconciliation, and
(19:38):
propitiation.
And you know all those words.
Um and some people say thefourth would be expiation.
They would separate it frompropitiation and say it's doing
something else.
So we'll talk about those wordsnext week as the New Testament
does.
But what we want to do is wewant to say, okay, we we're
pretty, are we all prettyconfident that Christ made an
atonement on the cross?
(19:59):
Yeah, I think we're all prettyconfident in that, even though
there's not a Greek word forthat.
It's described these other ways,like his redemption, that
reconciliation work, hispropitiation work.
Um, so we want to fill that outand ask the question, well, what
did it accomplish?
What is the core of what Christaccomplished on the cross?
Whatever he accomplished on thecross, it has to meet the
(20:22):
requirement of the justice ofGod.
That's what we've been harpingon for the last four or five
weeks.
God's justice, we've said, isinextricably linked to blood
sacrifice.
You know, man offended God bysending in Adam, and they
brought immediately fig leaves,right?
They went the vegetation route.
Adam and Eve did, and thatwasn't acceptable, right?
(20:44):
So God took a lamb and he slitits throat and he literally
cleaned the animal right therein front of them, and then he
took the skins, and this is thefirst uh leather clothes that
anybody wore.
So it wasn't invented by peoplewho ride Harley Davidson.
Um, leather clothing wasinvented by God, and he clothed
them, and this was saying, No,you can't come to me by way of
(21:08):
vegetation, plants, becauseplants don't have life in them,
they don't have blood, so theydon't have life.
Animals do have blood, so he wassignifying um that atonement
requires the sacrifice ofsomething living, right?
Or the lamb was dying for Adamand Eve, of course.
(21:28):
It was a picture.
Okay, now so there are two waysthen people have tried to come
to God essentially, um, throughnature in the sense of
vegetation, life, plants, and soforth, and then of course,
through sacrifice of uh livinganimals.
Um, so whatever happened on thecross, it has to fit into this
(21:49):
idea that God's justice wasbeing satisfied by the offering
of a person who shed theirblood.
And we know that.
That's well, but not everybodydoes in Christian circles.
So it has to be said.
Now, there's a history again ofhow this doctrine developed.
James Orr wrote the book,Progress of Dogma.
Just an interesting book to seethat down through church
(22:10):
history, as men study the Bible,the Holy Spirit is teaching as
we study, right?
We walk in fellowship, we studythe word, and he teaches, but it
does, he doesn't teach it all atone time, is what we've
discovered.
But he's done it over thecorridors of church history.
So uh charte this out, like theway that you can see the
doctrine develop.
In the first three centuries,the church was focusing on
(22:32):
Christology, Christ.
Who is Christ?
They knew that there's only oneGod, but the problem is that
you've got the Father.
This is very clear in the NewTestament.
You've got the Father, and weknow He's God, and then you've
got Christ, and there's so manyindications in the New Testament
that He's God too.
So they thought, well, how canthis be if you've only one God,
but you've got the Father andyou've got the Son, right?
(22:54):
So they tried to sort that outfor 300 years, and they did.
And they formulated this at acouncil and developed it.
Then they had, well, there'salso this person in the New
Testament called the HolySpirit, and he's also God.
So how do we articulate this?
(23:14):
It wasn't much harder, it onlytook about another 60 years.
By 389, they had that sortedout.
Then they were like, okay, sowe've got one God, three
persons.
How do these all work together?
And by 451 AD, they sorted itout in what we call the Trinity.
Okay.
So you can see this is takingtime.
(23:34):
We've got Christology, we've gotpneumatology, now we've got
Trinitarianism.
And then you go into the periodwhen Roman Catholicism, under
allegorical interpretation ofthe Bible, began to rise.
And for about a thousand years,you don't see a lot of
development.
But there is one figure in thisperiod that we're going to look
at in a few moments who did makesome good contributions.
(23:58):
Um by the time you get to umnow, by the way, this is the
middle, we call this the MiddleAges, not the dark ages.
Um, who do you think called itthe dark ages?
What comes after after theso-called Dark Ages?
What period?
The Enlightenment, right?
This was a humanistic movement.
Okay, they were they weresaying, oh, well, human reason
(24:19):
is ultimate.
