Biblical Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

Define this sin that you believe God became. I this that is the issue. If you mean that He bore our sin, this is not actually becoming sin.

I disagree that the cup Christ bore was Sin. Jesus told the disciples that they would share in that cup, so it does not make sense to me to hold it as Sin. Also, in Scripture the "cup" does not always signify Sin or wrath. When it does it is typically expressed as such.

I believe it points to the suffering and death that Jesus was facing.

Jesus was taking upon Himself the Bowl of wrath that the father had stored up to use in His judgement against the sins of the lost sinners!

 

[Yeshua1]

JonC,


Highlights from lengthy teachings.

So, let them.

[QUOTE]Is God just to forgive those who repent?

Or would God be unjust to forgive those who repent as forgiveness is based on punished sins?

These comments make no sense. They are fragmented thoughts
God is always just. God alone can forgive sins. God has biblical reasons of how sin can be forgiven.

Agreed,Penal substitution is biblical, the other ideas or failed carnal philosophies. [/QUOTE]
I think that those holding to PST have done their homework in regards to what the scriptures teach on the Atonement of Jesus Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is my reasoning to use "sin offering""

1. There are plenty of references we could use to say that via allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture Jesus was made a "sin offering". There is no other reference where we could possibly say that Jesus became sin, except perhaps if we push "becoming a curse". But even there, the language Paul uses in Galatians 3:13 (that Jesus freed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us) can be viewed as supportive of a "sin offering" as it is literally the argument of Christus Victor theory. God gave Christ as a sin offering, He lay down his life as an offering for sin, etc. So none of us would deny that He was made a "sin offering". But nowhere do we find another passage saying He was "made sin".

2. There are plenty of references in the the LXX where ἁμαρτια is used to mean "sin offering". In fact, there are over 90 times the word ἁμαρτια means "sin offering" in the Old Testament.

Here is one example: Exodus 29:14
14 But burn the bull's meat, skin, and excrement outside the camp. It is an offering for sin.
τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν.

3. In the Hebrew "sin" has been used to refer to "sin offering".

4. The context, in my view, demands either the interpretation "sin offering" or "flesh" (along the lines of Paul's words in Galatians 3). I believe "sin offering" the better interpretation.

5. Even those who reject the interpretation of "sin offering" in favor of "Christ was made sin" do not defend that statement on a literal basis (that Christ was literally made, to use @Iconoclast 's commentary, "a deviation from God's truth or His moral rectitude").

From Calvin Commentary n the Bible
21.Him who knew no sin. Do you observe, that, according to Paul, there is no return to favor with God, except what is founded on the sacrifice of Christ alone? Let us learn, therefore, to turn our views in that direction, whenever we desire to be absolved from guilt. He now teaches more clearly, what we adverted to above — that God is propitious to us, when he acknowledges us as righteous. For these two things are equivalent — that we are acceptable to God, and that we are regarded by him as righteous.

To know no sin is to be free from sin. He says, then, that Christ, while he was entirely exempt from sin, was made sin for us. It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latin’s term it, piaculum (566) Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offense or crime. (567) But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)
How Was Jesus "Made" Sin? - Christian Research Institute

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)

Spot on!
There is a contrast throughout the verse between Christ and us; the righteous and sinners as Simon Kistemaker point out:.

He made.......................so that
Him...............................we
Who knew no sin..........might become
to be sin........................God's righteousness
for us (on our behalf)....in Him.

 

[JonC]

From Calvin Commentary n the Bible
21.Him who knew no sin. Do you observe, that, according to Paul, there is no return to favor with God, except what is founded on the sacrifice of Christ alone? Let us learn, therefore, to turn our views in that direction, whenever we desire to be absolved from guilt. He now teaches more clearly, what we adverted to above — that God is propitious to us, when he acknowledges us as righteous. For these two things are equivalent — that we are acceptable to God, and that we are regarded by him as righteous.

To know no sin is to be free from sin. He says, then, that Christ, while he was entirely exempt from sin, was made sin for us. It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latin’s term it, piaculum (566) Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offense or crime. (567) But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)
How Was Jesus "Made" Sin? - Christian Research Institute

The issue is that there are passages that state Jesus is a sin offering. There are no other passages to support Jesus literally becoming sin. @Martin Marprelate has said many times, it is not thus says the Word but thus says the Word again (we need to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture).

