Expedition 44 is Dr. Will Ryan's Theology Video Site. Dr. Ryan is the Chair of Theology and Biblical Studies for Covenant Theological Seminary.

expedition44

Today we get to the crucial question of what does it mean that "Jesus died for us?”, The Nicaean Creed says that Jesus died “for us and for our salvation” In evangelical and western theology, we make a lot of these phrases, and they are important theologically, but we put a lot of freight into the preposition “FOR” and assume an understanding that might not even be in the text. 
 
 
“For” 
Does this phrase, “for us” (or “for all”), mean “for our sake” (benefaction), or “on our behalf” (representation), or “in our place” (substitution)? 
There are 4 Greek words used as the 1 English word “for”. Greek is specific. 
 
 
Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange) 
• Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38) 
• “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17) 
• Ransom for (anti) many (Mark 10:45) 
Dia: Because of or on account of 
• We looked at this in our Isaiah 53 episode (dia and mim) 
• Doesn’t ever mean “in the place of” 
Peri: Concerning, about 
 
 
Huper: 
• in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of, 
• the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for, and 
• denoting general content: about, concerning. 
• It is interesting that Paul always uses huper when talking about Christ’s death being “for us” or “for our sin” 
Conclusions: 
• “For us” is about 
• Representation not substitution 
• Rescue and healing not punishment 
• benefit out of love not wrath or appeasing justice 
• Huper and peri are always used in the “for us” and “for our sins” verses. 
• These are about representation or simply concerning the benefit 
• If they meant to communication substitution or PSA, they would have used anti, but that word for exchange or substitution is never used except in Mark 10:45 (ransom for many), which we covered in our gospel episode and showed that it is not about Penal Substitution. 
• Substitution neglects the two-sidedness of Christ’s work: Christ acts both on behalf of God, representing God to humanity, and on behalf of humanity, representing humanity to God. 
• Penal Substitution flies in the face of the Torah which in multiple places forbids for someone to die in the place of another for their sins. 
• Representation, therefore, allows us to express the two-sidedness of the one undivided divine work of salvation. 
• Substitution carries an individualistic emphasis: we think of substitution as primarily an exchange between individuals—this one in place of that one. Yet, Paul nearly always uses plural, corporate language when speaking concerning Christ’s death “for” others. Only twice does Paul use singular terms with an individual emphasis. 
• In every other instance, some fifteen times, Paul uses plural language with a corporate emphasis. This corporate emphasis is reflected in the plural language used elsewhere in the New Testament concerning Christ’s death “for” others. Jesus is not the universal substitute, taking the place of each human one by one (exclusion), but rather our corporate representative, representing the place of all humanity at once (inclusion)— “once for all” (Rom 6:10). 
 
 
What does “for us” look like? 
Jesus dying for us is God entering into our world on a rescue mission. He enters into our muck to show us how to truly be human and deliver us from the powers of sin and death that enslave us. Humanity and the Powers killed God but, in his death, He swallowed up death in his victorious resurrection. Jesus did that to Sin and Death for us. That is something we could not do for ourselves being weak in sinful flesh and entangled with the Powers. Now, those in Him are new creations and we’re empowered by His Spirit to live a life of love that look like Jesus; the true image of God, who is the representative of all humanity.

Today we get to the crucial question of what does it mean that "Jesus died for us?”, The Nicaean Creed says that Jesus died “for us and for our salvation” In evangelical and western theology, we make a lot of these phrases, and they are important theologically, but we put a lot of freight into the preposition “FOR” and assume an understanding that might not even be in the text. 


“For”
Does this phrase, “for us” (or “for all”), mean “for our sake” (benefaction), or “on our behalf” (representation), or “in our place” (substitution)?
There are 4 Greek words used as the 1 English word “for”. Greek is specific. 


Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
• Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
• “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)
• Ransom for (anti) many (Mark 10:45)
Dia: Because of or on account of
• We looked at this in our Isaiah 53 episode (dia and mim)
• Doesn’t ever mean “in the place of”
Peri: Concerning, about


Huper: 

Expedition 44 The Atonement Series Part 8: Jesus died for us Greek Anti vs Huper, Dia, Peri Doc Ryan

Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis Dive into atonement in the book of Hebrews. 
 
By offering his own life and blood Jesus made purification (1:3) and atonement for sin (2:17- 18). These are big picture summary statements. But where, how, and by what logic? For this, we need other passages to provide details. 
• Jesus’ death obviously happened on the cross, but Hebrews is explicit that the atonement happened somewhere else—in 9:11-14, 24—the heavenly tabernacle. Atonement didn’t happen on the cross. 
• Jesus’ atoning work accomplishing many things: 
- Removes (purges) sin (9:24-28) 
- Forgives sin (10:18) 
- Sanctifies and perfects us (10:10, 12-14) 
- Gives us confidence to approach God with a clean conscience (Heb 10:19) 
- Frees us from the fear of death and destroys the one who has the power of death (Heb 2:14) 
- Mediated a new covenant with his sprinkled blood – this alludes to the blood Moses sprinkled on the people when making the old covenant (Exod 24:6-8) and the blood Jesus sprinkled in the heavenly tabernacle to make a new covenant. This points to the function of the blood being what it does for us in the heavenly tabernacle, not how it satisfied God’s wrath on the cross. (Heb 12:22-24) 
- Makes us complete in everything so we may do God’s will (Heb 13:20-21) 
• Jesus became flesh, learned obedience, suffered, and tasted death to become a perfect high priest by virtue of being able to relate to us in our suffering and death (Heb 2:9-10, 17-18; 5:8) 
• Jesus became priest through the power of an indestructible life, which means that “death” died on the cross more so than Jesus! (Heb 7:16) 
• Christ endured the cross for the joy set before him – nothing about facing God’s wrath on our behalf (Heb 12:2) 
 