And so what'd they do to whatwas technically the Middle Ages?
They looked back and they dubbedthat the Dark Ages.
Because that was when, you know,there was just religion and
stupid people and uh things likethat.
By the way, though, did anythinggood come out of the Middle
Ages?
Well, sure.
Hospitals, schools, well, youknow, help taking care of the
(24:42):
needy and the poor.
These were all things that thechurch developed.
I mean, humanists and pagansdidn't develop that stuff.
So there are good things thatcame out of the Middle Ages, but
you'll the history you get todayis contaminated because people
will call it the Dark Ages, andthat's to be an attack on
Christianity in any of itsforms.
Okay.
You know, the crusades and allthat.
Okay.
(25:02):
Yeah.
So anyway, some good things didcome out in the Reformation.
You've got some soteriology isdeveloped, justification by
faith, right?
That's clarified.
And then you enter into a periodin the 1800s where what we call
(25:23):
eschatology or prophecy began toreally get worked out.
So there's a progress, see?
Christology, pneumatology,trinitarianism, soteriology, and
then last thing.
Which does kind of indicate thatif we're now developing last
things and have been for 200years, we may be close to those
last things.
You know, what else would therebe to develop?
(25:44):
Most of theology has beendeveloped very carefully.
And so we may be uh close to theend of all that.
But and the church age may bealmost over.
Okay, but in the midst of this,in the Middle Ages, there is the
development of a doctrine ofatonement that I will point out
under a man named Anselm.
Okay, A-N-S-E-L-M.
(26:05):
Anselm.
But before Anselm developed, Iwant to show you what for 1100
years most Christians believedabout the atonement.
It was a ransom.
Jesus Christ was paying a ransomto Satan for Satan to release
(26:26):
the human race who was heldcaptive to him.
That was the prevailing view ofwhat Christ was doing on the
cross.
He was making a payment toSatan.
For 1,100 years, that's whatmost Christians believe.
(26:51):
Really?
For 1,100 years.
Lots of people had Bibles andread Bibles and they didn't
figure out the atonement.
So God, their idea is that Adamand Eve sold the human race over
to the devil.
God set a trap then with thecross.
This is interesting.
God set a trap with the cross.
So that the devil would fallinto that trap, right, and
(27:14):
accept Christ's blood as aransom.
You've actually already seenthis if you've read the Narnia
Chronicle.
C.S.
Lewis?
This is his view of theatonement.
By the way, C.S.
Lewis had a lot of veryunorthodox doctrine.
He believed in universalism,that everybody be saved, things
(27:35):
like that.
He believed some of the Psalmswere not inspired.
So as wonderful as he ispronounced to be, you know, in
mere Christianity, the greatestChristian book and all this
stuff.
Really not.
But um he had a lot of veryunorthodox views.
This is one of them.
He held to the ransom theory ofthe substitutionary blood, of
(27:55):
the blood atonement of Christ.
It wasn't a substitution, it wasa trick.
Remember the white witch thoughtshe had Aslan, right?
By killing him on the what wasthe rock, whatever.
Yeah, the table.
And then, you know, since shefell into the trap, and then she
(28:16):
finds out, oh God, he rose.
Uh-oh, I'm in trouble, you know.
Now, does God set traps?
I mean, is this this does castsome shadow on God's character,
as maybe he's a deceiver, maybe,in that he set a trap for Satan
to fall into.
Um, this view is also somewhatrevolting since the devil could
(28:38):
not have a just claim on thehuman race, and God somehow had
to meet the devil's demand.
God is somehow uh required, youknow, to appease Satan, and he
does that through Christ.
So you can see this view hassome really strange things to it
that probably don't gel too wellin your mind with what is
accurate or true.
(28:58):
But it does have a true part.
There's some there's some truthto this.
It's true that a ransom pricewas paid.
Matthew 20, 28.
Let's look at Matthew 20, 28.
This word ransom is isdefinitely used, Lutron or
anti-Lutron.
Um Matthew 20, 28.
(29:20):
Jesus said this.
We'll just read 26 to 28,because I like to emphasize that
a couple things here aboutChrist and what it looks like to
be Christ-like.
Matthew 20, 26.
