Featured He treated Christ to be sin

In a recently closed thread, it was asserted that the "double accusative construction" of 2 Corinthians 5:21 precluded the verb "epoiesen" to be translated as meaning "He treated."

In this Greek construction the verb takes two direct objects, a Person and a thing. The person is affected, and the thing is effected. So "the One knowing no sin" is the person affected, and "sin" is the thing effected (to be sin.)

So He treated the One knowing no sin to be sin reflects the grammatical form of the Greek text.

He did something (made or treated) to Christ, He treated him to be sin.

There is no requirement from Greek grammar for the translation choice of "made" over and against "treated."
Other equally viable choices are "He appointed him to be sin" and "He purposed him to be sin."

 

It helps to read the copy and paste:

"Although ποιεῖν τι can mean “make something into something (else),” the meaning here is not “God made the sinless one into sin” (JB), but “God caused the sinless one to be sin,” where ποιεῖν denotes causation or appointment and points to the divine initiative."

Thus God treated the One knowing no sin to be sin for our sake so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

First "treated" is not addressed directly but to appoint or designate or treat someone to be sin falls easily within the range of meanings. To treat or appoint or designate someone to be sin is causative.
The translation choice has been supported six ways from Sunday. And the choice resolves the theological dilemma.

It is a great solution. A winner. And a product of word study.

 

I found Luke 2:48 where the NASB and nine other versions translate the word as treated. So I do not think I am guilty of ends driven translation. I looked at how the word was used, and the lexicon meaning, and saw appointed and dealt with, so I hit upon treated. Then I found treated widely used for the word. (10 versions).

From the Bluebible outline of usage.
G. to (make i.e.) render one anything

1. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
2. to declare one anything

Now their may be a valid reason why treated cannot be the meaning in 2 Cor. 5:21, but so far no one in my opinion has made a viable argument.

#163 Van, Yesterday at 11:03 PM

 

Contrary to the text? Lets see, first the word's range of meaning did not include "treated." Luke 2:48 shows that many (10) translations use treated as a translation choice for the word. Then we had the meaning ran closer to causative, but designated, appointed, treated, rendered, and declared all are causative.

Treated may not be the inspired and intended meaning, but no one in my opinion has presented valid arguments that treated is not the possible meaning in this context.

 

Yes, the research supported my position.

 

As you may know, the issue is how did God do it. God causing by treating him to be sin is not a problem, God making God to be sin is nonsense. To treat or appoint or designate someone to be sin is causative.. the Divine initiative.

 

God treating the One knowing no sin to be sin for our sake was a good thing.

 

It is always nice to have a someone with an opinion. Treated is a possible translation choice, and contextually seems the one with the least baggage. Appointed and designated also seem more likely than made, given the double accusative construction.

 

Yes. We can guess, but then we might not guess right.

I have no idea why you said 7 rather than 10, but I can guess.

Why did they not choose "appointed" or designated or purposed or declared. I can guess (group think), since the Divine initiative points to causing via treating or designating or appointing or declaring.

 

Thanks for offering to not be sin while being sin. I will pass. I like to not be sin but treated to be sin.
That kinda sounds like a sin sacrifice.