 
So, what’s missing here in Hebrew’s view of Jesus’ death?... It does accomplish a lot of things… but there’s nothing about His death as what finally satisfies the wrath of God. There’s nothing related to a payment for sins. There’s nothing about Jesus taking our place or dying the death we deserved. It’s all missing from the text… to get there you have to import it or read it into the scriptures… In the next episode we’ll look at what it actually means that “Jesus died for our sins”.

Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis Dive into atonement in the book of Hebrews.

By offering his own life and blood Jesus made purification (1:3) and atonement for sin (2:17- 18). These are big picture summary statements. But where, how, and by what logic? For this, we need other passages to provide details. 
• Jesus’ death obviously happened on the cross, but Hebrews is explicit that the atonement happened somewhere else—in 9:11-14, 24—the heavenly tabernacle. Atonement didn’t happen on the cross. 
• Jesus’ atoning work accomplishing many things: 
- Removes (purges) sin (9:24-28) 
- Forgives sin (10:18) 
- Sanctifies and perfects us (10:10, 12-14) 
- Gives us confidence to approach God with a clean conscience (Heb 10:19) 
- Frees us from the fear of death and destroys the one who has the power of death (Heb 2:14) 
- Mediated a new covenant with his sprinkled blood – this alludes to the blood Moses sprinkled on the people when making the old covenant (Exod 24:6-8) and the blood Jesus sprinkled 

Atonement Series part 7: Hebrews Expedition 44 Theology and Biblical Studies Theories of Atonement

What is Romans about? 
 
Romans is a pastoral letter that does contain theology but the purpose is not to lay out systematic theology. The theology in the letter is to service Paul's purpose in the Roman church dealing with issues between the weak and the strong. 
The Gospel 
Romans 1:2-4 is Paul’s Gospel. Some think the gospel of which Paul is “not ashamed of” comes after Romans 1:16-17 (beginning with wrath on humanity) but it is actually what he begins his letter with, and he explicitly states it. This is shown in Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 which states that “the righteous will live by faith (or faithfulness)”. In the Hebrew Bible’s context of Habakkuk, God’s own faithfulness to His covenant is in question by the events happening in that time. What is called for in the situation is faith and that will be the true marking of God’s covenant people in times of trials and persecution. Yet in the LXX the verse refers to God’s own faithfulness as the means of life for his covenant people. Paul’s thesis is that the righteousness of God is His own faithfulness to the covenant and that is revealed in Christ’s faithful life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. Covenant membership is available to those who are faithful, and this is made available through/by Christ’s faithfulness. 
The Wrath 
Romans 1:18-32 talks about the wrath of God that is revealed against all unrighteousness. Coming back to our conversation of sin in the intro episode, Paul agrees here. He connects sin to idolatry, and we see that the sins (immoral behavior) are symptoms of the disease. 
 
Justified by what?? 
Justified by faith Alone. was one of the mantras of the Protestant Reformation and it has led to some issues… First, “alone” is not in the text. The only place where it mentions “faith alone” is in James 2 where it says we are not justified by faith alone but also by our works. If by “faith alone” you mean we are justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), by Jesus’ blood (Rom. 5:8), by Jesus’ resurrection (Rom. 4:25), by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28), and by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24), then great, you agree with the Bible. 
Romans 3:23-26 
Romans 4:24-25 
 
Peace with God- Romans 5:1 
Ecomen here is translated “we have” in the indicative mood. But our earliest manuscripts have this word as echōmen, meaning “let us have” as a subjunctive. The subjunctive reading is preferred based on manuscript evidence for the earliest dating and based on context. The following verses go into perseverance in suffering and exhortations to be like Christ (moral influence). This is based on Jesus’ vindication from his sufferings and not based on debt repayment. 
Romans 5:6-19 
Romans 6:3-14 
 
Romans 8:1-4 
Jesus bore our sin in that he bore our wrath and violence against Him. As Brian Zahnd says, “At the cross we violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus absorbed them, died because of them, carried them into death, and rose on the third day to speak the first words of the new world: “Peace be with you.” 
 
Romans 10:9 
Most “sinners’ prayers” have something to do with accepting Jesus’ death to pay your sin debt or appease God’s wrath and many try to get that from this verse. Note that the verse says nothing about Jesus’ death but about his resurrection. This is consistent with the gospel in Romans 1:2-4 in the theme of Jesus as king (“Lord”) and the resurrection. 
 