He says, it's not this way amongyou, but whoever wishes to
become great among you, youshall be uh your servant.
(29:41):
Um and whoever wishes to befirst among you shall be your
slave.
In other words, how do youbecome great in the coming
kingdom?
Well, you become a slave.
How do you become greater thanall?
You become slave of all.
Well, you can't do that, butguess who did?
Guess who did become slave ofall?
Christ.
And that's verse 28.
Just as the Son of Man did notcome to be served, but to serve
(30:05):
and to give his life a ransomfor many.
There's the word ransom, right?
So a ransom, he was making aransom or paying a ransom price
on the cross.
But the question is, to whom wasthe ransom being made?
It's not stated here, but theseearly theologians said it was
being paid to Satan, but trulyit was actually being paid to
(30:28):
who?
God.
The payment was being made toGod.
So we've also got, let's see, 1Timothy 2.
Look at 1 Timothy 2.
By the way, all the T books aretogether, right?
1 2 Thessalonians, 1 2 Timothy,and Titus.
Five books all stuck together.
All start with T.
That makes them easy to find.
(30:48):
If you find one, you can findthe others.
1 Timothy 2, 5, and 6.
SPEAKER_02 (31:03):
1 Timothy 2, 5 and 6.
SPEAKER_01 (31:09):
For there is one God and one mediator also between
God and men, the man ChristJesus, who gave himself as a
ransom for who?
Paul.
Now we'll get into the extent ofthe atonement here in the next
few weeks.
In other words, for whom didChrist die?
Did he die for all people, ordid he die just for a subset of
the human race?
(31:30):
And we'll look more at thosepassages.
But he gave himself here as aransom for all.
So there again, ransom.
There's a sense in which aransom price was being paid on
the cross, but again, it's notbeing paid to Satan, it's being
paid to God.
And the reason is because he'sthe one who requires the blood,
Genesis 9.5.
Three times in one verse,Genesis 9 5, it says, I require
the blood.
(31:50):
It's required.
For me, it's required.
It's required.
So it's not being paid to Satan,it's being paid to God, the one
to whom blood was required.
But that's the first theory,again, held for 1100 years.
Then came a man named Anselm in1033 to 1109.
And toward the end of hiscareer, he was sort of a mystic
(32:11):
and a little bit odd, separateda lot from the common people.
But he developed what's calledthe satisfaction theory.
And he introduced this in a bookcalled Curdeus Homo, which means
why the God man?
Why did God become a man or taketo himself humanity, right?
Why is this individual, theMessiah, come into the world?
(32:33):
He said, God's honor wasoffended by man's sin.
Now you'll notice that wordhonor, that's the key word to
his view.
Okay, it's a satisfaction, butthe problem he says in the
garden with Adam and Eve is thatthey offended God's honor.
And restitution of his honor,actually greater restitution or
honor, was due.
(32:54):
But man can't give it.
We cannot give him this honorbecause we can't do enough good
works to restore God's honor.
Nevertheless, it has to beprovided by human, so it can be
on behalf of humans, but he alsohas to be God, so the payment's
valuable enough, and the honoris enough to make it uh satisfy
God.
(33:15):
And he says this was provided bythe sacrifice of the God man.
So you see the problem?
The problem is, in his view,God's honor was offended in the
garden.
Man has to give God his duehonor, but he can't do that now.
But it still has to come fromsomeone in the human race, and
(33:36):
yet it has to also be God whogives it, because only then
would it be valuable enough togive God back enough honor.
Essentially, that's Anselm'sview.
And therefore, the Messiah hadto be God and man.
Now, his book is actually moreof a justification for the
concept of the God-man, like whythe Messiah must be God and man,
(33:58):
than it is a theory of theatonement, but the two are
linked because he has to be Godand man to make the atonement
and restore God's honor.
Okay, so that's his view, and itit has some problems, but it
also has some truth to it.
Um, it's we should state veryclearly, point two, Anselm's
satisfaction view was not thepenal substitutionary atonement
(34:21):
view that we typically think of.
That Jesus Christ was paying aprice, making a payment.
That's not what he was thinking.
Okay, um, but rather God's honorwas defrauded by the rest of us
as mankind, and honor his honorneeded to be restored, and
Christ's death pays our honordebt.
