Christ made Sin?

[JonC]

and how so?

You think that the Father cannot at one and the same time see him as personally sinless and obedient with regard to his own person but yet with regard to the eternal covenant of redemption legally treat him as sin.

I agreed with Scripture that it was the will of the Father to crush Him, to lay our iniquities upon Him. I also stated that Jesus suffered the consequence of sin on our behalf. Never did I say otherwise. My argument was not in the treatment but the motivation, or the view of God towards His Son. It was not a punishment towards Christ, but the consequence of sin towards sinful men (what would be our punishment) that Christ suffered.

Here is another example:

you are denying that the "cross" is a judical means to exercise justice against sin in the behalf of sinners.

I never denied that the cross was a judicial means to exercise judgment against sin on behalf of sinners. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and the wrath that is propitiated is certainly centered on God’s judgment.

Here is another (although the wording is not very clear to me):

you are denying that Jesus is being viewed LEGALLY in the place of SINNERS and not merely just being made "SIN" legally and positionally. You are wrong on both accounts.

The Father certainly viewed Jesus as standing in the place of men as this was done in obedience to the Father to begin with.

Here is a clear example of your confusion and incapability of distinguishing

Looking at those three examples, it appears the confusion and incapability of distinguishing what is said belongs to you. I think that this could be avoided by asking questions prior to responding so strongly to the posts of others (which is really important when we know already we disagree at several places from previous discussions).

To clarify my view here, I believe that Christ being made sin on our behalf means that Jesus bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, that it was God’s will to crush Him, that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, that He rendered Himself a guilt offering to justify the many and that He bore our iniquities.

I believe that the Father looked upon His Son as His Righteous One, His Obedient One, His Holy One, His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

If you want to argue, argue against those beliefs as your philosophy is an area where we simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agreed with Scripture that it was the will of the Father to crush Him, to lay our iniquities upon Him. I also stated that Jesus suffered the consequence of sin on our behalf. Never did I say otherwise. My argument was not in the treatment but the motivation, or the view of God towards His Son. It was not a punishment towards Christ, but the consequence of sin towards sinful men (what would be our punishment) that Christ suffered.

Here again is an example of utter confusion between person and position except here is contrasted between treatment (position) versus motivation (person). I understand precisely what you are saying and wholly disagree with it. No distortion on my part.

Here is another example: I never denied that the cross was a judicial means to exercise judgment against sin on behalf of sinners. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and the wrath that is propitiated is certainly centered on God’s judgment.

The problem you have is words without meaning. For example, let me exchange your words "judgment against sin on behalf of sinners" to "judgement against Christ in the position of sinners in behalf of sinners." You fail to grasp that it is "Christ" in his LEGAL ROLE on the cross that is legally and judicially "made TO BE SIN." Just substitute "sin" for "Christ" as that is the meaning. Don't respond about the moral qualities of HIS PERSON on the cross, as a SINLESS PERSON can only fulfill the LEGAL POSITION on the cross.

Here is another (although the wording is not very clear to me): The Father certainly viewed Jesus as standing in the place of men as this was done in obedience to the Father to begin with. Looking at those three examples, it appears the confusion and incapability of distinguishing what is said belongs to you. I think that this could be avoided by asking questions prior to responding so strongly to the posts of others (which is really important when we know already we disagree at several places from previous discussions).

No, those three examples perfectly illustrate my point.

To clarify my view here, I believe that Christ being made sin on our behalf means that Jesus bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, that it was God’s will to crush Him, that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, that He rendered Himself a guilt offering to justify the many and that He bore our iniquities.

I believe that the Father looked upon His Son as His Righteous One, His Obedient One, His Holy One, His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

It is not what you say you believe that is being disputed. It is what you say you don't believe that is being disputed BECAUSE what you say you don't believe invalidates what you say you believe.

If you want to argue, argue against those beliefs as your philosophy is an area where we simply have to agree to disagree.

Fine, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree.

 

[JonC]

Here again is an example of utter confusion between person and position except here is contrasted between treatment (position) versus motivation (person). I understand precisely what you are saying and wholly disagree with it. No distortion on my part.