Romans Conclusions 
• The gospel in Romans is centered on Jesus’ kingship and his resurrection. 
• As a gift of grace, God overlooks generations of sins and purges them through the blood of Jesus. All that he requires of the recipients of his gift is allegiance. (3:22-26…4:4-8) 
• Jesus died for our transgressions and was raised for our justification (4:24-25). NOTE: many people collapse the accomplishments of the resurrection and ascension into the cross, where the NT appears to distinguish between them in various ways. 
• God demonstrates his love for us on the cross (5:8) 
• It is Jesus’ obedience and righteousness that allows the gift of his life to deal with our transgressions as an act of God’s grace; God does not make him the epitome of our sin so that he can vent his wrath on Jesus instead of us. The logic, like that of the OT sacrificial system is that the offering represents the good, the right, the pure, the best, which serves as a deposit for the good life that we fail to live for God (Rom 5:9-21) 
• Jesus’ death and resurrection serves a pattern for our transition from old life to new life. A New Exodus. (6:3-14) 
• In dying, Jesus dealt a death blow to sin that we may walk in newness of life (8:3) 
• Jesus’ death led to his exaltation so he can intercede for us (8:32) 
There’s no PSA framework in Romans. We have a lot of Christus Victor, Recapitulation, and Moral Influence.

What is Romans about?

Romans is a pastoral letter that does contain theology but the purpose is not to lay out systematic theology. The theology in the letter is to service Paul's purpose in the Roman church dealing with issues between the weak and the strong. 
The Gospel
Romans 1:2-4 is Paul’s Gospel. Some think the gospel of which Paul is “not ashamed of” comes after Romans 1:16-17 (beginning with wrath on humanity) but it is actually what he begins his letter with, and he explicitly states it. This is shown in Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 which states that “the righteous will live by faith (or faithfulness)”. In the Hebrew Bible’s context of Habakkuk, God’s own faithfulness to His covenant is in question by the events happening in that time. What is called for in the situation is faith and that will be the true marking of God’s covenant people in times of trials and persecution. Yet in the LXX the verse refers to God’s own faithfulness as the means of life for his covenant peop

The Atonement Series Part 6: Romans with Dr. Will Ryan and Matt Mouzakis CTS Expedition 44

X44 Atonement: Gospels and Acts with Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis of Covenant Theological Seminary 
 
Son of Man (Dan 7) - Healing- serpent in the wilderness 
John 3:14-17 & John 12:32-33 
 
Ransom for many 
Matt 10:28/Mark 10:41-45 
• Ransom: Lutron in Greek. Means the price of release or manumission (release from slavery). In its primary usage, the lutron/kōpher referred to neither a sacrifice for sin nor a punishment for transgression, but a price of release or a price of return. 
o Kopher (Hebrew of Greek Lutron) is used this way: God’s redemption of Israel from exile: “I give Egypt as your ransom (kōpher), Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you” (Isa 43:3) 
• Is Jesus a substitute here?... ransom “FOR” many 
o Ransom for PSA has the notion of substitution, pointing to the Greek preposition anti (“for”), which carries the meaning of “exchange”—“this for that” (Latin, quid pro quo). That is precisely the meaning of anti in those texts where Paul instructs the church to renounce the world’s practice of retributive justice: “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17; cf. 1 Thess 5:15). Is Jesus the “ransom,” therefore, a substitute? 
 
• Ransom: A price paid? 
o If we wonder what “price” God has “paid” to ransom Israel from captivity in Babylon, the prophet tells us—none: “For thus says the LORD: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money” (Isa 52:3). God need not “pay” any “price” to anyone to redeem his people; for the “ransomed of the Lord” are liberated by God, not by an exchange between God and some other power. 
 
Gospels Summary: 
• Jesus uses the “Son of man” title to talk about his kingship but also about the defeat of the powers as in Daniel 7 and the defeat of the beasts. 
• Jesus’ ministry about healing. God loved the world and sent Jesus to heal it. Jesus is depicted more as a doctor than a lawyer. In our first episode we talked about the fact that you can’t punish a disease out of someone, and Jesus came to heal our sin and not punish it out of us. 
• Ransom is connected to a new exodus. It means to free slaves. It was costly to God as it meant that Jesus’ life was given up for us. But this wasn’t a payment. As in the Exodus God’s ransom was by his mighty hand and he didn’t pay off himself or the powers… it was a rescue mission. 
• The New Covenant spoken of at the last supper was inaugurated on the cross. The New Covenant in Jeremiah relates to the end of Exile. This is the way out of our exile from Eden, the reversal of Babel (disinheriting of the nations), and Israel’s exile (connect this to Pentecost when all the diaspora gets the news of King Jesus). 
• “The cup” is connected to God handing Israel over to the nations. God allowed Jesus to be handed over to Rome and the temple leaders to fulfill his mission. This is not active wrath but letting the people have their way as we saw in our wrath of God episode. The Barabbas story is connected here. 
• “My God why have you forsaken me?” Was a cry, in Jesus’ humanity, of what he was experiencing but he is quoting Psalm 22 where God didn’t forsake the psalmist and God didn’t forsake Jesus. There is not split in the Godhead. 
• We see in the gospels that the Cross was man’s doing, God knew it would happen, but it was the wrath of the people. But we see the character of God in this that Jesus state “Father forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing.” (Notice Jesus is forgiving here and elsewhere even before his death) 
 
• There is nowhere in the Gospels and Acts that in anyway talk about God punishing Jesus in our place 
• Jesus dies because of our sins (at the hands of sinful people) and as a result of Israel’s sin. 
• Jesus dies to create a new covenant that results in healing and the end of exile for all humanity (This connects to the release from slavery and defeat of the Powers) 
• The cross didn’t purchase forgiveness, but even through people killed Jesus he forgave, and forgiveness is more tied to the resurrection and ascension (in Acts especially).