(34:41):
Okay, it's an honor debt.
It's not to satisfy God'sjustice, see, it's about God's
honor.
So that's a problem.
But it is true that Christ didprovide satisfaction on the
cross.
That's why I said you have to gothrough these views because
there's an element of truth inevery one.
In the ransom theory, Christ didpay a ransom.
(35:02):
He just didn't pay to Satan.
But it is true he paid a ransom.
So we don't throw the view outentirely, we just accept the
ransom concept and apply itwhere it should be applied.
Same thing here.
There's a satisfaction that wasmade on the cross.
We would say it just what he'snot just satisfying in order to
provide honor, he's satisfyingGod's justice.
(35:26):
He's satisfying God's justice.
But the satisfaction aspect istrue.
Um turn to 1 John 2, 2.
Because see that there's there'struth in this.
1 John 2, verse 2.
This is another one that we'lllook at when we get into the
(35:47):
extent of the atonement.
For whom did Christ die?
Into verse 1, Jesus Christ therighteous, and he himself is the
what?
Propitiation.
Now that's that's kind of a bigword.
So this word basically meanssatisfaction.
Sometimes it's a marginal notethat'll say satisfaction.
He is the propitiation orsatisfaction for our sins, and
(36:11):
not for ours only, but also forthose of the whole world.
The whole world.
So there is a satisfaction truthin what Anselm said, right?
It's just errors because hisclaim is that the satisfaction
is directed to restoring God'shonor.
And our view today is that no,he was he was doing it in order
(36:35):
to pay the penalty of sin, tosatisfy God's justice.
So this view was a significantstep forward from the ransom
theory that had been held for1100 years.
And uh so, in that sense, it's agood thing.
Now, there was a guy born notlong after Anselm died.
His name was Peter Abelard, andhe really did not like Anselm's
view.
(36:56):
Um so he wrote against it.
He was actually kind of a cowboyin a lot of areas, and he
lectured on philosophy andtheology and um in Europe, and
he was always taking opposingviews.
He was just kind of acontrarian.
But um, that's okay if you'reright, but if you do it on
everything, you're probably notgoing to be right every time.
(37:18):
So Abelard introduced a viewcalled the moral example theory.
In other words, what was Christdoing on the cross?
He was providing for us a moralexample to follow.
That we should, you know, bewilling to die for our beliefs
and so forth and so on.
So he claimed that Christ'sdeath was supposed to influence
mankind to moral improvement, tomorally improve.
(37:45):
So when men see Christ's death,it's it's a picture of God's
love, and this is supposed tosoften our hearts and lead us to
repentance and right action ashumans.
And this was later adopted bythe Socinians in the 16th
century, and it gave prominenceto what we know today in liberal
circles, liberal Christianity.
Um a lot of churches you go to,they they believe in the moral
(38:09):
example theory.
They do not believe in thesubstitutionary blood or penal
view of the atonement that webelieve in.
Okay.
But this all started with PeterAbelard.
Um his view of the atonement, itsays is not directed toward God
to satisfy his justice, but theatonement is directed to man to
persuade men to right action.
Well, I mean, what happens tosalvation here?
(38:31):
Salvation just becomes theprocess of you making yourself
better, moral improvement,reformation of life, right?
Not transformation of life byfaith in Jesus Christ, but just
living a better life, beinginspired by Christ's example to
do better.
Well, that's not salvation, isit?
(38:53):
That's salvation by works, ifit's anything.
Not salvation by grace alonethrough faith alone in Christ.
But still, there's a truth tothis.
It is true that Christ's deathis supposed to influence men to
believe in him.
Right?
I mean, John 3.16, for God soloved the world that he gave his
only begotten son, thatwhosoever believes in him shall
(39:14):
not perish but have everlastinglife.
So, how did God love the world?
In that he sent his son to dowhat?
To be raised up on the cross inorder to do what?
To draw all men to himself.
John 12.
If I be lifted up, I will drawall men to myself.
So there is a truth to whatAbelard said, right?
(39:37):
That the cross is to influencemen, not to improvement of life,
though, right?
It is to influence men tobelieve in him so they can be
given salvation as a free gift,right?