The problem you have is words without meaning. For example, let me exchange your words "judgment against sin on behalf of sinners" to "judgement against Christ in the position of sinners in behalf of sinners." You fail to grasp that it is "Christ" in his LEGAL ROLE on the cross that is legally and judicially "made TO BE SIN." Just substitute "sin" for "Christ" as that is the meaning. Don't respond about the moral qualities of HIS PERSON on the cross, as a SINLESS PERSON can only fulfill the LEGAL POSITION on the cross.



No, those three examples perfectly illustrate my point.



It is not what you say you believe that is being disputed. It is what you say you don't believe that is being disputed BECAUSE what you say you don't believe invalidates what you say you believe.



Fine, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree.

Then we can move forward by looking at Scripture and agreeing to disagree on philosophy. For the record, I believe you to be better than your theology so for my part I will try to be less sarcastic (forgive me when I lapse...it's in my nature).

You said that what I don't believe invalidates what I claim to believe. Please explain. To reiterate, this is all I offered as believing:

I believe that Christ being made sin on our behalf means that Jesus bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, that it was God’s will to crush Him, that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, that He rendered Himself a guilt offering to justify the many and that He bore our iniquities.

I believe that the Father looked upon His Son as His Righteous One, His Obedient One, His Holy One, His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus as being unrighteous negate any of those points?

(afterwards I will gladly explain how I believe your believing Jesus to be the judicial unrighteousness of God ....or sin in the legal sense [words have meaning].... on the Cross to negate all of those points).

 

[Alcott]

God did not create sin as sin originates with a wrong intent of heart and that cannot originate with the heart of God. That is why the first indication of sin is described as being "found" in Lucifer rather than "created."

Alright, what does that leave?...
God does not create everything that he created as perfect; some are flawed. So how is creating beings, or 'hearts,' that will malfunction not creating the malfunction?

 

[The Biblicist]

Then we can move forward by looking at Scripture and agreeing to disagree on philosophy. For the record, I believe you to be better than your theology so for my part I will try to be less sarcastic (forgive men when I lapse...it's in my nature).

For the record, I think you are a pretty good chap yourself. If we met, we probably would hit it off just fine.

You said that what I don't believe invalidates what I claim to believe. Please explain. To reiterate, this is all I offered as believing:

I believe that Christ being made sin on our behalf means that Jesus bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, that it was God’s will to crush Him, that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, that He rendered Himself a guilt offering to justify the many and that He bore our iniquities.

I believe that the Father looked upon His Son as His Righteous One, His Obedient One, His Holy One, His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus as being unrighteous negate any of those points?

Well, first lets examine the way you have worded your question. I don't believe that God looked at Jesus with regard to His own Person as unrighteous, but the way your question is worded it would have me repudiating my own position. So let's properly state the question first. You should have asked:

"Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross?"

Of course, you would never say that because then there would be no just basis for the Law to exercise condemnation toward him. You see, he must stand in the place and be viewed as one with sin and the sinner in the eyes of the law in order for the law to justify its wrath against him. So the wording of your question is faulty but necessary to defend your view.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that Christ being made sin on our behalf means that Jesus bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, that it was God’s will to crush Him, that God caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, that He rendered Himself a guilt offering to justify the many and that He bore our iniquities.

I believe that the Father looked upon His Son as His Righteous One, His Obedient One, His Holy One, His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus as being unrighteous negate any of those points?

(afterwards I will gladly explain how I believe your believing Jesus to be the judicial unrighteousness of God ....or sin in the legal sense [words have meaning].... on the Cross to negate all of those points).

Words must have an explicit meaning or else they will be confused with other words. I noticed you did not use the Biblical language that Christ "was made to be sin for us" and there must be a reason you will not use those words isn't there? You also did not use the words "in our place" so it is most likely you define "on our behalf" and "for us" differently than "in our place."

A "substitute' is one who acts "for" or "on behalf" of another person but it becomes meaningless unless that "for" and "on behalf" is not "in the place of" with regard to the very action or act under consideration. The action under consideration is being the object of the wrath of the Law against sin.

The ceremonial sacrificial law is the basis of instruction for the atoning work of Christ. The lamb without spot or blemish directly acts ceremoninally in the place of Jesus Christ - His just person. However, the lamb without spot or blemish additionally acts ceremonially in the place of the sinner as well as the legal recipient of the just condemnation of the Law.