X44 Atonement: Gospels and Acts with Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis of Covenant Theological Seminary

Son of Man (Dan 7) - Healing- serpent in the wilderness
John 3:14-17 & John 12:32-33

Ransom for many
Matt 10:28/Mark 10:41-45
• Ransom: Lutron in Greek. Means the price of release or manumission (release from slavery). In its primary usage, the lutron/kōpher referred to neither a sacrifice for sin nor a punishment for transgression, but a price of release or a price of return.
o Kopher (Hebrew of Greek Lutron) is used this way: God’s redemption of Israel from exile: “I give Egypt as your ransom (kōpher), Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you” (Isa 43:3)
• Is Jesus a substitute here?... ransom “FOR” many
o Ransom for PSA has the notion of substitution, pointing to the Greek preposition anti (“for”), which carries the meaning of “exchange”—“this for that” (Latin, quid pro quo). That is precisely the meaning of anti in those texts where Paul instructs the church to renounce the world’s pract

X44 PART 5: Atonement the Gospels and Acts Expedition 44 Biblical Theology CTS Theories

3 views: 
• PSA view of bearing sin and wrath. Sees this as a direct prophecy about the Messiah 
• Historical view sees the servant as Israel as it is defined elsewhere in Isaiah. 
• The context is about Israel, Christ is the fulfillment of Israel. We only use this text in the way the NT writers apply it and nothing further. 
 
LXX (Septuagint) 
•When it comes to Isaiah 53 when it is quoted in the NT it shows that God is not killing the servant, but people are. God heals the servant. 
•Usually, the best practice is to go with the oldest manuscript (LXX here) for interpretation 
 
 
Not a single use of Is 53 from the NT writers that even remotely points to PSA, propitiation, wrath, payment, or debt language. 
 
 
This interpretation of the Isaiah 53, therefore, not only offers an alternative to penal substitution, but also shows how the justice-doing, peacemaking work of Jesus Christ can be seen to fulfill the prophetic vision of the Lord’s Servant. 
 
Context 
•Exile: The historical situation and canonical context of Isaiah—exile—suggests a background, that of a people burdened under the weight of their own iniquity and bearing the wounds of their own transgressions. Isaiah understood Israel’s exile in Babylon as the consequence of the nation’s sins (cf. Deut 4:25–31; 28:15–68; 2 Kgs 23:26–27; 24:3–4, 19–20; Isaiah 1; 40:1–2; 42:24). 
•Now, were the Servant’s death a penal substitution, he would suffer in place of the people and dies to pay the penalty for their sins. We would expect that the people for whom he suffers, and dies would not be suffering the consequences of their own sins (by the logic of substitution, those consequences would be transferred to the Servant instead, sparing the people the suffering they deserve). Therefore, we would expect the Servant to suffer exile in place of the people. To the contrary, the people do suffer exile for their owns sins, which reveals God’s judgment upon his people. And having suffered exile as the consequence of their own sin, the people need redemption by God from the captivity into which their own sin has delivered them (cf. Isa 42:18–25; 43:25–28; 49:13, 24–26; 50:1; 51:21–23). 
 
Takeaways from Isaiah 53 
•“For our transgressions” is “on account of” or “because of”, not “in place of” based on the language (min and dia). Representation and not substitution. 
•The context is about exile. The servant enters into their exile in order to heal them (this is bearing their sin). 
•The LXX writers also seem to notice this as it has God removed from the actions against the Servant where the MT makes that a little muddier. 
•There is no mention of propitiating the wrath of God in the context. This must be read into the passage 
•We need to be aware of the before and after perspective in the chapter. The before perspective is deemed incorrect based on the grammar and context. When the people look back on the servant, they see that their POV was incorrect about God punishing the servant. That was their POV and not reality. 
•The guilt offering Is about repairing relationships and has no penal aspect to it in the sacrificial system. This is applied more to the life of the servant than the death in the context. 
•God and the servant are not pitted against each other. There is no wrath against the servant, there is no rupture in the Trinity. 
•The NT writers never apply Isaiah 53 in a context of PSA when quoting it. It’s usually more a Recapitulation, Scapegoat, or Moral Influence Theory with a hint of Exodus motif (Christus Victor- healing of demons [Matt 8]), but never PSA. 
 
This interpretation of the Isaiah 53, therefore, not only offers an alternative to penal substitution, but also shows how the justice-doing, peacemaking work of Jesus Christ can be seen to fulfill the prophetic vision of the Lord’s Servant.

3 views:
•    PSA view of bearing sin and wrath. Sees this as a direct prophecy about the Messiah
•    Historical view sees the servant as Israel as it is defined elsewhere in Isaiah.
•    The context is about Israel, Christ is the fulfillment of Israel. We only use this text in the way the NT writers apply it and nothing further.
 
