Christ being made sin Volume 2

[JonC]

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"

 

[George Antonios]

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

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I disagree that sin (a non-corporeal word) literally exists as a "thing".

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

 

[George Antonios]

I disagree that sin (a non-corporeal word) literally exists as a "thing".

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

I already quoted the verses.
This is a false dichotomy arising from our almost-zero knowledge of the realities of the spiritual world.
Your speeding action, if sinful, produces a literal manifestation in the spiritual world that must be contained, like nuclear waste.
It's a like an aberration in the matrix of the universe that results in a metaphysical reality which can be bagged and dumped.

 

[JonC]

I already quoted the verses.
This is a false dichotomy arising from our almost-zero knowledge of the realities of the spiritual world.
Your speeding action, if sinful, produces a literal manifestation in the spiritual world that must be contained, like nuclear waste.
It's a like an aberration in the matrix of the universe that results in a metaphysical reality which can be bagged and dumped.

Why do you believe the translators of the KJV hot it so wrong when it came to their use of "sin" in the Old Testament?

Edit - By "why" I mean what do you believe to have been their error in translating....not why you believe the KJV is wrong.

 

[tyndale1946]

My definition of sin that Christ bore on his cross can best be stated in a stanza of a song by Joseph Hart 1711-1768... Called Gethsemane

Sins against a holy God,
Sins against his righteous laws,
Sins against his love, his blood,
Sins against his name and cause
Sins immense as in the sea!
Hide me, O Gethsemane!... Bother Glen

 

[JonC]

My definition of sin that Christ bore on his cross can best be stated in a stanza of a song by Joseph Hart 1711-1768... Called Gethsemane

Sins against a holy God,
Sins against his righteous laws,
Sins against his love, his blood,
Sins against his name and cause
Sins immense as in the sea!
Hide me, O Gethsemane!... Bother Glen

But that doesn't describe what God was made (except against Himself). Unless that is what you mean by "sin" (opposed to God)?

If that is what you mean then I agree in most cases. Sin is an opposition to God (when sin is against God rather than man).

But I disagree in this case as I can't read that Christ was made to oppose God in the passage (He was doing God's will).

 

[Van]

If Jesus was sin, he was not sinless! What is the claim of those pushing mistaken doctrine based on mistaken understanding?

 

[tyndale1946]

If Jesus was sin, he was not sinless! What is the claim of those pushing mistaken doctrine based on mistaken understanding?

You and the moderator have a screw loose somewhere... When the scripture says he became us you assume that he became our sin... He didn't become our sin because sin was IN him, he became our sin because our sin was laid ON him... Do you understand what proxy is?... It is someone who represents someone else and does what some else can not do... The song Gethsemane is our sins against God, not The Son sins against his Father... Let me state again these were OUR SINS... God is going to lay our sin on someone that already has sin?... Get real... Brother Glen

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

[Van]

You and the moderator have a screw loose somewhere... When the scripture says he became us you assume that he became our sin... He didn't become our sin because sin was IN him, he became our sin because our sin was laid ON him... Do you understand what proxy is?... It is someone who represents someone else and does what some else can not do... The song Gethsemane is our sins against God, not The Son sins against his Father... Let me state again these were OUR SINS... God is going to lay our sin on someone that already has sin... Get real... Brother Glen

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1) Which verse of scripture says Jesus became us?
2) The claim Jesus was made "to be sin" is not the same as Jesus was made to suffer for our sin as our sin offering, the Lamb of God.
3) Rather than question my vocabulary, why not address the issue.
4) Note that no where does this poster deny Jesus was made to be sin.
5) The issue is not that Jesus was sinless before He was made to be sin, the issue is whether Jesus was sinless when He was made to be sin.

Here is a literal translation of 2 Corinthians 5:21:
For the One knowing no sin, for the benefit of us he makes "sin," that we may become the righteousness of God in Him.

For Jesus to be sinless, He did not become sin as far as missing the mark, but did become sin as far as receiving the consequence of sinful behavior. Thus Jesus was and is God's sinless sin offering, sacrificed to provide the forgiveness of our sins, all of us who have been transferred into Christ and have undergone the washing of regeneration.

 

[JonC]

You and the moderator have a screw loose somewhere... When the scripture says he became us you assume that he became our sin..

Don't talk about @Salty like that! And he's an Administrator. He passed us lowley moderators long ago.

I must have missed the post that Jesus became us.

I'll take the liberty to express my own belief (I'm afraid if I don't somebody may try to express it for me and fumble the ball).

I believe that our redemption is dependent on the Messiah as described in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 (among other places) and incorporates God's redemptive work from the Incarnation through the Resurrection.

So it is true that I do not believe in a "deathless" redemption (that we were redeemed by God punishing Christ instead of punishing us, and even this prior Christ's Spirit being commended into the Father's hands).

But I don't get the idea you are arguing against with Christ becoming sin by becoming us. Are you saying we are all God (or gods)?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Having finished my sermon prep I have time for a quick post.

When the scripture says he became us you assume that he became our sin..