The term "substitute" with regard to the ceremonial law has the sacrificial victim in the place of the sinner with regard to the ceremonial act and its symbolism. The altar is made of brass - symbolism of judgment. The "fire" is symbolic of judgment. The ceremonictim is ceremonially "in the place" of the sinner with regard to direct connection to these ceremonial symbols of judgment as signified by the laying on of the priests hand and confessing the sins of the people over the ceremonial victim's head. Hence, the idea of substitution is "for" and "on behalf of" in the clear sense of "in the place of" with regard to the very POSITION of the ceremonial symbolic actions by God against the sinner.

If you use "for" and "on behalf of" to deny "in the place of" you are negating the gospel altogether as you are in reality denying the very thing you are stating. Your words in fact simply deny the substitionary atonement altogether.

 

[JonC]

For the record, I think you are a pretty good chap yourself. If we met, we probably would hit it off just fine.



Well, first lets examine the way you have worded your question. I don't believe that God looked at Jesus with regard to His own Person as unrighteous, but the way your question is worded it would have me repudiating my own position. So let's properly state the question first. You should have asked:

"Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross?"

Of course, you would never say that because then there would be no just basis for the Law to exercise condemnation toward him. You see, he must stand in the place and be viewed as one with sin and the sinner in the eyes of the law in order for the law to justify its wrath against him. So the wording of your question is faulty but necessary to defend your view.

I want to be careful here because I find myself blending your words with statements reflecting the views of others on this thread and this is not fair to you.

I think that there is a just basis for God looking at Jesus judicially as being righteous while dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross. This basis is mankind. Jesus became man in obedience to the Father who laid our iniquities (our sins) on Him. This did not necessitate the Father looking upon His Son as (judicially) a sinner but rather the opposite was needed. The Father looked upon His Son as just and righteous while obediently taking upon Himself the sins of mankind as a representative of man. In this way God is both just and the justifier of sinners.

Words must have an explicit meaning or else they will be confused with other words. I noticed you did not use the Biblical language that Christ "was made to be sin for us" and there must be a reason you will not use those words isn't there?

No, there was actually no reason at all except the title of the OP. I'm fine with using words that are not there (although I suppose when we disagree on those words we need to realize that they are not there and more investigation may be needed).

 

[The Biblicist]

The creation of free choice is permission by Go

I want to be careful here because I find myself blending your words with statements reflecting the views of others on this thread and this is not fair to you.

I think that there is a just basis for God looking at Jesus judicially as being righteous while dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross. This basis is mankind. Jesus became man in obedience to the Father who laid our iniquities (our sins) on Him. This did not necessitate the Father looking upon His Son as (judicially) a sinner but rather the opposite was needed. The Father looked upon His Son as just and righteous while obediently taking upon Himself the sins of mankind as a representative of man. In this way God is both just and the justifier of sinners.

Of course there is a legal and just basis for the Father esteeming him to be without blemish and spot and that is the Law of God. However, that has to do with his PERSON not his POSITION on the cross. His position on the cross has nothing to do with his own righteousness except it makes him a fit substitute. His position on the cross has to do with that of a substitute for sinners with regard to the just condemnation of the law against sin and sinners which he personifies on the cross in that particular legal position.

However, you have ignored the problem of how your question is worded and the consequences of wording it properly. Deal with the consequences.

 

[JonC]

The creation of free choice is permission by Go


Of course there is a legal and just basis for the Father esteeming him to be without blemish and spot and that is the Law of God. However, that has to do with his PERSON not his POSITION on the cross. His position on the cross has nothing to do with his own righteousness except it makes him a fit substitute. His position on the cross has to do with that of a substitute for sinners with regard to the just condemnation of the law against sin and sinners which he personifies on the cross in that particular legal position.

Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you mean that the Father looked at Jesus on the Cross as righteous and obedient (it was, in fact, the Father who laid our iniquities on His Son and offered Him as a guilt offering) and at the same time treated Jesus as inheriting the consequence of sin by becoming man then I agree. Man was under a curse and Jesus became a curse for us.

I am not sure that I disagree with your view here as much as I've objected to the statements of others. I do not believe, even here, that the Father looked upon Christ as if He were anything but righteous bearing the iniquities of the unrighteous.