LXX (Septuagint) 
•When it comes to Isaiah 53 when it is quoted in the NT it shows that God is not killing the servant, but people are. God heals the servant.
•Usually, the best practice is to go with the oldest manuscript (LXX here) for interpretation
 

Not a single use of Is 53 from the NT writers that even remotely points to PSA, propitiation, wrath, payment, or debt language.
 
 
This interpretation of the Isaiah 53, therefore, not only offers an alternative to penal substitution, but also shows how the justice-doing, peacemaking work of Jesus Christ can be seen to fulfill the prophetic vision of the Lord’s Servant.

Context
•Exile: The historical situ

Atonement series part 4: Isaiah 53 Interpretation the suffering servant, PSA PROBLEMS, LXX

Doc Ryan and Matt continue their Atonement series. 
 
Leviticus 16 
• Here we have the instructions for the day of Atonement. Notice in Lev 16:2 is the noun for atonement (a place not an action). This is sometimes translated as the Mercy Seat or the cover of the ark of the covenant. It is in the Holy of Holies (the place of God’s presence where heaven and earth connect). It’s the footstool of God’s throne where He is enthroned above the cherubim. 
• Aaron must make a burnt offering (the gift) and a sin (purification or decontamination) offering before entering the Holy place. So, there is a gift to God to say, “Hey I want to spend some time in your presence” and a purification offering. No wrath debt or substitution to be seen here … 
• 2 goats are selected for Israel: The sin offering goat and the goat that will “bear the sin”. Lots are cast to see which goat fulfills which role. 
The “Sin” offering goat 
• Both goats are called a sin/purification/decontamination offering and the reason is that is that the lots have not been cast yet over these two. So, since we don't know yet which ones going to be the actual sin offering, they’re both referred to that way. We don't know which one’s going to be for the Lord, which one was to be for azazel. 
• a better way to translate “Atonement” here is to make expiation with it, or to make a purging with it. The whole notion of the sin offering is decontamination and purification 
Propitiation or Expiation (KPR language) 
Both words presuppose that there is a barrier that must be removed to overcome sin. We need to look to see what is acted upon in order to translate KPR correctly. As we noted atonement language means to cover or purge but is the issue with humans, God, or sin? 
• Propitiation: means that the barrier lies within God himself; thus, it is usually interpreted as an action to satisfy divine wrath against sinners. This was the pagan concept of sacrifice, but Christians who hold to this say that God’s justice must be exercised, and sin must be paid for in order to receive forgiveness and the aversion of God’s wrath. 
• Expiation: means that the barrier lies outside of God, within humankind and/or a stain they leave on the world (sacred space), it is often interpreted as an action aimed at removing sin. To cover, wipe, or to purge sin. 
• Mercy Seat Translation-This is a common translation, reading the ESV, this is not a good translation although it's a traditional one. More literally, if atonement (kapper) means to purge then kapporeth (noun) should be the place of purging. In other words, we would really focus on the location not the result, because calling it the mercy seat is sort of reading the theological result into the lemma. That's why it's not a great translation. The place is the cover of the Ark in the Holy of Holies which is the footstool of God’s throne. This is a throne room scene. 
The Scapegoat or the goat for azazel 
3 views on what happens in this action: 
• 1. The propitiation view (punishment). The goat bears the sin and wrath. 
• 2. The azazel refers to the location (the desert) which theologically if the place where sin and evil lives or belongs (not in God’s camp) 
• 3. Azazel is a proper name. This was the leader of the fallen angels/demons in 2nd temple Judaism. The goat transports the sin to Azazel. 
 
• 
Conclusions on the Day of Atonement 
• The priest is stripped of all his garb and must do this ritual in a plain fashion 
• Goat 1- the purification offering, is to cleanse the temple objects. Blood is not applied to anyone. 
• The scapegoat is sent to Azazel. So, sin, the forces of death, are removed from the camp. This connects a little to last week’s episode in that God is rescuing his people from the forces of death. 
• Neither of these goats are punished. It’s about expelling or purging God’s space (so Expiation!). The first goat (the one that dies) is more about cleaning the throne room of the stain of sin. The scapegoat doesn’t get killed (he’ll probably die in the desert). 
• This is all about resetting sacred space (getting back to Eden) 
 
New Testament 
The Exodus is the primary motif of what is going on at the cross, but the Biblical authors do see the day of atonement being fulfilled in Jesus. We see Jesus as all 3 actors in the Day of Atonement: The purification offering goat, the scapegoat, and the priest. 
 
1 John 3:8- Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. Both Exodus and Day of Atonement deal with this concept. 
 
Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:10, Heb 13:11-12, Matt 27:28-31, Heb 9:18-26, Heb 10:8-17

Doc Ryan and Matt continue their Atonement series. 

Leviticus 16
• Here we have the instructions for the day of Atonement. Notice in Lev 16:2 is the noun for atonement (a place not an action). This is sometimes translated as the Mercy Seat or the cover of the ark of the covenant. It is in the Holy of Holies (the place of God’s presence where heaven and earth connect). It’s the footstool of God’s throne where He is enthroned above the cherubim. 
• Aaron must make a burnt offering (the gift) and a sin (purification or decontamination) offering before entering the Holy place. So, there is a gift to God to say, “Hey I want to spend some time in your presence” and a purification offering.  No wrath debt or substitution to be seen here … 
• 2 goats are selected for Israel: The sin offering goat and the goat that will “bear the sin”. Lots are cast to see which goat fulfills which role. 
The “Sin” offering goat
• Both goats are called a sin/purification/decontamination offering and the reason

Part 3 of the Expedition 44 Atonement series: Day of Atonement

Doc Ryan and Matt continue a series on Atonement. 
 