So despite some of the problemswith his view, we still again
want to pull out the idea that,well, indeed, yes, the cross is
(40:01):
there to influence men.
And if we understand the crossright, it is attractive, right?
Because we realize that we'resinners, or as put as Jonathan
Edwards said, sinners in thehands of an angry God, right?
We're in trouble.
We're in trouble, mate, here inAustralia.
Um, I have to keep you awake,everyone.
Um we're in trouble, but whathas Christ done on the cross for
(40:25):
us?
He's taken all our trouble uponhimself, right?
He's borne the penalty that weowed, and then he offers us his
life in exchange if we believein him.
So it's attractive in thatsense.
We're like, wow, okay, mypayment's been made for me.
(40:45):
I just have to accept it.
I just have to accept it.
And it's a free gift.
So it does influence us.
It also is supposed to influencebelievers to love one another.
Look at 1 John.
Well, we're already there,right?
419.
1 John 4.19.
SPEAKER_02 (41:07):
Why do we love others?
SPEAKER_01 (41:12):
We love because he first loved us.
Well, what's the preeminentpicture of his love for us?
For God so loved the world thathe gave his unique son.
It's the crosswork of Christ.
That's the preeminent picture ofhis love for us.
Remember, he didn't he didn'thave to die, right?
He didn't have any sin.
He says, No one can take my lifefrom me.
(41:33):
I lay it down of my own accord.
And he's the only person inhistory who decided the exact
moment of his death.
He says, He said, It isfinished, and he breathed his
last, and his spirit departed.
He chose it.
Why?
Because he was done doing hiswork.
And so he said, I'm done.
Okay, I'm going.
And he gave up his spirit.
(41:55):
So he didn't have to die, but heshowed us his love by giving his
life for us, and that's why welove others.
That's why we love people whoare unlovely.
Right?
Why?
Well, I mean, because God lovedthem.
God loved them so much he senthis own son to pay for their
sins.
You mean that nasty coworkerthat I can't stand?
(42:17):
And I wish we'd just get fired,and I keep trying to set up so
they'll get fired?
Yeah, God loved them too.
So much that if they were theonly human in the world, Christ
would have come and died forthem.
See?
That's how much is love.
So we love others.
See?
So there is an example that helaid down that should influence
(42:40):
us.
So this view does have a truthto it.
See, you can't throw the babyout with the bathwater, can you?
You can say, it's wrong.
That's not the right view.
Yeah, that it is the wrong view.
I get it.
Right?
But the idea that the crossshould influence us isn't truth.
It should change how we viewother people and it should
change how we live our lives.
(43:02):
But that's still not enough.
That's not going to get you toheaven.
Just morally improving isn'tgonna help that at all.
So this view, in a sense, wasreally a significant step
backward for from Anselm becauseAnselm said, Well, hey, look,
God has to be satisfied.
And he does.
It's just not his honor thatneeds to be satisfied, it's his
(43:23):
justice.
So at the time of theReformation, the penal
substitutionary, the fourthview, um, became prominent and
it's stuck with us to this day,right?
This is a view that we all holdin modern Orthodox conservative
churches.
So the reformers, 16th century,developed Anselm satisfaction
(43:44):
theory.
They realized that truth andthey clung to it.
They saw that Christ died asubstitutionary death on the
cross to satisfy, there's theword satisfy, God's justice.
So we say penal, it's a penalsubstitutionary theory.
Penal is the legal aspect,right?
Because it's satisfying God'sjustice.
Substitution means he's doing itin our place, right?
(44:06):
We owed God, but Christ ismaking the payment to satisfy
God's justice.
And this allows God to justifysinners freely without
compromising his own justice.
So take a look at Romans 3.26real quick.
Romans 3.26.
(44:34):
Well, back up to there's so muchin this Bible.
Just teach Romans 3 today.
But this is really good section24, 3.24, 3.24, Romans 3.24.
Being justified as a gift, see,justification is a gift of God,
by his grace, through theredemption which is in Christ
Jesus.
There's a word we'll look atnext week, redemption, whom God
(44:56):
displayed publicly as apropitiation.
There it is, the satisfaction.
We'll look at that word too, inhis blood through faith.
This was to demonstrate God'srighteousness, because in the
forbearance of God he passedover the sins previously
committed.
