Christ being made sin Volume 2

[tyndale1946]

Hebrews 2:17–18. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

I agreed with what you said but I never ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but yet I am judge a sinner by what someone else who is my federal representative did... His action condemned me and the rest of this board, I know he didn't do it alone... Now to the OP if Christ was not made sin for us and he felt the full effect of our sins on the cross and you made a comment that God always loved the Son... He didn't when he became us the wrath of God was laid on him, that was meant for us... His offering?... He became us!... In his own body bore our sins... If he didn't you are still in your sins and if he didn't how?... The first Adam condemned me, the second Adam (the Lord from Heaven) saved me!... When our sins were laid on him!... Brother Glen

Matthew 27: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[JonC]

I agreed with what you said but I never ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but yet I am judge a sinner by what someone else who is my federal representative did... His action condemned me and the rest of this board, I know he didn't do it alone... Now to the OP if Christ was not made sin for us and he felt the full effect of our sins on the cross and you made a comment that God always loved the Son... He didn't when he became us the wrath of God was laid on him, that was meant for us... His offering?... He became us!... In his own body bore our sins... If he didn't you are still in your sins and if he didn't how?... The first Adam condemned me, the second Adam (the Lord from Heaven) saved me!... When our sins were laid on him!... Brother Glen

Matthew 27: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Obviously I disagree. I believe that God always loved the Son and the Son was doing the will of the Father.

When it comes to Matthew 27:46 I believe that Jesus knew why He was forsaken to suffer and die on the Cross. He knew this long before He was arrested.

I also believe that Psalm 22 foretells the Cross, and that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of that Psalm (the one forsaken to suffer but relying on God to never abandon Him, which proved true at the end of the Psalm).

I'm not sure we can truly say that the First Adam condemned us. Paul puts our condemnation squarely on our heads. It may be better to say the First Adam was the first of us (of natural man) and the Last Adam the first of us (the Firstborn of many brethren, of the Spirit).

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC , I don't honestly understand what you are saying here. I don't mean that as a dismissal but I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Owen said that in every sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the beast to be offered antecedent unto the sacrificing of it, and therein its suffering by death. Therefore in every offering for sin, he that brought it was to "put his hand on the head of it," Lev. 1:4. And that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering was thereby signified, is expressly declared, Lev. 16:21. Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a sin-offering for us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto his suffering. (Owen)
It sounds like that is what everybody is saying.

 

[JonC]

@JonC , I don't honestly understand what you are saying here. I don't mean that as a dismissal but I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Owen said that in every sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the beast to be offered antecedent unto the sacrificing of it, and therein its suffering by death. Therefore in every offering for sin, he that brought it was to "put his hand on the head of it," Lev. 1:4. And that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering was thereby signified, is expressly declared, Lev. 16:21. Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a sin-offering for us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto his suffering. (Owen)
It sounds like that is what everybody is saying.

It is what I have been saying as well. The reason I noted Owen's comment was that Martin rejected the idea as poor scholarship (when it was mine).

Owen viewed God as imputing to Christ the guilt of our sin and Christ being made a sin (or guilt) offering.

It wasn't really a challenge to theology but to the use of words. And I just wanted to point out that Martin sided against Owen while I didn't...that just doesn't happen much

 

[DaveXR650]

When you guys parse Greek and Hebrew words you lose me but from what I know, Martin's post #12 would agree with Owen's take on the subject. @JonC , are you moving towards more of a substitutionary view of the atonement? That's good.

 

[JonC]

When you guys parse Greek and Hebrew words you lose me but from what I know, Martin's post #12 would agree with Owen's take on the subject. @JonC , are you moving towards more of a substitutionary view of the atonement? That's good.

No. I moved away from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It's impossible to move back until the reason I moved away is resolved via Scripture. The Substitution Theory is moving at least in that same direction.

Plus, I like where I am.

 

[percho]

Did not, the Christ, become the sin, "offering," because of having become, "the sin," of us all?

 

[JonC]

Did not, the Christ, become the sin, "offering," because of having become, "the sin," of us all?

I believe that Christ bore our sins (God laid the iniquity of us all on Him). If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean a transference of our sins from us, then I'd say no as this is not in the Bible.

 

[percho]

I believe that Christ bore out sins (God laid the iniquity of us all on Him). If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean a transference of our sins from us, then I'd say no as this is not in the Bible.

a transference of our sins from us

Question's

Where did your sins go?