We know that the verse can be interpreted "sin offering". Experts like Mounce and Fee have emphasized this fact.

We know that Jesus did become a sin offering.

There is no reason to add to Jesus became sin the sentence "that is God looked upon him as if he were a sinner.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hold up.

What you are presenting has nothing at all to do with the grammer (or, in fact, to the text of the verse itself).

You are applying your theology to the verse to come up with a meaning that, of course, advances your theology while the word ἁμαρτία itself is never used to represent those ideas you are bringing to the verse.

You are rejecting a position which is at least based on other passages, states an agreed upon truth, is consistent with the Hebrew use of "sin", and aside from arguments over grammer is very common to the LXX use of ἁμαρτία in the Old Testament.

But what you are offering has nothing to do with ἁμαρτία or even the actual text. It appears to be injected into the text rather than derived from it.

First of all, my argument is based upon 57 usages of hamartia in Paul's letters, and every other usage of the word in the New Testament, which, in case you haven't noticed, is where 2 Cor. 5:21 is found. It's not in the Septuagint.

Secondly, it has everything to do with the grammar. I have checked my sources and I am satisfied that every usage of hamartia in the LXX is in the genitive when it is used for 'sin offering.' 'Of sin' or 'for sin.' I studied classical Greek for four years at school and the for three years at university, and then koine Greek when I became a Christian, at first on my own and then at seminary; there isn't that much difference between them. But in the very first year at school I learned that you can't muck about with the cases. In 2 Cor. 5:21, both usages of harmartia have to agree with 'Him' (ton) which is the object of 'made' (epoiesen). Therefore it has to be in the accusative, hamartian, and it is. If it meant 'sin offering' it would be in the genitive, hamartias.

I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.

It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24).

 

[JonC]

First of all, my argument is based upon 57 usages of hamartia in Paul's letters, and every other usage of the word in the New Testament, which, in case you haven't noticed, is where 2 Cor. 5:21 is found. It's not in the Septuagint.

Secondly, it has everything to do with the grammar. I have checked my sources and I am satisfied that every usage of hamartia in the LXX is in the genitive when it is used for 'sin offering.' 'Of sin' or 'for sin.' I studied classical Greek for four years at school and the for three years at university, and then koine Greek when I became a Christian, at first on my own and then at seminary; there isn't that much difference between them. But in the very first year at school I learned that you can't muck about with the cases. In 2 Cor. 5:21, both usages of harmartia have to agree with 'Him' (ton) which is the object of 'made' (epoiesen). Therefore it has to be in the accusative, hamartian, and it is. If it meant 'sin offering' it would be in the genitive, hamartias.

I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.

It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24).

Obviously we cannot pretend that ἁμαρτία cannot mean “sin offering” because of the fact it has been used in the LXX to mean exactly that. Paul used the Greek of his time to communicate to the people of his time. If it can be used to mean “sin offering” in the LXX then Paul could have used it the same way because it was language contemporary to the first century.

And we know that the LXX uses ἁμαρτία as a translation for ‏חַטָּאת‎, which also means “sin offering” (even more than it means “sin” in Exodus).

My request was for for a scholar in biblical languages. I posted two very respected (even in Reformed circles, and mainstream) scholars of biblical Greek. I have two years of graduate studies in Greek and would not consider myself anywhere near a novice (we rely on those who study the language as their Christian vocation). So yes, we use the tools available to us. You are relying on commentators and theologians who are not experts in the language to refute Christian scholars who are experts in the language and whose scholarship is in the languages themselves. I would not trust Mounce to teach me theology. That is not his field of expertise. I certainly would not trust Spurgeon to exegate Greek. His ministry was pastoral.

What you are saying is that you do not care that the experts in the language say ἁμαρτία can mean "sin offering" because there are people who are not experts in the language who say it cannot and that is what you want to believe.

For my part, the evidence is more than enough that I accept the interpretation of "sin offering". I know that you do not (I know you accept the truth He was a sin offering but reject this meaning in the verse at hand).