It's talking about the spiritualsphere, right?
That Christ was satisfying onthe cross for the demonstration,
I say, of his righteousness atthe present time, so that he
(45:18):
would be just.
See, he's got to maintain hisjustice.
He can't compromise.
He can't say, well, you know,I'll just set that on the side,
backburner for a while, myjustice, and I'll just justify
people on the basis of I lovepeople.
You know, I just really lovepeople.
I'd like to be with thesepeople.
He can't do that because thenhis justice is never satisfied.
There's this there's thispayment that hasn't been made.
(45:38):
See, so he's not gonna justifyjust on the basis of love, so
that he would be just and thejustifier, the one who has faith
in Jesus.
See, he doesn't compromise atall.
He's just because the penalty'sbeen paid by Christ.
So there's no more penalty to bepaid.
Now he's free to justify anyonewho has faith.
(46:03):
Because Christ's work has freedhim to do that, so to speak,
right?
So that's the penalsubstitutionary view.
This penal view of the atonementis substitutionary, and it's
directed towards satisfyingGod's justice, not just his
honor or something like that.
Is this obvious from the OldTestament?
We'd say Exodus 12.
What is Exodus 12 about?
(46:23):
We've been through it in thelast few weeks.
You know, you got the tenplagues, and then the night of
the Passover, they, firstPassover, they go out, right?
They go out of Egypt.
Um, what what the blood of whatdid they put on the doorpost and
lentil?
(46:44):
They take that blood.
If the angel of death saw it,they'd pass over, right?
So was there a substitutionbeing made?
Yeah, it was the lamb insubstitute for the firstborn son
and firstborn of their herds,their flocks.
Okay.
Isaiah 53.6 is worth looking at.
Isaiah 53.6.
These are all worth looking at,but the point is to get the
(47:08):
point through and see itclearly.
Isaiah 53.6.
This is one of the passages thatsay when we do communion, turn
in your Bible to this passage.
And as we're passing out theelements, just read through this
chapter.
Okay?
(47:29):
Because it says, remember, whenwe take Lord's Supper, we're
supposed to do what?
Remember.
How do you remember?
Well, you read the words andthat reminds you of things,
right?
It's remembering.
Isaiah 53, 6.
All of us like sheep have goneastray.
Each of us has turned to his ownway.
Now that's Israel, but by theway, it also applies to the
whole human race, right?
Every one of us.
But the Lord has caused theiniquity of us all to fall on
(47:52):
him.
This is 700 years before theMessiah died, but it's prophetic
of his the death that he woulddie.
And is that not asubstitutionary death?
The Lord has caused the iniquityof us all to fall on him.
What we owed, he paid, right?
That's substitution.
Also, verse 12, come down a fewverses.
(48:15):
Therefore, I will allot him aportion with the great.
This is the Messiah.
He will divide the booty withthe strong, because he poured
out himself to death and wasnumbered with the transgressors.
Yet he himself bore the sin ofmany and interceded for the
transgressor.
See, he was bearing our sin.
He didn't have any sin of hisown to die for, right?
(48:35):
He was bearing his own our sin.
So it's substitutionary and it'spenal.
He's paying the price that we'dowed.
So the penal view point two hereof the atonement says the main
issue is the legal penalrequirement.
That's the fundamental thingthat's going on in the cross.
So while he did pay a ransom,right?
He paid a ransom price.
(48:55):
He wasn't paying it to Satan, hewas paying it to God.
It was to God that it was owedbecause God requires the blood,
the life.
Second, it was a satisfaction,right?
Anselm said that.
It wasn't a satisfaction ofGod's honor, though.
It was a satisfaction of God'sjustice.
Third, it is to influence men,the moral influence view, but
(49:16):
not to moral improvement.
It's to influence men to believein Christ.
And then for those who havebelieved in Christ to love as he
loved us, see.
But the penal view puts all itputs the focal point on the
legal aspect.
It is the core of the truth.
I just don't want the othertruths to get lost, see?
(49:38):
Those other truths are there.
But this view is the core ofwhat is happening on the cross.
Okay?
The main issue is the legal,penal requirement of God's
justice that must be met.
Let's look at Galatians 3.13because we haven't looked at
this one in previous weeks.