1 Cor 15:17 and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins;

When? When did they (your sins) go away in, it?
What caused them (your sins) to go away his blood?
Was it because before the death of Christ the soul (living) of the flesh of him (Christ) was in the blood of him?

What about after the resurrection? Is John 5:21-26 relevant? Is he raised from the dead by the Father with life inherent in the flesh of himself and to quicken whom he will? See also 1 Cor 15:45,46 so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature (soul),' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

 

[JonC]

a transference of our sins from us

Question's

Where did your sins go?

1 Cor 15:17 and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins;

When? When did they (your sins) go away in, it?
What caused them (your sins) to go away his blood?
Was it because before the death of Christ the soul (living) of the flesh of him (Christ) was in the blood of him?

What about after the resurrection? Is John 5:21-26 relevant? Is he raised from the dead by the Father with life inherent in the flesh of himself and to quicken whom he will? See also 1 Cor 15:45,46 so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature (soul),' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

Sins don't go anywhere. That does not even make sense.

Think about it. You kick your dog. Where does "you kick your dog" go. Sins are not things to be transferred.

The problem is not our sins but our nature's (flesh or Spirit). We are still in our sins if we are of the flesh, but are not if we are walking by the Spirit.

God forgives or punishes us for our sins.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The context was our justification in Christ. John Owen presented Christ who knew no sin as being made a sin offering in our behalf. He justified interpreting "sin" as "sin offering" by noting that was a common use of "sin", particularly in the OT and that the passage necessitated such an interpretation as Christ could not be ime sin.

Owen's comments are "Doctrine of Justification by Faith".

Can you give me a chapter and/or page number, please? This is not one of Owen's books that I possess, but it's readily available on line Until I see what Owen actually wrote, I can't really comment on it.

You are correct that Owen was not arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He held firmly to Reformed Theology.

Yep! I kinda knew that.

I brought his work up simply because you objected so strongly to Owen's interpretation of Christ being made sin. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not hinge on ones interpretation of that passage (most Reformed Christians view the passage to mean something other than Christ literally being made sin while affirming the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I can't object to Owen's interpretation of Christ being made sin because I don't know what it is yet. I objected strongly to yours, and still do, because you were using it as part of your argument against the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Whatever Owen wrote, he did not do that.
You have brought in a pretty big gun to defend your position, but it does not alter my view, which is based solely on the word of God. It is not only the ridiculousness of having two different meanings of the same word close together in the same sentence. There are several other arguments which I have mentioned previously and can repeat if you really want me to.

 

[DaveXR650]

I can't object to Owen's interpretation of Christ being made sin because I don't know what it is yet

It seems like Owen was saying that the sins were put on Christ like they were put on a sacrifice in the Old Testament by laying your hand on the head of the sacrifice. The animal was then slain as a "sin-offering". I think 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying that the sins were transferred to Christ, yet Christ himself had not been a sinner and had not incurred any guilt of his own. What am I missing here?

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe that Christ bore our sins (God laid the iniquity of us all on Him). If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean a transference of our sins from us, then I'd say no as this is not in the Bible.

The reason we will never get anywhere in a meaningful discussion of the atonement is that I can't understand why you don't realize that your statement above is a direct contradiction of itself. Yes, Christ bore our sins. And the iniquity of us was laid on Him. And in the next sentence you say they can't be transferred from us? It seems like you just said they were.

Sins don't go anywhere. That does not even make sense.

Think about it. You kick your dog. Where does "you kick your dog" go. Sins are not things to be transferred.

It becomes an "offense" that I am guilty of. The fact is, unless sin can be transferred, Christ cannot bear it, because he didn't actually do it Himself, and verse 2 Corinthians 5:21 won't apply to you.

There is simply no way to say that sin can be born by Christ and then say that it cannot be transferred to him.

 

[kyredneck]

No need to assume when I stated that "sin" is a reference to a tangible manifestation of sin; that sin exists as a "thing", literally, in the spiritual world.

Are you saying that sin could be a 'not so tangible attitude'?

If I speed driving down the highway that "sin" is an action. It is not a literal "thing".

28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mt 5

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2:15

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Ro 7

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Ro 8

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4

10 I, Jehovah, search the mind, I try the heart, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. Jer 17:10

...lol, just 'lusting to speed' could be a sin... If it weren't for that pesky speed limit law, there'd be no problem:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. Ro 7

 

[JD731]

Just keeping it going

In the OT the word translated "sin" (חֵטְא) means:
1. A fault
2. Disobedience to God
3. The punishment for a crime

In the NT "sin" is generally taken to mean a disobedience to God.

