Christ made Sin?

[Martin Marprelate]

I found an interesting paragraph on the use of hamartia in the Septuagint here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf It's on page 45. It seems to confirm that the Genitive is always used when the word means 'sin offering, but not that peri always precedes it.

 

[JonC]

No. Link please.

No.
The reference is from his Greek dictionary.

I believe you are in over your head and arguing against the posdibility of other interpretations out of ignorance (not malace). But I do not believe you are adequately equipped to deal with these languages.

I say this for two reasons. First, your critera seems to follow whoever agrees with your theories. Second, I have 2 yrs formal training in Greek and I know that onlybgives me enough skill to deal with the languages - not to make dogmatic statements denying the range of definitions provided by actual Greek scholors.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How many that you listed are theologians and how many scholars of the ancient Greek language? Do you know?

Why haven't you done an internet search to find out what you want, like you expect me to do?
If you've not heard of Charles Hodge, you need to get around more Handley Moule you are forgiven for not knowing, but he was one of the finest Greek scholars in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. He was elected Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and was Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, an evangelical Anglican seminary, for 19 years before becoming Bishop of Durham in the days when there were still some good Bishops in the C of E. Simon Kistemaker was Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary for many years from 1971. He completed the Baker New Testament Commentaries series after the death of William Hendricksen. Of Peter Naylor I only know that He had a M.Th in Theology, and a PhD in Baptist History and pastored churches in Cardiff, Wales. However, he was selected to write semi-technical commentaries on 1 & 2 Corinthians by Evangelical Press, a major name in Christian publishing in the UK. James White is Adjunct Professor at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary in addition to all his stuff at Alpha & Omega.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One issue is the quality of some references you have provided. I was not listing Gill as an authority in ancient Greek. For that I provided Mounce and Fee. @The Archangel is not the authority in Greek that either Mounce or Fee is. Why would I entertain his dismissal of their conclusions?

This is pathetic! On this basis, there's no point in anyone posting; we just swap authorities, as if we were playing a sort of theological Top Trumps! And you are too idle even to provide the link! Just the name and we are all supposed to bow down and worship! What rubbish!

 

[Van]

How about: God through us as ambassadors of Christ, begs you: Be reconciled to God, for He treated for our sake the One knowing no sin of sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No.
The reference is from his Greek dictionary.

I believe you are in over your head and arguing against the possibility of other interpretations out of ignorance (not malice). But I do not believe you are adequately equipped to deal with these languages.

I say this for two reasons. First, your criteria seems to follow whoever agrees with your theories. Second, I have 2 yrs formal training in Greek and I know that only gives me enough skill to deal with the languages - not to make dogmatic statements denying the range of definitions provided by actual Greek scholors [sic].

I find it invidious to post academic qualifications. Suffice it to say that I know enough Greek to be able to assess what real 'scholors' write, and not to grovel in admiration at the mere mention of the sacred name of Mounce (or whoever). Post me a link to what he wrote, or take the time to copy it out of his dictionary, and I may agree with him. But see no reason to suppose that he is above contradiction. Oh, and your criteria is also follow whoever agrees with you; that is why you are following Mounce.

 

[JonC]

This is pathetic! On this basis, there's no point in anyone posting; we just swap authorities, as if we were playing a sort of theological Top Trumps! And you are too idle even to provide the link! Just the name and we are all supposed to bow down and worship! What rubbish!

That is all you are trying to do - swap authorities. And it is rubbish.

We have Greek scholars who can provide us with reasonable meanings and ranges of meanings for words.

Translators typically consist of a comittee who discuss the best interpretation or word choice that best fits the context.

Theologians develop doctrine and theories based partly on this work. (And the lines between these disciplines often blur).

The reason no discussion is needed is that you are trying to regect all other posdible meanings of the word so t hr at ypu don't have to defend your position about Satan being a type of Christ.

It is rubbish because you ignotlre interpretation all together by declaring your theory the only possible meaning of the word.

When you can not see that there are other legitimate of the word "sin" (or even that yours is not exactly that "literal" interpretation) what more is there to discuss?

I can't argue which paint color matches to someone who refuses to open his eyes.

 

[The Archangel]

How about: God through us as ambassadors of Christ, begs you: Be reconciled to God, for He treated for our sake the One knowing no sin of sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

No. You are conflating two different things: Translation and Interpretation. Translation is to determine what the text actually says. Interpretation is to determine what the text means. Don't fiddle with the text so that it says what you want it to mean as the text says what it says. After you faithfully translate the text, then set yourself to the task of determining the meaning of the text. Ask: What is _____________'s range of meaning, etc.