Galatians 3.13.
(50:04):
This captures a lot of it,including substitution.
Paul says to the Galatians in3.13, Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, havingbecome a curse for us.
See, that's the substitutionarything, right?
(50:24):
We were under a curse, but hebecame a curse for us.
Substitution.
For it is written, cursed iseveryone who hangs on a tree.
What, Deuteronomy 21, 21, 2, and3?
That's why we said when the Jewssaw him on the cross, what did
they think?
Oh, he's hanging on a tree.
(50:44):
Deuteronomy said that's thathe's cursed of God.
So Jesus isn't the Messiah, he'sthe cursed of God.
And Jesus said, they don't knowwhat they're doing, didn't he?
Forgive them, Father, they knownot what they do.
They thought he was the cursedof God.
Well, he was, because he tookour curse on himself on the
tree.
(51:04):
He wasn't paying for his owncurse, he wasn't under the
curse, see.
Galatians, I'm sorry, uh 2Corinthians 5.21, and we'll
close with this.
2 Corinthians 5.21.
What was happening?
Did Jesus become a sinner?
Did Jesus sin in his life?
First of all, did he have uh,well let's back up even further.
(51:25):
Did he have a sin nature?
No.
Because why?
Well, because he was virginborn, and it said the child
shall be called holy, right?
Luke 1.35.
So he's born without a sinnature.
Now, was he tempted in thisworld to sin?
Yeah, tempted in all things aswe, yet without sin, right?
(51:45):
Remember, he's impeccable.
Now, that qualifies him.
He is the only human who's everwalked around his whole life,
and he had life in himself thathe could give to others, right?
So he's not a sinner, right?
Now, did he become a sinner onthe cross?
(52:06):
In other words, were our sinsput on him in the sense that he
became a sinner?
That's what I'm asking.
No.
They were legally imputed tohim.
They were legally, he didn'tbecome sin, but our sin was
imputed to him.
That's what 2 Corinthians 5.21is saying.
He made him who knew no sin sinon our behalf.
(52:27):
There's a substitution.
Why?
So we might become therighteousness of God in him.
What happened in this himbecoming sin on our behalf is
our sin was imputed to him.
He paid the penalty for all thesin of the whole human race,
including Hitler, Mao, andanybody else who's vilely been a
member of the human race.
And he paid for all of it,right?
(52:48):
Including your sin, my sin,everybody's sin, which is all
vile.
Nasty, despicable stuff.
They can't be in God's presence.
He paid for it all in thosethree dark hours on the cross,
right?
And when he was done paying forthe sin penalty of the whole
world, he said what?
It's finished.
It's finished.
That's why it's called goodnews.
(53:12):
The problem is no longer the sinproblem between man and God.
In fact, in this verse, look atthis passage, 518.
Here we go.
All these things are from Godwho reconciled us to himself
through Christ and gave us theministry of reconciliation.
This is your ministry, myministry, our ministry.
Namely, this that God was inChrist reconciling the world to
(53:34):
himself, not counting theirtrespasses against them.
See, that's not the problemanymore.
He already paid for that.
That's paid for.
But he's committed to us, itsays this word of
reconciliation.
Therefore, we are ambassadorsfor Christ.
This is who we are, right?
This is what we're supposed tobe doing.
As though God were making anappeal through us, we become the
(53:56):
vehicles for his appeal.
We beg you, he says, on behalfof Christ, be reconciled to God.
See, God has already beenreconciled to the human race.
That's not the problem becauseChrist solved it.
And God is satisfied, He'spropitiated, He's good to go.
But people aren't reconciled toGod.
Isn't that what verse 20 says?
People aren't reconciled to God.
(54:16):
Reconciliation has in view warbeing taken away, right?
If you have two people, let'sjust say, let's just say
something crazy here.
Let's say Israel and Hamasdecided they were going to
reconcile.
Never, but anyway, you have warin the background, right?
(54:36):
To get past that, there has tobe reconciliation.
The whole human race was at warwith, or is at war with God.
God said, Hey, I'm at peace withyou.
It's been resolved by Christ.
And the whole, and everybodywho's an unbeliever is still
saying, Well, we're still at warwith you.
We're still at war with you.