The Greek word for sin (hamartia) also has several meanings.

1. In the 8th Century BC Homer used the word to mean "missing the mark" in describing battles.

2. 1st Century Jews used the word to mean an offense (against one another) or a disobedience to God (particularly the Mosaic Law).

3. In Greek literature the word indicates an inner movement that ultimately leads to one's death or to a tragic event (think of Oedipus, who left Corinth to avoid his fate, yet in leaving Corinth ultimately fulfilled that fate).

Where we are:

@Martin Marprelate suggested "sin" means "missing the mark" (He who knew no sin was made "missing the mark").

The problem with that definition is twofold. First, it was archaic by the time of Paul writing to the Corinth church. Second, to apply this morally or ethically is to westernize the word.

@George Antonios suggests it means "sin". I assume he means "disobedience to God".

@John of Japan suggests Paul is using it as a metaphor to mean the separation of Christ from God as Christ bore our sins. John pointed out that Christ cannot literally be made a non-corporeal thing.

I also believe Paul is using the word metaphorically (but that it also carries the literal meaning of "sin" in the Greek language as Christ was obedient even unto death) to speak of the work of Christ as previously stated in the text of Scripture (Christ offering Himself for our sins, bearing our sins, becoming a curse for us, and dying for our sins).

I believe thus far @Martin Marprelate 's is the most popular view here.


Here is the first thread: How Christ Was "Made Sin"

My understanding of the definition of sin.

Sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There is no mystery here.

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Cain murdered Abel and was not charged with murder before the law and was allowed to live.

A man gathered sticks on the sabbath and was put to death under the Mosaic law because the law forbade it.

This kinda illustrates the points if you ask me.

So Jesus Christ our Lord and savior was made the personification of sin and dealt with all transgressions of all men in a one time payment that God the Father, the judge of all the earth, accepted.

Glory to his wonderful name.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It seems like Owen was saying that the sins were put on Christ like they were put on a sacrifice in the Old Testament by laying your hand on the head of the sacrifice. The animal was then slain as a "sin-offering". I think 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying that the sins were transferred to Christ, yet Christ himself had not been a sinner and had not incurred any guilt of his own. What am I missing here?

Dave, can you point me to the chapter of Owen's book that @JonC is referencing, please? Until I've read it I really don't want to comment further than I have.

 

[tyndale1946]

Dave, can you point me to the chapter of Owen's book that @JonC is referencing, please? Until I've read it I really don't want to comment further than I have.

Martin... I found this I hope it helps... Brother Glen

He Made Him to be Sin - 2 Corinthians 5:21 | Monergism.

 

[tyndale1946]

Martin... I found this I hope it helps... Brother Glen

He Made Him to be Sin - 2 Corinthians 5:21 | Monergism.

Here is an excerpt from the article, which I highly agree with... Brother Glen

III. We may see three things concerning ourselves:—

1. Our own sin and guilt: he was made sin "for us." If Christ was made sin for us, then we were sinners.

2. We may remember our deliverance,—how we were delivered from sin, and all the evils of it. It was not by a word of command or power, or by the interposition of saints or angels, or by our own endeavours; but by the sufferings of the Son of God. And,—

3. God would have us remember and call to mind the state where-into we are brought,—which is a state of righteousness; that we may bless him for that which in this world will issue in our righteousness, and in the world to come, eternal glory.

These things we may call over for our faith to meditate upon. Our minds are apt to be distracted; the ordinance is to fix them: and if we act faith in an especial manner in this ordinance, God will be glorified.

 

[percho]

Sins don't go anywhere. That does not even make sense.

Think about it. You kick your dog. Where does "you kick your dog" go. Sins are not things to be transferred.

The problem is not our sins but our nature's (flesh or Spirit). We are still in our sins if we are of the flesh, but are not if we are walking by the Spirit.

God forgives or punishes us for our sins.

I may not phrased that very well, however were not our sins removed and or carried away? What does blood have to do with sin? Were our sins removed and or carried away in or by the blood of Jesus.

Does that mean in the death of Jesus?

What does blood have to do with sin and why?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin... I found this I hope it helps... Brother Glen

He Made Him to be Sin - 2 Corinthians 5:21 | Monergism.

That's great, Glen! Thanks.
I don't think that can be what @JonC was referring to though.