Again the "of sin" that you are insisting on simply isn't there and it is beyond the semantic range of the text, as is "He treated." "He treated" denies the point that Paul is seeking to make: God MADE Him to be sin. Now, if you--to get your point across--want to say it means God treated Christ as a sinner, that's fine (whether it is accurate or not is a debate for another time). However, to translate "made" as "treated" does violence to the text.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I find it invidious to post academic qualifications. Suffice it to say that I know enough Greek to be able to assess what real 'scholors' write, and not to grovel in admiration at the mere mention of the sacred name of Mounce (or whoever). Post me a link to what he wrote, or take the time to copy it out of his dictionary, and I may agree with him. But see no reason to suppose that he is above contradiction. Oh, and your criteria is also follow whoever agrees with you; that is why you are following Mounce.

The copy I provided was out of the dictionary (as stated).

You are confusing things a bit. I am saying Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee have provided a range of meanings for a word you claim can mean only one thing. I do believe Mounce made the correct choice here ("sin offering"), but that is not the point. The point is you and @The Archangel have been going on and on with @Van that his use of "for sin" is impossible as it adds "gar". His interpretation is actually within the range of possible translations (gar is not needed)

This is a problem with "word studies" - not in what you affirm but in what you deny. That and they can make good people say stupid things.

 

[JonC]

I find it invidious to post academic qualifications.

You are wanting to argue the meaning of Greek word used in the 1st Century and you find it invidious to poat acedemic qualifications????

I hope you take your physical health a bit more seriously than your theology.

 

[The Archangel]

The copy I provided was out of the dictionary (as stated).

You are confusing things a bit. I am saying Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee have provided a range of meanings for a word you claim can mean only one thing. I do believe Mounce made the correct choice here ("sin offering"), but that is not the point. The point is you and @The Archangel have been going on and on with @Van that his use of "for sin" is impossible as it adds "gar". His interpretation is actually within the range of possible translations (gar is not needed)

This is a problem with "word studies" - not in what you affirm but in what you deny. That and they can make good people say stupid things.

But, you also seem not to realize that gar wouldn't be used there and there is no reason to take an accusative as something else.

Furthermore, as I said to Van, the difference is translation and meaning. The translation is "Sin," not "of sin" or "to sin" or whatever. To determine the "meaning," however, can only happen after a faithful translation. Do not conflate the two enterprises.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

But, you also seem not to realize that gar wouldn't be used there and there is no reason to take an accusative as something else.

Furthermore, as I said to Van, the difference is translation and meaning. The translation is "Sin," not "of sin" or "to sin" or whatever. To determine the "meaning," however, can only happen after a faithful translation. Do not conflate the two enterprises.

The Archangel

I think the issue is ofter this difference between "translation and meaning". The meaning of the word translated "sin" in the passage could be "sin" (an immoral act), "sin-offering", "imputed sin" or "expiatory sacrifice". Those are all possible meanings of the Greek word (which is my point to MartinM). Translation involves choosing which English word best represents the idea meant by the use of the Greek word (it involves some interpretation).

The reason I am arguing against @Martin Marprelate is that he erroneously based his interpretation of "sin" on the misunderstanding it can only carry one meaning. When people do this there is nothing to discuss except tell them they are wrong and point them to some experts in the language.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is all you are trying to do - swap authorities. And it is rubbish.

We have Greek scholars who can provide us with reasonable meanings and ranges of meanings for words.

Translators typically consist of a committee who discuss the best interpretation or word choice that best fits the context.

And which translation for hamartia in 2 Cor 5:21 do these committees come up with? KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV: they all say 'sin.'

Theologians develop doctrine and theories based partly on this work. (And the lines between these disciplines often blur).

The reason no discussion is needed is that you are trying to reject all other possible meanings of the word so t hr at ypu don't have to defend your position about Satan being a type of Christ.

No. The reason no discussion is needed by you is that you have nothing to say except to try and push your 'experts' upon us without linking us to them.

It is rubbish because you ignotlre interpretation all together by declaring your theory the only possible meaning of the word.

When you can not see that there are other legitimate of the word "sin" (or even that yours is not exactly that "literal" interpretation) what more is there to discuss?