Those of you who believe, yousaid, I don't want to be at war
(54:58):
with God.
I want the peace of God.
So I believe in the Lord JesusChrist, and we have peace with
God.
We've been reconciled from ourwe have reconciled ourselves
toward Him as well.
But the rest of the human race,see, no.
They're still at war with God.
Now, does that mean they'reneutral?
Are unbelievers neutral towardGod and the things of God and
toward Christ?
(55:20):
They're at war with God.
At war.
Psalm 2 was read this previoushour in the teaching on uh
Zechariah.
Psalm 2 is when that hatredthat's inside man explodes, and
you see it come out veryvisually.
We don't always see that withpeople today.
(55:41):
You see it sometimes, but theirhatred for God.
But it's all gonna come out inthe future time of difficulty,
tribulation, that time, it's inthe future.
Hatred from God, shaking theirfists at God, taking up horses
and mounting up to go to warwith God.
Right?
Psalm 2.
Um says, let them cast off theircords from us.
(56:06):
You know, man wants to beautonomous.
Man wants God out of the pictureand he wants to do whatever he
wants to do.
Here's the problem.
God gives every man everybreath, every moment.
You can't you can't live withoutGod.
You can't breathe without God,you can't speak a word without
God.
Van Til used to make.
(56:27):
He'd say, um he said he was on atrain one day and he saw a
little girl and her daddy washolding her.
And the little girl slapped herdaddy in the face.
And he said, he said, gosh, itbecame a memory I could never
put away from me because Irealized that people who hate
(56:50):
God are like that little girl.
SPEAKER_02 (56:53):
God holds them up to do it.
SPEAKER_01 (56:57):
He gives them every life, every breath, every
capability they have.
And what do they do?
They slap them in the face.
But look what look at theattraction of the crowd.
What look at what Christ hasdone for us?
There's no reason to hate God.
God has loved us so much that Hesent the second person of the
(57:21):
Trinity into this filth.
SPEAKER_02 (57:25):
Can you imagine sending your own son into a
filthy place?
SPEAKER_01 (57:32):
I don't know, somewhere like Afghanistan.
Send one of your sons as asoldier to go into that mess?
I mean, is that what you want,mothers?
Is that what you want, father?
Would you send that's nothingcompared to what God sent his
own son into, but it's just somesomething short of a good
analogy, right?
You wouldn't want to send yourown son into the field, but he
did.
Why?
Because he loved us.
(57:53):
That's why.
And yet through it all he wasn'tcontaminated by any of the
filth.
And so he has a life to give usand he gives it.
I mean, he experienced ahorrible death.
Did God have to experience thatby taking to himself a humanity?
(58:13):
Only if he loved us so much hewanted to restore the
relationship, see.
That's why a penal view of theatonement is not bland.
It can be bland if you justpresent as legal justice.
But if you understand that thejustice grew out of his love,
then you have a deeperappreciation.
(58:34):
And you want to love him as hefirst loved you, see?
You want to love others, yeah.
Why?
Because he did that for themtoo.
I used to in the final story onthe quote.
I used to have well, I stillhave believers that get mad at
me sometimes.
I've had people say absolutelyterrible things to me.
(58:56):
Um and these are believers, ofcourse.
You know, I always go back and Isay, you know what, I'm spending
eternity with that person.
The first thing I say, I'm goingto spend eternity with that
person.
So I may not see them again tillthen, but am I should I really
(59:17):
be mad at them?
I mean, what is this gonnaaccomplish in the grand scheme?
Nothing.
So the first thing to do afterthat is just to pray for them,
right?
And to promise yourself that ifyou see them again, you're gonna
do what?
You're gonna be cordial, you'regonna be kind, and and you're
gonna love them insofar asthey'll let you.
(59:38):
Because you're gonna spend aturn with that person Christ
died for you.
So if you haven't believed inthe Lord Jesus Christ, he's paid
it all, right?
Just believe in him, that youhave everlasting life.
That's a totally free gift.
SPEAKER_00 (59:49):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls
with Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spotify.
And Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
We hope you found today's lessonproductive and useful in growing
(01:00:10):
closer to God and walking moreobediently with Him.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app.
And until next time, we hope youhave a blessed and wonderful
day.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.