The Exodus 
We’re probably all familiar with the story of the Exodus where God calls Moses to stand up to Pharoah in order to set the Hebrews free. There were 10 plagues and each of these plagues was a judgement on an Egyptian god. Essentially, it’s a cosmic battle here. Here is what God says about the 10th plague… 
 
Exodus 12:11-13 
12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 
 
Sea Crossing (Exodus 15) 
It wasn’t called the Red Sea 
• it was the Greeks who started calling it the Red Sea 
• When the LXX gets translated, The Egyptians not only didn’t refer to it as the Red Sea, but they referred to all big bodies of water as “the great green.” 
• Yam Suph means sea of reeds. The earlier meaning of the word suph, if you go back further into the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, suph meant the end, or the extremity, or the border, or the edge, sort of the extreme part. 
• So in that context, it would have meant something like the sea at the end, the end sea or the border sea. 
• the Reed Sea is the sort of Egyptian equivalent, in the Middle Kingdom—you see this in the Pyramid Texts—is the River Styx. It’s the body of water you have to cross after death to get to the place of your abode. 
• In the Egyptian mind, when you see some sort of border with water on it, you should be thinking about entering into a realm of chaos and death (outside of the camp) so, if you can get past this watery body, this Sea of Reeds, then you’ll get to the other side, and you’ll have this shadowy existence in the presence of the Egyptian gods.the Pyramid Texts are burial texts, with spells and invocations to help get the spirits and the gods to guide the ka, the soul of the departed person, through the Sea of Reeds to the other side, safely. if you don’t, you become one of the mkhay-u. The mkhay-u are the drowned ones, is what that literally means. These are people who get tangled in the reeds and get pulled down into the Sea of Reeds and sort of lose their identity and become the drowned ones. They’re the damned for Egyptians. 
• the Hebrews were ones who were guided through to the other side were guided through safely to the other side to go and dwell with their God in the promised land. 
• So, when we talk about Passover (Communion), and passing from death to life, that’s not an allegorical thing. What they’re telling us in the Song of the Sea is the people who were there who experienced this the first time had the experience of passing through death, passing through the realm of death and being brought through safely to the other side, to new life, by Yahweh the God of Israel. And that’s the experience we’re sharing in when we celebrate Passover 
 
 
New Testament Connections 
• Jesus’ mission (Luke 4:17-20) 
• Last supper (Luke 22:7-23) 
• New Covenant and Communion (Jer 31:31-34) 
• Passover in John: Passover and Exodus in John- In the Gospel of John, we have Jesus being declared the Lamb of God at the beginning by John the Baptist (1:29), and then Jesus is depicted as being crucified during Passover at the end of the gospel (19:31-37). The “bookends” connect the Exodus as a major theme for John. 
 
Some other connections in John: 
• Jesus was crucified as the lambs were being slaughtered (18:28,39;19:14,31,42) 
• Jesus body was not allowed to stay on the cross until morning, just as the Passover meal was not allowed to remain until the next day 
• The presence of hyssop branch to spread the blood on the door at the Passover and hyssop branch used for the sponge with the wine and vinegar at the cross. The picture is that cross on which Jesus shed his blood and the cross is the door post of the world. 
• Jesus’ legs were not broken just as the Passover lamb was to have no broken bones 
• The blood of the lamb ransomed the first born of Israel from death and Jesus’ blood ransoms and rescues us from death (don’t think wrath here) 
• Jesus’ death is seen as a departure and defeat of the Powers, especially his resurrection as a new exodus. At the resurrection New Creation broke into this world, this is the reverse of the expulsion from Eden (Mary thought Jesus was a gardener [New Adam Theology]). 
 
• Rom 5-8 is an exodus narrative 
• Col 1:12-14 
• Gal 4:3-7 
• 1 Cor 5:7-8 
• 1 Peter 1:18-21, 2:9-10 
• Revelation 5, 15, and 21

Doc Ryan and Matt continue a series on Atonement. 

The Exodus
We’re probably all familiar with the story of the Exodus where God calls Moses to stand up to Pharoah in order to set the Hebrews free. There were 10 plagues and each of these plagues was a judgement on an Egyptian god. Essentially, it’s a cosmic battle here. Here is what God says about the 10th plague…

Exodus 12:11-13
12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 

Sea Crossing (Exodus 15)
It wasn’t called the Red Sea
• it was the Greeks who started calling it the Red Sea
• When the LXX gets translated, The Egyptians not only didn’t refer to it as the Red Sea, but they referred to all big bodies of water as “the great green.” 

The Atonement Series Part 2: The Exodus Motif (theme) OT NT Dr. Will Ryan and Matt Mouzakis CTS

Atonement Part 1: The Sacrificial System (Leviticus 1-5) 
 
Doc Ryan and Matt continue their series on Biblical Atonement. 
 