I know the semantic range of hamartia, thank you, and it is my contention that it only means 'sin offering' when it is in the Genitive case: 'for sin.' If you can show me that my contention is wrong, then I will have to confess my error; until then, it seems reasonable to me to continue to stand my ground.

I can't argue which paint color matches to someone who refuses to open his eyes.

The first three words are right.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The meaning of the word translated "sin" in the passage could be "sin" (an immoral act), "sin-offering", "imputed sin" or "expiatory sacrifice". Those are all possible meanings of the Greek word (which is my point to MartinM)

OK. Let's try some of these:
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.....' That works.
God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us.....' Nope.
God made Him who knew no imputed sin to be imputed sin for us.....' Seems unlikely.
God made Him who knew no expiatory sacrifice to be an expiatory sacrifice for us.....' I don't think so. But thanks for trying.

 

[JonC]

And which translation for hamartia in 2 Cor 5:21 do these committees come up with? KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV: they all say 'sin.'

No. The reason no discussion is needed by you is that you have nothing to say except to try and push your 'experts' upon us without linking us to them.

I know the semantic range of hamartia, thank you, and it is my contention that it only means 'sin offering' when it is in the Genitive case: 'for sin.' If you can show me that my contention is wrong, then I will have to confess my error; until then, it seems reasonable to me to continue to stand my ground.

The first three words are right.

I would transkate it as "sin" as well. But I do not believe "sin" carries that meaning it had just carried in the text "an immoral act" as it does not fit the subject (it is impossible for a being...whether man, God, animal or plant) to "be made sin" in that context. So you opt for an entire theory (you don't even stop at a possible meaning....like"imputed sin") and still have not realized the fact.

 

[JonC]

OK. Let's try some of these:
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.....' That works.

God made Him who knew no [immoral act] to be [an immoral act] for us.

No. That does not work, but it may explain the heresy of believe Satan is a type of Christ because it would mean Christ was literally made evil.

The most biblical position you can take is "imputed sin" (John Gill's view).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would transkate it as "sin" as well. But I do not believe "sin" carries that meaning it had just carried in the text "an immoral act" as it does not fit the subject (it is impossible for a being...whether man, God, animal or plant) to "be made sin" in that context. So you opt for an entire theory (you don't even stop at a possible meaning....like"imputed sin") and still have not realized the fact.

God made Him who knew no [immoral act] to be [an immoral act] for us.

No. That does not work, but it may explain the heresy of believe Satan is a type of Christ because it would mean Christ was literally made evil.

The most biblical position you can take is "imputed sin" (John Gill's view).

You really don't ever read my posts, do you? Here you are again:

We are not made a ‘righteousness offering,’ if there were such a thing. We are made, according to the verse, righteousness itself, and the righteousness of God at that. When God, as Judge, looks at us He sees not sinners struggling and often failing to keep His just commandments; no! He sees the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ. So on the cross, the Father, as Judge, did not see the perfect spotless righteousness of Christ, but all the sins of the elect –all the lies, lust, pride, rage and spite – piled upon the Son and laid to His account. ‘He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.’ The apostle’s use of the word ‘tree’ (Gk. xulon) instead of ‘cross’ (Gk. stauron), is there to remind us that Christ bore not only the weight of our sins, but the curse of God that rested upon them (Galatians 3:13).

And yes, this is, quite obviously, by imputation, as I have also said before.

So in what way were our sins laid upon Christ? Well, in what way do we become ‘the righteousness of God in Him’? By imputation. ‘….God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them…..’ ‘Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity’ (2 Cor. 5:19; Psalms 32:2). Our sins are not imputed to us because they have been imputed to Christ. His perfect righteousness and obedience is, in turn, imputed to us. He is made sin so that we might become the righteousness of God.’

Both quotations from post #82.

 

[The Archangel]

I think the issue is ofter this difference between "translation and meaning". The meaning of the word translated "sin" in the passage could be "sin" (an immoral act), "sin-offering", "imputed sin" or "expiatory sacrifice". Those are all possible meanings of the Greek word (which is my point to MartinM). Translation involves choosing which English word best represents the idea meant by the use of the Greek word (it involves some interpretation).

The reason I am arguing against @Martin Marprelate is that he erroneously based his interpretation of "sin" on the misunderstanding it can only carry one meaning. When people do this there is nothing to discuss except tell them they are wrong and point them to some experts in the language.

