Featured How Christ Was "Made Sin"

I did not deal with Hebrews, you are correct.

The reason is I believe that Hebrews was written to a Jewish population more versed in Hebrew than I would expect in 1st Century Cornith. I also don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews.

That is a presupposition on my part (Hebrews could have been addressed to Jews who only knew Greek and the Corinthians could have been Hebrews living in Corinth. And Paul could have written Hebrews). But it is an presupposition I'll own (and the reason I didnt address the verse in Hebrews).

I also acknowledge that in the LXX, the word is often (more than not) used not to mean "sin offering".

My argument is we know hamartia was used to mean "sin offering" outside of the NT and contemporary to Paul. I think we can agree on that.

So what remains is to show hamartia used in the NT actually meaning "sin offering".

That's easy - "He who knew no sin was made a sin offering for us". (kidding)


My point was that hamartia has been used to mean "sin offering", as a word and at least outside of the NT. So it needs to at least be considered alongside other meanings.

I an NOT saying it needs to be translated "sin offering", but I am saying that is how I interpret the translated word.

How do you define hamartia in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

What was He who knew no sin, in your opinion, made?

 

I know it doesn't automatically follow. I agree there.

I could write today that your statement strikes me as queer (it strikes me as odd as automatically using any common meaning is something I find problematic). Others would question my use of "queer".

Point is, interpreting "sin" as "sin offering" is not adding to the text. It is using a meaning that you believe is incorrect, but not one outside of usage.


I have explained my interpretation of "sin" here. I do not know yours.

What do you believe Jesus was made (define "sin")?

 

I hope you feel better soon.

When you get feeling better:

I will acknowledge that on the surface I disagree theologically as I do not believe the Son was separated from the Father on the cross (but I grant that "separated" requires unpacking to know...something to discuss at another time, perhaps).

My observation is twofold:

1. You object to my interpretation of hamartia as "sin offering" even though hamartia has been used to mean "sin offering" at least outside of the NT and although Scripture presents (in other places) Christ being a sin offering.

So you are not, from my understanding, rejecting the idea that "He who knew no sin was made a sin offering", just that Paul is restating this in 2 Corinthians.

2. You interpret the usage of hamartia to be a theological concept incorporating the separation of the Son from the Father on the cross as Christ bore our sins.

This appears to me, at least at this time, as reading theology into the text.

What examples would you point to in the NT where hamartia is used to mean something akin to separated from God the Father on the cross when the Son bore our sin, just as sin itself separates us from God?


(Again....for when you are feeling better.)

 

But it isn't. That's the point.

It is not outside the usage in the Greek language, just outside of how you believe Paul would have used the word (and without additional NT usage).

The problem is you have no leg to stand on until you offer another interpretation. In the Greek language the word has been used (outside of the NT) to mean "sin offering".

You seem to appreciate literal interpretations of words.

How do you interpret "sin" in the text?

 

@George Antonios ,

As far as those legitimately discussing the word goes, you are the only one who has refused to give your interpretation of "sin" in the passage.

I believe Paul is pointing to Christ as described elsewhere in numerous OT and NT passages (the Father sending the Son as a sin offering). I hold this is a literal interpretation based on the usage of the word in Greek (not necessarily elsewhere in the NT).

In the Greek language hamartia also means an inner movement of one's spirit that leads to a tragic end - especially the death of a hero (having nothing to do with guilt...in fact, the hamartia is often a virtue, but it concludes with the death of the hero).

If this is the literal definition you mean (I can agree with this as well) then "sin" equates to "flesh" (the Word was made flesh).

So there are a few literal interpretations avaliable (a movement of the spirit, particularly in the hero, that leads to a tragic end; a sin offering; a mistake, and a disobedience to God).

How do you interpret the verse?

 

There is a fatal flaw with your logic. It depends on your choice of meanings being correct and you ultimately reject that interpretation as well.

You pretend that hamartia only means "sin" as you define it, but in this case you reject using hamartia in that way.

The most common meaning of hamartia in the ancient Greek language is a type of flaw that leads to a hero's death or that leads to a tragic event (often the flaw is a virtue). On this case, it could be that Paul is referring to Christ being made flesh.

The second most common use is "missing tge mark", seen often in Homer's battle scenes.

Then we have hamartia as an evil, disobedient act against God.

Are you suggesting that God literally made Jesus disobedient?

Or are you reading the passage through your theology thereby avoiding blasphemy?

You have already answered this in other threads. You believe the latter (that Paul uses hamartia differently in this one place to represent an entire theological idea). BUT you can provide no other instances where this is done.


If I were to choose an exact literal interpretation, I suppose it would be the Word being made flesh and all that this entails. This would be the most common use of hamartia in the ancient Greek language (the trait that concluded in the death of Christ).

 

@George Antonios ,

What I am asking for is how you interpret the passage.

You seem to reject the ancient Greek use of hamartia in favor of sin as disobedience to God.

But how do you interpret that? Literally (that Jesus literally became evil)?

Or do you read the word hamartia as representing whatever your theology is?

And if so, can you cite any other instances in the NT where hamartia literally means your theological view?

 

@John of Japan

I will note that I have gone back and forth with hamartia in this text.

I kinda short cut it to "sin offering".

Initially I considered it as encompassing the Son being made man (resulting in sharing our "infirmities"). But I don't know how that would translate.

In a translation I would stick with "sin". I don't see it as a metaphorical use, though.

In ancient Greek literature hamartia often carried an idea that I'm not sure translates well in English (that component in the protagonist that drives the plot to a tragic conclusion...like Oedipus trying to avoid his fate by not returning to Cornith, but nevertheless his purpose was fulfilled through his actions).

That is how I view Paul's use. The Father gave the Son as a sin offering, the Son became man and experienced the consequences in its fullest).

 

I have no problem translating it as the English word "sin". That is not the issue here. The issue is how "sin" is defined.

Do you mean "sin" as "disobedience to God"? Do you mean "sin" as missing a goal or target (as in Homer)? Do you mean the Greek definition of "sin" as a quality leading to a tragic event?

Or do you have no clue what "sin" in that verse means??

Do you just ignore it as meaningless or beyond human understanding?

Isn't that kinda like keeping "ass" in the Bible without knowing an "ass" is a donkey?

 

We are saying the same thing, just using different words.

We both define "sin" here as the work of redemption.

We both say Paul is using "sin" in a way not used elsewhere in the NT.

The only difference is I believe Paul was using the word "sin" in a legitimate way (a legitimate definition that would be familiar to the people of Cornith because of their literature).

So what if Paul wasn't? We agree on the meaning. Paul was speaking of Christ bearing our sins. I extend this to sharing in our infirmity and becoming a curse for us (Christ's complete work). But we are saying exactly the same thing.