John 1:14. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ. He did mot cease to be what He had always been, but became something new as well. That, I think is what Brother Tyndale means. Our Lord came in the likeness of sinful flesh, but the NT is replete with testimonies that He never sinned.

The question is asked, how did Christ become sin? He became sin (not a siinner) in the same way that we sinners become righteousness (not righteous). By imputation. The Bible tells us that 'The iniquity of us all was laid on Him' and 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of xulon, 'tree' instead of stauron, 'cross' indicates that our Lord as well as being made sin, 'Became a curse [not cursed] for us' (Gal. 3:13). The curse that was upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26) and upon the world (Genesis 3:17-19) was laid upon Him and He expiated it (Romans 8:20-21; Revelation 22:3). Now God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

All this is so simple and straightforward that a child can understand it. 'See you here the foundation truth of Christianity, the rock on which our hopes are built. It is the only hope of a sinner, and the only true joy of the Christian—the great transaction, the great substitution, the great lifting of sin from the sinner to the sinner’s Surety, the punishment of the Surety instead of the sinner, the pouring out of the vials of wrath, which were due to the transgressor, upon the head of his Substitute, the grandest transaction which ever took place on earth, the most wonderful sight that even hell ever beheld, and the most stupendous marvel that heaven itself ever executed—Jesus Christ made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him!'
C.H. Spurgeon. Enjoy the whole sermon here:
https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3203.pdf

You and the moderator have a screw loose somewhere...

I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[JonC]

Having finished my sermon prep I have time for a quick post.
John 1:14. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ. He did mot cease to be what He had always been, but became something new as well. That, I think is what Brother Tyndale means. Our Lord came in the likeness of sinful flesh, but the NT is replete with testimonies that He never sinned.

The question is asked, how did Christ become sin? He became sin (not a siinner) in the same way that we sinners become righteousness (not righteous). By imputation. The Bible tells us that 'The iniquity of us all was laid on Him' and 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of xulon, 'tree' instead of stauron, 'cross' indicates that our Lord as well as being made sin, 'Became a curse [not cursed] for us' (Gal. 3:13). The curse that was upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26) and upon the world (Genesis 3:17-19) was laid upon Him and He expiated it (Romans 8:20-21; Revelation 22:3). Now God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

All this is so simple and straightforward that a child can understand it. 'See you here the foundation truth of Christianity, the rock on which our hopes are built. It is the only hope of a sinner, and the only true joy of the Christian—the great transaction, the great substitution, the great lifting of sin from the sinner to the sinner’s Surety, the punishment of the Surety instead of the sinner, the pouring out of the vials of wrath, which were due to the transgressor, upon the head of his Substitute, the grandest transaction which ever took place on earth, the most wonderful sight that even hell ever beheld, and the most stupendous marvel that heaven itself ever executed—Jesus Christ made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him!'
C.H. Spurgeon. Enjoy the whole sermon here:
https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3203.pdf

I couldn't possibly comment.

If @tyndale1946 was saying we have a screw loose for believing Christ was made us, meaning tge Word became flesh, then I certainly have a screw loose.

I do believe that the Jesus was with God, and was God, from eternity past but there was a point in time when He be ame flesh (human) without ceasing to be God.

And I do believe that God's work of redeeming man includes the Word being made flesh. I believe this is why John chose to include it.

As to Jesus being made sin, I also believe this indicates Jesus as "one of us" bearing our sin on our behalf.

 

[tyndale1946]

If @tyndale1946 was saying we have a screw loose for believing Christ was made us, meaning tge Word became flesh, then I certainly have a screw loose.

I do believe that the Jesus was with God, and was God, from eternity past but there was a point in time when He be ame flesh (human) without ceasing to be God.

And I do believe that God's work of redeeming man includes the Word being made flesh. I believe this is why John chose to include it.

As to Jesus being made sin, I also believe this indicates Jesus as "one of us" bearing our sin on our behalf.

You are forgetting one thing scripture says Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh so he was sinless until our sins were laid on him... Likeness of sinful flesh does not mean he was like man in any sinful way... Psalm 51:5 by David says how we ALL come into this world... If he had any sin in him, his Father could not lay our sins on him... As Martin said he became a curse for us... ON THE TREE... If he is anything like us in any other way... I don't have a Savior... There is no hope fore me and Hell is my home... And like I'm been saying on here for twenty years, Jesus Christ is my Savior 100% not for what I've done for him but what he's done fore me... Jesus Christ WILL SAVE all the Father gave the his Son and scripture says so, because God is in the Salvation business not me... Brother Glen

Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[JonC]

You are forgetting one thing scripture says Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh so he was sinless until our sins were laid on him... Likeness of sinful flesh does not mean he was like man in any sinful way... Psalm 51:5 by David says how we ALL come into this world... If he had any sin in him, his Father could not lay our sins on him... As Martin said he became a curse for us... ON THE TREE... If he is anything like us in any other way... I don't have a Savior... There is no hope fore me and Hell is my home... And like I'm been saying on here for twenty years, Jesus Christ is my Savior 100% not for what I've done for him but what he's done fore me... Jesus Christ WILL SAVE all the Father gave the his Son and scripture says so, because God is in the Salvation business not me... Brother Glen

Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I believe Jesus was made like us in every way, except without sin. I believe He even struggled with the flesh (was tempted in all things as we are - yet without sin).