In this response you are illustrating a conflation of translation and meaning. The word, hamartia, can mean more than one thing depending on usage, context, etc. However, the word itself is translated as "sin." If, in the translation process, you are assigning your preferred meaning, you have produced a paraphrase, not a translation. All translations, at some level do this. However, the use of a committee usually mitigates against such individual bias. As @Martin Marprelate has pointed out, several well-known translations (and their committee members) have stated the word as it is in Greek: "Sin." It is the job, now, of the interpreter to explain what that means.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

In this response you are illustrating a conflation of translation and meaning. The word, hamartia, can mean more than one thing depending on usage, context, etc. However, the word itself is translated as "sin." If, in the translation process, you are assigning your preferred meaning, you have produced a paraphrase, not a translation. All translations, at some level do this. However, the use of a committee usually mitigates against such individual bias. As @Martin Marprelate has pointed out, several well-known translations (and their committee members) have stated the word as it is in Greek: "Sin." It is the job, now, of the interpreter to explain what that means.

The Archangel

It depends on one's philosophy of translation. For example - how do you render "Logos"? As "Word"? Does the English "word" accurately reflect the meaning of "Logos"?

I am OK with using "Word" because it is an English word. I would be OK with using "Logos" as well. Relate this to our point here:

Should hamartia be rendered "sin"? In the first part, yes, of course. Because it is "sin". But in the second part it does not make complete sense in the English language (no one can be "made sin" because sin is not such a thing....as @Martin Marprelate even acknowledged when agreeing that God cannot punish "sin" but punishes the "sinner".

So, are you suggesting that hamartia be translated "sinner"? That would make sense (the English words), but is it accurate?

By translating the second hamartia "sin" this allows the interpreter to interpret the passage through it's own context (like with "Word"). Does "sin" here mean "sin" as just stated in the passage (i.e., Christ literally made sin)? No, of course not, that would not only be nonsense but it would be heresy as God would literally become evil and unholy.

So does "sin" then mean "imputed sin"? It's possible. I think it is reading a little into the text, but I have to acknowledge it is a possible translation based on the actual range of meaning for the word. And it is essentially pointing to "sin" as a "sin offering" as well.

Does "sin" mean "sin-offering"? I believe so. This is the most popular translation as it points to the work of Christ as a whole. But it is not the only interpretation.

Does "sin" mean "expiatory sacrifice"? Again, I think it is adding a bit to the text, but it is possible. And again, it is still pointing to a sin offering.

Basically, @Martin Marprelate is wrong. Just as he insisted that God separated from Christ because "forsake" means to separate from, he is reading his theories into the text. I know that you share his theology. But I doubt that you share his reasoning. You know better. He doesn't.

My only intention with @Martin Marprelate was to point out that there are actually several legitimate interpretations of the text. He should therefore argue his interpretation to be correct. But he has failed to even see that the text itself can be legitimately interpreted (based on the text) differently. That is ignorance, plain and simple. And there is nothing that can be done about it - unless you are willing to explain it to him as you hold his view. My concern is I doubt that you will work with him because I believe you are looking to defend a "camp" rather than engage in dialogue of interpretation. But I may be wrong (I sincerely hope I am).

Once we are all on the same page regarding the range of meanings, translations, and what it is to interpret the text, then we can all see that there are several legitimate interpretations based on the text alone. From there we can discuss which one is correct and why. Until then, there is nothing that can be said.

 

[JonC]

Itranslated as "sin." If, in the translation process, you are assigning your preferred meaning, you have produced a paraphrase, not a translation.

A little correction here, as well. What you seem to be looking for is a "word for word" equivalent. While I prefer that translations worked this way, unfortunately this is not always possible. There are instances where a phrase more adequately defines a Greek word than the word translations like the NASB (my favorite) uses. I know that you know this, I'm stating it for clarity.

It would be just as legitimate to claim that the word be translated "sin offering" in every place and the reader can make out the proper meaning. Paraphrase is not a bad thing when the phrase best represents the actual meaning of the translated word.

The sad part is some do not take the time to study what the words mean. I don't mean a "word study", but I do mean looking up words that do not quite "fit" or only fit when exposed to a theory (like the second "sin" in the verse). When someone reads the verse they should think "wait...Jesus was without sin but made sin...."sin" can't mean the same thing each time unless we are saying Jesus was made a sinner, which contradicts Scripture" and then dive into the verse. This does not always happen. Sometimes, like with @Martin Marprelate , it leads one into serious error because of their traditions and they come out believing that Satan is a type of Christ.