Context of Sacrifice So why did Israelites sacrifice? We recall numerous examples of the many patriarchs and leaders who built altars with regularity, whether Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (Gen 12:6 ff.; 13:18; 22:9), Isaac (Gen 26:25), Jacob (Gen 33:20; 35:1-7), Moses (Exod 17:15), Joshua (Josh 8:30 f.; cf. Deut 27:5), Gideon (Jdg 6:24 ff.), or David (2 Sam 24:18-25). From all indications, these individuals were simply following cultural norm, whether living before or after Moses. Could Yahweh have allowed for sacrifice as a way of expressing religious devotion, as opposed to demanding it? 
 
Are forgiveness of sin and sacrifice connected? We know from many stories in the OT, sin was not necessarily solved through sacrifice alone (Exod 23:21; Deut 29:20; Josh 24:19; 2 Kgs 24:4; Isa 22:14; Jer 5:27; Lam 3:42; Hos 1:6). Yahweh always held the right to refuse forgiveness, with or without an attending sacrifice. 
 
Sacrifice: 
• Burnt offering is about a gift and just wanting to spend time with God. 
• Grain offering is about remembering the covenant 
• The well-being (Peace) offering is simply a thank you to God 
• The Purification (sin) offering is about cleansing sacred space 
• The guilt or reparation offering is about restitution for an unintentional “sins” (many of there were ritual sins and not moral sins). Primarily about repentance and not repayment. 
 
• KFR-Kaphar (atonement): They're six different KPR words in Hebrew, four of them are nouns, two of them are verbs. Occasionally, we’re going to hit a verb that does have something to do with taking care of an offense or sin.. 
• The basic sense of the verb kaphar means to purge. It comes from Acadian word kuppuru, which means to wipe clean. 
• The blood the offering will be used to purge the tabernacle, purge the sacred space, to purge the altar, to purge this or that vessel. It's never applying to the human, to the human offerer. It's to make sure that sacred space is not rendered impure by a common human being who is not sanctified as a priest to occupy. A lot of sacrificial system is about preparing sacred space for your visit or preparing sacred space that God deems it fit to spend time there. It's really not about what goes on with the offerer’s sin. 
• the sacrificial system for an Israelite wasn’t about us, wasn't about the offerer so much as protecting the offerer from God, from the divine presence or purging sacred space of any impurities so that God could meet the priests there, or God can meet the offerer there. 
• So the blood was a decontaminant or ritual detergent to purify sacred space. Atonement is purging of the stain of sin from sacred space. 
 
 
Blood: the blood manipulation was about cleansing sacred space. In combination with atonement language, it meant to purge or cover to decontaminate the sanctuary. The blood was never applied to people except in the ordination of the priests or when the covenant was enacted at Sinai. Sin was seen as a stain and part of the forces of death. Blood was seen was part of one’s life force so the blood would overpower, dissolve, cover over the forces of death in sacred space and purge it from God’s presence. 
 
Did God require blood to forgive? blood was about purifying sacred space and not about purchasing personal forgiveness. God can just forgive when we come in faith to him. 
 
Our view in the west is often of the virgin needing to be thrown into the volcano to appease God but as we’ve seen here in Leviticus this is not the way Yahweh works. That was the way the pagan deities worked. Israel’s sacrificial system looked like the pagans’ systems on the outside but when we look closely Yahweh is moving his people away from that way of thinking while using a framework that was in their ancient culture. 
 
In the Torah sacrifice and forgiveness were not necessarily connected. Here are some examples: 
• Forgiveness by application of oil (Lev 14:19) 
• Burning flour (Lev 5:11-13) 
• Burning incense (Num 16:41-50) 
• Payment of money (Ex 30:11-16) 
• Gifts of jewelry (Num 31:48-54) 
• The release of an animal into the wilderness (Lev 16:10) 
• Appeals to God in prayer (Ex 32:30) 
 
Heb 9:18-27 must be interpreted with the Levitucus sacrifice framework. In this passage the blood is applied to the heavenly temple for purification. 
I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. Matthew 9:6 
 
God allowed the sacrificial system as a way of meeting His people in their culture and allowing them to worship him through it. It was allowed not demanded. 
 
The sacrificial system was a signpost that pointed to Jesus as the greater sacrifice, but God allowed it as a way for Israel to show their allegiance and worship to Yahweh.

Atonement Part 1: The Sacrificial System (Leviticus 1-5)

Doc Ryan and Matt continue their series on Biblical Atonement. 

Context of Sacrifice So why did Israelites sacrifice? We recall numerous examples of the many patriarchs and leaders who built altars with regularity, whether Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (Gen 12:6 ff.; 13:18; 22:9), Isaac (Gen 26:25), Jacob (Gen 33:20; 35:1-7), Moses (Exod 17:15), Joshua (Josh 8:30 f.; cf. Deut 27:5), Gideon (Jdg 6:24 ff.), or David (2 Sam 24:18-25). From all indications, these individuals were simply following cultural norm, whether living before or after Moses. Could Yahweh have allowed for sacrifice as a way of expressing religious devotion, as opposed to demanding it? 