How many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Obviously we cannot pretend that ἁμαρτία cannot mean “sin offering” because of the fact it has been used in the LXX to mean exactly that. Paul used the Greek of his time to communicate to the people of his time. If it can be used to mean “sin offering” in the LXX then Paul could have used it the same way because it was language contemporary to the first century.

No he couldn't have used it to mean sin offering because he didn't put it in the genitive. That is the reason that the writer to the Hebrews doesn't do it. Even when he quotes from the LXX, he puts a preposition in front of hamartias each time.

And we know that the LXX uses ἁμαρτία as a translation for ‏חַטָּאת‎, which also means “sin offering” (even more than it means “sin” in Exodus).

Only in the genitive, unless you have other information.

My request was for for a scholar in biblical languages. I posted two very respected (even in Reformed circles, and mainstream) scholars of biblical Greek. I have two years of graduate studies in Greek and would not consider myself anywhere near a novice (we rely on those who study the language as their Christian vocation). So yes, we use the tools available to us. You are relying on commentators and theologians who are not experts in the language to refute Christian scholars who are experts in the language and whose scholarship is in the languages themselves. I would not trust Mounce to teach me theology. That is not his field of expertise. I certainly would not trust Spurgeon to exegate Greek. His ministry was pastoral.

You have posted two names but not what they wrote. I would like to see exactly how they manage to overlook what is an extremely basic point. You say you would not trust Mounce to teach you theology (even though, effectively, you are). Maybe his theology has led him to overlook it just as yours has. Naylor was entrusted to write a fairly technical commentary on both 1 & 2 Corinthians by one of the leading evangelical publishers in the UK. I think we may take it that he knew his Greek, certainly well enough to understand the very basic point that we have here.

What you are saying is that you do not care that the experts in the language say ἁμαρτία can mean "sin offering" because there are people who are not experts in the language who say it cannot and that is what you want to believe.

It does mean 'sin offering' in the genitive, and only in the genitive, in the LXX. Not in the NT.

For my part, the evidence is more than enough that I accept the interpretation of "sin offering". I know that you do not (I know you accept the truth He was a sin offering but reject this meaning in the verse at hand).

How many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”?

Nowhere I can think of in the Bible is Christ described as a 'sin offering'. In Isaiah 53:5, His life was made a sin offering, which is not quite the same thing. Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean sin; he never uses it to mean anything else..[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

No he couldn't have used it to mean sin offering because he didn't put it in the genitive. That is the reason that the writer to the Hebrews doesn't do it. Even when he quotes from the LXX, he puts a preposition in front of hamartias each time.

Only in the genitive, unless you have other information.

You have posted two names but not what they wrote. I would like to see exactly how they manage to overlook what is an extremely basic point. You say you would not trust Mounce to teach you theology (even though, effectively, you are). Maybe his theology has led him to overlook it just as yours has. Naylor was entrusted to write a fairly technical commentary on both 1 & 2 Corinthians by one of the leading evangelical publishers in the UK. I think we may take it that he knew his Greek, certainly well enough to understand the very basic point that we have here.

It does mean 'sin offering' in the genitive, and only in the genitive, in the LXX. Not in the NT.

Ok, I provided a scholar of New Testament Greek who disagrees with your conclusion.
I provided a leading expert in pneumatology and textual criticism of the New Testament who disagrees with your conclusion. So you are just going to have to accept that I do not believe your conclusions are true.

But you cannot keep arguing against Christian scholars saying that their conclusions are beyond the realm of possibility while you are ignoring the implications of ἁμαρτία in your interpretation by reading into it your theology.

The verse does not say that “God considered Jesus as if He were a sinner” or “God lay our iniquity upon Christ (we’d agree there)”. You are rejecting one view based on your determination that it does not fit the grammar to offer an interpretation that is not in the text at all.

Stop trying to defeat my view (it is not yours to defeat) and start defending what you believe the passage does say. That is an issue with these kinds of discussions. People what to defeat the other person they never get around to explaining how they support their view. I am telling you what I believe and why. I am not asking you to believe it.

Nowhere I can think of in the Bible is Christ described as a 'sin offering'.

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

I believe that Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians what Paul is saying in Romans 8:3. God sent His Son as an offering for sin.

Now, how many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”?

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

I think that we are getting a little off subject with the "sin offering" and "sin" topic (at least from my position).