 

[JonC]

I'm sure we can agree that Christ was not made a sinner. He was never that, and the text does not say that he was made so. He was made sin, presumably by imputation. All the sins of His people were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and He bore the judicial wrath of the Father against sin and those who commit it (Psalm 7:11).
That the Father loved/loves the Son is not at issue. I seem to recall an ancient Roman (Cincinnatus?) who had to condemn his own son to death for some crime or other. No doubt it grieved this man more terribly than we can imagine to have to order the execution of his son whom he loved, but justice had to be satisfied and righteousness upheld. Obviously the analogy cannot be stretched too far because this man's son really was guilty, whilst our Saviour was entirely guiltless, but the principle is pretty much the same. God the Father loves the Son, but He hates sin and must punish it. Christ is made the very epitome of sin and the Father pours out His judicial wrath upon the very One whom He loves. '"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My companion," says the LORD of hosts' (Zechariah 13:7). And because God cannot look upon sin, He turns His face away from the suffering Christ during those three hours of darkness until propitiation is made (Psalm 22:1; Mark 15:34), though He does not cease to love Him during that time.

As I pointed out in my OP, the doctrine of Christ being made sin is older than Isaiah 53 (Numbers 21:8).

Yes, we can agree Christ was not made a sinner. NetChaplin was correct. God was not wrathful to Christ when laid upon Him what would have been His wrath against us.

 

[JonC]

However, you have ignored the problem of how your question is worded and the consequences of wording it properly. Deal with the consequences.

Oh Pleeease no.....not the "consequences"..... (I thought my post had answered the question, but I'll try again)

"Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross?"

I do believe that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross. The question is invalid.

Edited: Unless you were speaking of you and not me. Then the answer is simple. The consequences of not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross is an absence of that perfect sacrifice being offered for the sins of others. It is a rejection of the righteousness of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh Pleeease no.....not the "consequences"..... (I thought my post had answered the question, but I'll try again)

"Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross?"

Try again! You are dealing with my revised view of your question. I was referring to the wording of your original question.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, we can agree Christ was not made a sinner. NetChaplin was correct. God was not wrathful to Christ when laid upon Him what would have been His wrath against us.

You need to distinguish between God's judicial wrath against sin, and therefore against Christ who was made sin, and God's Fatherly love towards His Beloved Son. I tried to explain this with reference to Cincinnatus.

Please consider the following:

Psalm 75:8. 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink and drain down.'
Jeremiah 25:15. 'For thus says the LORD God of Israel to me: "Take this wine cup of fury [or 'wrath' NKJV margin] from My hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send you, to drink it.'
[cf. also Job 21:20; Revelation 14:10; 16:19]

Jesus Christ has drunk the wine cup of God's fury against sin.

Matthew 26:42. "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."
John 18:11. "Put your sword into its sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

He did not drink the cup of God's love, but the cup of His wrath on our behalf.

 

[JonC]

Try again! You are dealing with my revised view of your question. I was referring to the wording of your original question.

You said my denial negated the passages I offered. I asked "Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus as being unrighteous negate any of those points?"

My answer is it doesn't.

 

[JonC]

You need to distinguish between God's judicial wrath against sin, and therefore against Christ who was made sin, and God's Fatherly love towards His Beloved Son. I tried to explain this with reference to Cincinnatus.

Please consider the following:

Psalm 75:8. 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink and drain down.'
Jeremiah 25:15. 'For thus says the LORD God of Israel to me: "Take this wine cup of fury [or 'wrath' NKJV margin] from My hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send you, to drink it.'
[cf. also Job 21:20; Revelation 14:10; 16:19]

Jesus Christ has drunk the wine cup of God's fury against sin.

Matthew 26:42. "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."
John 18:11. "Put your sword into its sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

He did not drink the cup of God's love, but the cup of His wrath on our behalf.

I realize the verses that you reference, and I also understand your reasoning. I have preached sermons on God pouring His Wrath on His Son, punishing Christ with the punishment due our sins. There came a time (a day after one of these times, in fact) that I realized Scripture never spoke of the Cross as being punitive towards Christ. Given the certainty I had before, I took the time to meditate and study on God’s Word. I didn’t’ preach or teach for little over a year. It was a humbling experience at a time when I needed humility.