So if you mean Jesus was not actually made man, just in some likeness of man, then we disagree.

I believe Jesus was no more man in His humanity, no less God in His divinity. God-man.

 

[tyndale1946]

I believe Jesus was made like us in every way, except without sin. I believe He even struggled with the flesh (was tempted in all things as we are - yet without sin).

So if you mean Jesus was not actually made man, just in some likeness of man, then we disagree.

I believe Jesus was no more man in His humanity, no less God in His divinity. God-man.

I know everyone has their thoughts on this scripture and I'm not going to argue one way or another but go to scripture for the answer, God prepared the body... Not in the likeness of man, in the likeness of sinful man... Humanity without sin wrapped up in Divinity... Sinless!!!... Brother Glen

Hebrews 10: 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

 

[JonC]

I know everyone has their thoughts on this scripture and I'm not going to argue one way or another but go to scripture for the answer, God prepared the body... Not in the likeness of man, in the likeness of sinful man... Humanity without sin wrapped up in Divinity... Sinless!!!... Brother Glen

Hebrews 10: 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

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.

 

[JonC]

There are several reasons why hamartia should be translated 'sin' and not 'sin offering' in 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The simplest is that 'God made him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us' makes no sense.

Ok....looking over this (and it's parent thread) you have stated that interpreting "sin" as "sin offering" do ies not make sense. You insist it is never used that way in the New Testament and once questioned my education for believing Paul is referring to Christ being made a "sin offering".

I need to point out to you (and @DaveXR650 , you may find this interesting) that my interpretation is not in a vacuum.

John Owen ( Doctrine of Justification by Faith) interprets "sin" in that passage as "sin offering". Owen explains that Christ, who knew no sin, was made a "sin offering". He also states that "sin" is used in the OT to mean "sin offering" and that this is the idea Paul was communicating.

So your conclusions about me based on my interpretation also apply to Owen as he holds the exact same interpretation of the passage.

Do you consider John Owen to be uneducated in Scripture, unaware of Greek, and adding to Scripture?

That was a rhetorical question - of course you do based on how you received me stating the exact same thing.

Who would have thought it....here our disagreement is that I agree with John Owen while you think he was reading into Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok....looking over this (and it's parent thread) you have stated that interpreting "sin" as "sin offering" do ies not make sense. You insist it is never used that way in the New Testament and once questioned my education for believing Paul is referring to Christ being made a "sin offering".

I need to point out to you (and @DaveXR650 , you may find this interesting) that my interpretation is not in a vacuum.

John Owen ( Doctrine of Justification by Faith) interprets "sin" in that passage as "sin offering". Owen explains that Christ, who knew no sin, was made a "sin offering". He also states that "sin" is used in the OT to mean "sin offering" and that this is the idea Paul was communicating.

So your conclusions about me based on my interpretation also apply to Owen as he holds the exact same interpretation of the passage.

Do you consider John Owen to be uneducated in Scripture, unaware of Greek, and adding to Scripture?

That was a rhetorical question - of course you do based on how you received me stating the exact same thing.

Who would have thought it....here our disagreement is that I agree with John Owen while you think he was reading into Scripture.

I shall be interested to know the context of your reference. I have had a very quick glance through the book and have not been able to find it, but that does not mean it's not there. If you say it's there, I'm sure it is, but I'd like the reference, please.
There are however several refences in the book to 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Owen does not find it necessary to correct the translation: For example:

[2.] All those passages in which God is said to specify Christ as the cause of our justification. Rom. 3:25, “Whom God has proposed to be a propitiation.” 1 Cor. 1:30, “Who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and rectification, and redemption.” 2 Cor. 5:21, “He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Acts 13:38, 39, etc. Therefore, acting on justifying faith in Christ, we can only consider him as the ordinance of God to that end. He brings nothing to us, does nothing for us, except what God has appointed, designed, and made him to do. Diligently consider that by our faith in the blood, sacrifice, and satisfaction of Christ, we take nothing from the free grace, favour, and love of God.

I do not count Owen as uneducated, but if interprets 'sin' as 'sin offering' in 2 Cor 5:21, then I disagree with him as I did with you. That Christ's life was made a sin offering is true (Isaiah 53:10), but it is not what 2 Cor 5:21 says for the reasons I gave.
However, I don't think you will be able to show that Owen used the verse to try and disprove the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

I shall be interested to know the context of your reference. I have had a very quick glance through the book and have not been able to find it, but that does not mean it's not there. If you say it's there, I'm sure it is, but I'd like the reference, please.
There are however several refences in the book to 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Owen does not find it necessary to correct the translation: For example:

I do not count Owen as uneducated, but if interprets 'sin' as 'sin offering' in 2 Cor 5:21, then I disagree with him as I did with you. That Christ's life was made a sin offering is true (Isaiah 53:10), but it is not what 2 Cor 5:21 says for the reasons I gave.
However, I don't think you will be able to show that Owen used the verse to try and disprove the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

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".

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

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).