The reason is that I do believe that Paul is pointing to God as "sending His Son the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin" (Romans 8:3).

I mentioned before about Mounce saying that it can mean both and I believe that it does. But I've been stressing "sin offering" absent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" I think just because of getting caught up in the argument.

My point is that it can mean either "sin" as in "sinful flesh" and/or "sin offering" but it cannot mean "God viewing Christ as if he were a sinner". The reason is God is never the one who misunderstood Christ as"stricken by God". It was man. Man deemed Christ stricken by God. The Jews handed Him over to godless men to be killed. It was the will of God (He was pleased to "crush" Him) but it was under the powers of darkness that Christ suffered and died and He was vindicated by the Father through the Resurrection (Acts 4 – 5; Ephesians 1:2-23; Philemon 2).

My point is that PSA is wrong, not because Christ was not "made sin" because He was. Paul tells us in Romans 8 that God sent Christ as a sin offering and in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Both are true. But what we are talking about with PSA has nothing to do with these passages. It has to do with ascribing to God what Scripture ascribes to the wicked (the suffering and death of Christ).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok, I provided a scholar of New Testament Greek who disagrees with your conclusion.
I provided a leading expert in pneumatology and textual criticism of the New Testament who disagrees with your conclusion. So you are just going to have to accept that I do not believe your conclusions are true.

You have actually done neither. You have told me that there are such people, but you haven't told me what they say. I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but as you are not prepared to take the word of Spurgeon et al, even when they are quoted to you, I am not prepared to accept some guy who you say supports you without seeing the quote. Even then, they will have to address the points I have made

But you cannot keep arguing against Christian scholars saying that their conclusions are beyond the realm of possibility while you are ignoring the implications of ἁμαρτία in your interpretation by reading into it your theology.

I think you'll find I can. And I shall continue to do so until you provide some credible evidence that I'm wrong.

The verse does not say that “God considered Jesus as if He were a sinner” or “God lay our iniquity upon Christ (we’d agree there)”. You are rejecting one view based on your determination that it does not fit the grammar to offer an interpretation that is not in the text at all.

Well of course it does say exactly that. He was made sin; we are made righteousness. How are we made righteousness? By imputation. '....The ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing [Gk. logizomai, 'reckon,' 'impute'] their trespasses to them......' (v.19). So how was Christ made sin? By imputation. Here's Charles Hodge:
He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin, is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.'

Stop trying to defeat my view (it is not yours to defeat) and start defending what you believe the passage does say. That is an issue with these kinds of discussions. People what to defeat the other person they never get around to explaining how they support their view. I am telling you what I believe and why. I am not asking you to believe it.

Firstly, that is an utterly ridiculous way of carrying on a discussion on a discussion forum. Secondly, I have been at enormous pains to explain how I support my views. Just read this thread!!

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

I believe that Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians what Paul is saying in Romans 8:3. God sent His Son as an offering for sin.

Now, how many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”?

Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh. The KJV and ESV translate similarly. I will concede that the NIV translation is possible, as it would not be in 2 Cor 5:21, because hamartia is in the genitive, but I do not think it's correct, because I don't see how a sin offering condemns sin in the flesh (c.f. Hebrews 10:11). Christ came because of sin. If there had been no sin, God would not have sent Him. And it was in His flesh that God condemned and punished the sins of His people.[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

You have actually done neither. You have told me that there are such people, but you haven't told me what they say. I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but as you are not prepared to take the word of Spurgeon et al, even when they are quoted to you, I am not prepared to accept some guy who you say supports you without seeing the quote. Even then, they will have to address the points I have made

I think you'll find I can. And I shall continue to do so until you provide some credible evidence that I'm wrong.

Well of course it does say exactly that. He was made sin; we are made righteousness. How are we made righteousness? By imputation. '....The ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing [Gk. logizomai, 'reckon,' 'impute'] their trespasses to them......' (v.19). So how was Christ made sin? By imputation. Here's Charles Hodge:
He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin, is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.'

Firstly, that is an utterly ridiculous way of carrying on a discussion on a discussion forum. Secondly, I have been at enormous pains to explain how I support my views. Just read this thread!!

Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh. The KJV and ESV translate similarly. I will concede that the NIV translation is possible, as it would not be in 2 Cor 5:21, because hamartia is in the genitive, but I do not think it's correct, because I don't see how a sin offering condemns sin in the flesh (c.f. Hebrews 10:11). Christ came because of sin. If there had been no sin, God would not have sent Him. And it was in His flesh that God condemned and punished the sins of His people.

[/QUOTE]Please re-read my post.
I provided two.

You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.

But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Please re-read my post.
I provided two.

Which post? Was it two names, or two relevant quotations?

You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.

But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.

You gave me one that you think speaks of Christ in that way, which is not the same as saying you gave me one. I have told you why I think it you are wrong and I now wait for you to reply to that.

I'm going to take a short break and explore the LXX for a bit to see what I can turn up.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@JonShaff,
In my to and fro with @JonC I may have failed to answer some points that you made. Sorry!
If you would like to re-post or point me to the post number, I will try to respond.

 

[Yeshua1]

The issue is that there are passages that state Jesus is a sin offering. There are no other passages to support Jesus literally becoming sin. @Martin Marprelate has said many times, it is not thus says the Word but thus says the Word again (we need to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture).

We know that the verse can be interpreted "sin offering". Experts like Mounce and Fee have emphasized this fact.

We know that Jesus did become a sin offering.

There is no reason to add to Jesus became sin the sentence "that is God looked upon him as if he were a sinner.

That would be when God the Father forsook Jesus while he was doing His work of atonement!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please re-read my post.
I provided two.

You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.

But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.[/QUOTE]
Jesus came in our likeness, but not sameness, as we have a sin nature, and he did not!

 

[Yeshua1]

First of all, my argument is based upon 57 usages of hamartia in Paul's letters, and every other usage of the word in the New Testament, which, in case you haven't noticed, is where 2 Cor. 5:21 is found. It's not in the Septuagint.

Secondly, it has everything to do with the grammar. I have checked my sources and I am satisfied that every usage of hamartia in the LXX is in the genitive when it is used for 'sin offering.' 'Of sin' or 'for sin.' I studied classical Greek for four years at school and the for three years at university, and then koine Greek when I became a Christian, at first on my own and then at seminary; there isn't that much difference between them. But in the very first year at school I learned that you can't muck about with the cases. In 2 Cor. 5:21, both usages of harmartia have to agree with 'Him' (ton) which is the object of 'made' (epoiesen). Therefore it has to be in the accusative, hamartian, and it is. If it meant 'sin offering' it would be in the genitive, hamartias.

I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.

It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24).

I posted what Dr Daniel Wallace holds with in this particular issue, and he agrees with us on what becoming sin for meant to Paul!

 

[Yeshua1]

No he couldn't have used it to mean sin offering because he didn't put it in the genitive. That is the reason that the writer to the Hebrews doesn't do it. Even when he quotes from the LXX, he puts a preposition in front of hamartias each time.

Only in the genitive, unless you have other information.

You have posted two names but not what they wrote. I would like to see exactly how they manage to overlook what is an extremely basic point. You say you would not trust Mounce to teach you theology (even though, effectively, you are). Maybe his theology has led him to overlook it just as yours has. Naylor was entrusted to write a fairly technical commentary on both 1 & 2 Corinthians by one of the leading evangelical publishers in the UK. I think we may take it that he knew his Greek, certainly well enough to understand the very basic point that we have here.

It does mean 'sin offering' in the genitive, and only in the genitive, in the LXX. Not in the NT.

Nowhere I can think of in the Bible is Christ described as a 'sin offering'. In Isaiah 53:5, His life was made a sin offering, which is not quite the same thing. Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean sin; he never uses it to mean anything else..

[/QUOTE]
Think that we would have to take the NT uses of the greek term, as LXX not inspired!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please re-read my post.
I provided two.

You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.

But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.[/QUOTE]
You do hold to God imputing to us the righteousness of Jesus Christ, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which post? Was it two names, or two relevant quotations?

You gave me one that you think speaks of Christ in that way, which is not the same as saying you gave me one. I have told you why I think it you are wrong and I now wait for you to reply to that.

I'm going to take a short break and explore the LXX for a bit to see what I can turn up.

Those like NT Wright deny imputation of ther righteousness of Jesus towards us by God, is that not part of the Pst atonement view also?