The “cup” can be assumed to be God’s wrath, but not God’s wrath towards Christ. Christ was offered as a guilt offering (by the Father) and obediently suffered as a propitiation for our sins (as an atonement turning away God’s wrath from us). But God did not consider (even in a judicial way) Jesus to be an enemy on the Cross. If this were the case we would not have been saved. But Christ bore our iniquity, and by His stripes we are healed.

Christ drank of God’s love for mankind, that while we were sinners the Father sent the Son that we might live and while we were sinners Christ died for us. The problem with the strict law court atonement the focus is always on man and man’s sin – NEVER completely on God. But with the biblical view of atonement it is all about God’s love manifested towards man to the glory of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

You said my denial negated the passages I offered. I asked "Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus as being unrighteous negate any of those points?"

My answer is it doesn't.

Of course that is your answer but I see no response to the issues I set forth concerning your choice of terms.

 

[JonC]

Of course that is your answer but I see no response to the issues I set forth concerning your choice of terms.

Refresh my memory. Which terms do you find objectionable?

 

[The Biblicist]

There came a time (a day after one of these times, in fact) that I realized Scripture never spoke of the Cross as being punitive towards Christ. .

You are missing the point completely. No one, not me, is arguing that the cross was designed by God to punish His Son with regard to ANYTHING concerning his own PERSON and PERSONAL moral status. Indeed, he must be sinless to even be considered as a candidate for the LEGAL administration of justice against sin and sinners on the cross. The execution of the penalty prescribed for violating God's Law was administered to that Person on the cross in a way that it completely "satisfied" God's penal demands against sin and sinners. On the cross he was "MADE to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN.

The problem here is that the truth is so simple and so obvious that any attempt to defend it against your kind of rationalization makes the simple complicated and confusing because you are denying the obvious, which is a SINLESS person stood in a SINFUL position and satisfied the penalty of the law against sin and sinners "for us" thus "in our place."

 

[The Biblicist]

Refresh my memory. Which terms do you find objectionable?

Words must have an explicit meaning or else they will be confused with other words. I noticed you did not use the Biblical language that Christ "was made to be sin for us" and there must be a reason you will not use those words isn't there? You also did not use the words "in our place" so it is most likely you define "on our behalf" and "for us" differently than "in our place."

A "substitute' is one who acts "for" or "on behalf" of another person but it becomes meaningless unless that "for" and "on behalf" is not "in the place of" with regard to the very action or act under consideration. The action under consideration is being the object of the wrath of the Law against sin.

The ceremonial sacrificial law is the basis of instruction for the atoning work of Christ. The lamb without spot or blemish directly acts ceremoninally in the place of Jesus Christ - His just person. However, the lamb without spot or blemish additionally acts ceremonially in the place of the sinner as well as the legal recipient of the just condemnation of the Law.

The term "substitute" with regard to the ceremonial law has the sacrificial victim in the place of the sinner with regard to the ceremonial act and its symbolism. The altar is made of brass - symbolism of judgment. The "fire" is symbolic of judgment. The ceremonictim is ceremonially "in the place" of the sinner with regard to direct connection to these ceremonial symbols of judgment as signified by the laying on of the priests hand and confessing the sins of the people over the ceremonial victim's head. Hence, the idea of substitution is "for" and "on behalf of" in the clear sense of "in the place of" with regard to the very POSITION of the ceremonial symbolic actions by God against the sinner.

The following conclusion was stated in the context presented above:

If you use "for" and "on behalf of" to deny "in the place of" you are negating the gospel altogether as you are in reality denying the very thing you are stating. Your words in fact simply deny the substitionary atonement altogether.

 

[The Biblicist]

There came a time (a day after one of these times, in fact) that I realized Scripture never spoke of the Cross as being punitive towards Christ. .

This is like saying, "there came a time....I realized scripture never spoke of the altar as being punitive towards the lamb." Really? Try to convince the lamb of that - good luck. Of course the altar was never designed to be punitive against the Lamb as and individual without spot and blemish. However, it was designed to be punitive against the Lamb as the substitute for sin and sinners. It is the design of the altar to be used for a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE who personally is without spot or blemish but representatively and substitutionally "made to be sin". It is the difference between intended design against an individual person versus a representative person. There can be no justification for the cross against the PERSON of Christ EXCEPT if that person takes on the LEGAL POSITION of sin and sinners.