Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
The speaker claims penal substitution didn’t gain traction until the Latin Vulgate’s influence and ties that to Jerome choosing the Masoretic over the Septuagint; if the apostles and early church used the Septuagint, what authority should that have in your Bible reading and doctrine-building, and what “spiritual world” of yours might get turned upside down by taking that seriously?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s argument, the Septuagint should carry major weight because it was “the Bible of the apostles” and the early church; doctrine should be tested against it rather than built on Masoretic-only readings that can alter key passages. Taking that seriously may overturn cherished proof texts, inherited doctrines, and even confidence in certain Bible traditions (like King James-only or Masoretic-based readings).
- He says penal substitution gained traction in the West due to the Latin Vulgate, since Jerome translated from the Masoretic instead of the Septuagint, producing “significant results.”
- He calls Jerome’s move “in his own arrogance,” noting Christians had “always used” the Septuagint “from the days of the apostles until his day.”
- He says without the Masoretic reading of Isaiah 53:10, “you really don't have anything… that clearly would give you the idea” of God taking pleasure in punishing the Son.
- He argues: “the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the New Testament church,” while the Masoretic was that of “the unbelieving Jews.”
- He notes resistance: people “get very defensive” because “nobody likes to have… their whole spiritual world turned upside down,” citing King James-only reactions and doctrines built on Masoretic readings.
- He testifies that early church teachings can be “back… up with scripture after scripture.”