Are forgiveness of sin and sacrifice connected? We know from many stories in the OT, sin was not necessarily solved through sacrifice alone (Exod 23:21; Deut 29:20; Josh 24:19; 2 Kgs 24:4; Isa 22:14; Jer 5:27; Lam 3:42; Hos 1:6). Yahweh always held the right to refuse forgiveness,

Expedition 44 Series on Atonement Part 1: The Sacrificial System Leviticus 1-5

Atonement Series intro: Sin, Forgiveness, & Atonement Theories 
 
Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement. 
 
Today’s Episode covers 
 
• What is Atonement? Atonement is a made-up word in English because we didn’t have a word to completely express what the action of sacrifice accomplished from a Hebrew perspective. 
• Sin: In the OT we have a few terms for sins such as rebellion (pesha), infidelity (meshubah), disloyalty (beged), getting dirty or stained (tum’ah), wandering (‘avon), trespass (ma’al), transgression (‘abar), and missing the mark (chatta’t). Most of these can be summed up under the last word here of missing the mark. But what mark are we missing??? 
• The Image of God- we are cracked icons (images) and Jesus puts us back together modeled after him, the true image. This missing the mark not only stains us, but it stains the world and the systems we create. 
• Does the Traditional view of Atonement (Penal Substitution) actually take Sin seriously? 
• Forgiveness: If forgiveness requires payment or blood is it actually forgiveness? 
• Exile thinking 
 
Some questions to think about on this journey through Atonement: 
• Retribution or Restoration? 
• Substitution or Representation? 
• Transaction or Transformation? 
• Judicial or Relational? 
• Did God need his mind changed about us or our mind about God? 
• Is there a debt owed? How does the cross bring about justice? 
• Holiness and/or Love… are they opposed to each other? 
• Who killed Jesus? God or us? 
• Is our view of the cross to individualistic? 
• What does the cross solve? Sin? Death? Evil? (Powers) All of the above? 
 
Atonement Theories 
• Moral Influence 
• Ransom Theory 
• Christus Victor 
• Satisfaction Theory 
• Penal Substitution 
• Scapegoat Theory 
• Recapitulation 
• New Covenant 
 
Some interesting History 
Thought PSA is seen in evangelicalism as the gospel. This has been depicted in the recent documentary “the American Gospel” but it is interesting to note that in all the orthodox creeds and early church ecumenical councils there is no definition of the atonement in terms of accepted or rejected theories. Where the ECF agreed that Christ had saved the human race from sin and its consequences, there was no unambiguous tradition as to how this was brought about. The only line in the creeds that talks about the cross is in the Nicaean Creed and it’s “For us and for our salvation”. There was no discussion on the mechanics of the cross except in Christ’s victory over sin and death, and our salvation because of that. So, to make PSA “the gospel” and rejection of it heresy actually flies in the face of church history.

Atonement Series intro: Sin, Forgiveness, & Atonement Theories

Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement. 

Today’s Episode covers

• What is Atonement? Atonement is a made-up word in English because we didn’t have a word to completely express what the action of sacrifice accomplished from a Hebrew perspective. 
• Sin: In the OT we have a few terms for sins such as rebellion (pesha), infidelity (meshubah), disloyalty (beged), getting dirty or stained (tum’ah), wandering (‘avon), trespass (ma’al), transgression (‘abar), and missing the mark (chatta’t). Most of these can be summed up under the last word here of missing the mark. But what mark are we missing???
• The Image of God-  we are cracked icons (images) and Jesus puts us back together modeled after him, the true image.  This missing the mark not only stains us, but it stains the world and the systems we create.                 
• Does the Traditional view of Atonement (Penal Substitution) actually take Sin seriously?

Expedition 44 Series Intro on Biblical Atonement theories with Dr. Will Ryan and Matt Mouzakis

Expedition 44 -Doc Ryan 1 year anniversary

Deeper understanding of what the Deuteronomy 32 worldview is and how it fits with your theology for the rest of scripture 
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

Deeper understanding of what the Deuteronomy 32 worldview is and how it fits with your theology for the rest of scripture
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

The Deuteronomy 32 Worldview Psalm 82 Genesis Heiser unseen realm Deuteronomy 32:8-9

Genesis as being more concerned with teaching theology (God’s relationship with the universe) as opposed to its being concerned with cosmology (how the universe was created). 
 
Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985, “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’” 
 
NASB 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

Genesis as being more concerned with teaching theology (God’s relationship with the universe) as opposed to its being concerned with cosmology (how the universe was created). 

Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985, “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

NASB 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

Genesis 1:1-3 Creation Expedition 44 Doc Ryan Biblical theology Studies

guard your heart more than anything that might be guarded... above all. 
An in depth Bible study discussion and overview on guarding your heart and what the Biblical Authors meant through their narrative. Short video analogy or Metaphor and could be used as a sermon lead in or illustration for a message. 
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

guard your heart more than anything that might be guarded... above all.
An in depth Bible study discussion and overview on guarding your heart and what the Biblical Authors meant through their narrative. Short video analogy or Metaphor and could be used as a sermon lead in or illustration for a message. 
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

Guard your heart Proverbs 24:3 Doc Ryan Expedition 44 Biblical Theology Studies

How to gather and stack firewood properly as well as a metaphor for Acts 28:3 & Brood of Vipers 
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

How to gather and stack firewood properly as well as a metaphor for Acts 28:3 & Brood of Vipers
Expedition 44 DOC RYAN

expedition44 Videos