Featured Biblical Penal Substitution

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!

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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]

 

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]

 

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.

 

@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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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!

 

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

 

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?

 

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?