Christ made Sin?

[JonC]

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."

I get the point entirely. The part where it falls apart is where God punishes Jesus with the punishment we would have experienced at the Great White Throne judgment.

 

[JonC]

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.

I never believed the priests thought of their sacrifices as actually punishing those animals. Your view of penal substitution seems off.

 

[JonC]

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.

That's why I stuck with those "biblical words". And no, Scripture affirms substitutionary atonement...just not necessarily your version.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do believe that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross. - Jon

Since the cross is placed within the legal framework and language of the law ("made to be sin") then on the basis of Law please justify how God could legally and justly dispense condemnation upon his righteous person on the cross.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never believed the priests thought of their sacrifices as actually punishing those animals. Your view of penal substitution seems off.

Pure semantics! Call it what you like, but are you going to tell me that those Priests did not think they were administering pain, misery and woe to the sacrifices by killing them? Furthermore, are you going to tell us that killing with a knife and shedding of blood had no ceremonial type of penalization behind it???????

 

[The Biblicist]

That's why I stuck with those "biblical words". And no, Scripture affirms substitutionary atonement...just not necessarily your version.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. I noted Biblical language you did not use and I noted that you did not define substitution as it is normally and ceremonially defined "in the place of." When an Israelite sinned, he did not go upon the altar and give his life, but a lamb stood in his place. A "substitute" batter is one who hits "in the place of" another. To be a substitute "on behalf" of another batter means "in behalf" and thus in the place of another batter. You are denying the obvious, as the ceremonial law demands substitution by replacement.

Tell me how your definitions work with regard to Christ's righteousness? I take it you do not believe in "imputed" righteousness by faith either?

 

[JonC]

Pure semantics! Call it what you like, but are you going to tell me that those Priests did not think they were administering pain, misery and woe to the sacrifices by killing them? Furthermore, are you going to tell us that killing with a knife and shedding of blood had no ceremonial type of penalization behind it???????

NOT semantics at all.....remember YOUR statement - "words have meaning".

Scripture teaches that the Father laid our iniquities upon His Son and offered Him as a guilt offering. Scripture teaches that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. By His stripes we are healed. And Scripture teaches that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins.Your theology takes this and twists it into saying that the Father punished Christ with our punishment we deserved for our sins and would have received on the Day of Judgment (but since God already punished Jesus His wrath towards us is satisfied). The sad part is that you probably cannot read those passages of Scripture and understand it can (and, for the most part of history, has) been understood differently.

What you are missing is that the importance of the Old Testament sacrifices was not the animals or the people but obedience and faith. Those animals were not viewed as being punished. Substitution Atonement refers to the Atonement – not Jesus becoming our substitute and being punished in our place, but Jesus’ obedience…the Cross….being a substitute, a redemption, for us. Jesus did not have to suffer being cast into the “outer darkness” for eternity because He is sinless, He is God, and He suffered for our sins.

No passage states that Jesus was punished with our punishment. What we are talking about is a substitutionary atonement far beyond what you have even suggested. Your position is far too much oriented on man and far too less oriented on God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Got to go for tonight

 

[JonC]

I do believe that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross. - Jon

Since the cross is placed within the legal framework and language of the law ("made to be sin") then on the basis of Law please justify how God could legally and justly dispense condemnation upon his righteous person on the cross.

Because Jesus became man, became a curse for us. This is how God is both just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[JonC]

Got to go for tonight

Yea, me too (in a bit). Went to the lake yesterday. The docs put me on a couple of different medications for arthritis and they make me sensitive to the sun. I forgot about that, unfortunately. Haven't been this sunburned in some time.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because Jesus became man,

Is there a law against becoming a man? Did Adam sin by becoming a man? Was it not God who made Adam a man? Was it not God who was responsible for the incarnation of Christ? This could only be a just basis for condemnation under the law if Christ by becoming a man became a sinner?

because he was made a curse for us

Are your suggesting that the Law could justly charge the person of Christ with sin because He was hung on a tree? Thus he actually and personally became a sinner himself under law and thereby God was just in administering the condemnation of the law to Christ upon the cross? If so, then he personally deserved it as he himself was the violator of the law as it was his body that hung on the tree and not mine or yours? Is that what you are saying? It seems to be! You are saying the law found Christ to be a sinner and personally cupable and justly condemnable by Law.

However,if that be the case, then how could it be "for us" as we were already condemned under law and already personally culpable and justly condemnable by Law? It would seem making him to be a sinner under law eliminates him as a qualified redeemer rather than qualfies him as a redeemer from the law.

Moreover, by simply quoting "for us" begs the entire question as to what that really means. Indeed, any man that is hung on a tree is "cursed by God" whether he is sinless or a sinner but not "for us" but only for himself.

The only possible way "for us" makes any sense at all in that context is that he acted not personal capacity but in a representative capacity "for us" in being made sin as the Second Adam, just as Adam acted in a representative capacity and not in a personal capacity in the Garden test. If he had acted personally then he alone would have been charged with sin.


He was "made" to be sin, made a curse by the law. He did not nail himself to the cross. He did not share any responsibility and thus any personal accountability for being on the cross as he was completely passive in this act. This passage says nothing more or less than "he was made to be sin for us who knew no sin." The only possible legal way He could be made sin "for us" by being hung on a tree is if he acted in a substitutionary representative capacity on the cross being condemned in our place suffering vicariously rather than acting as an individual. If he acted as an individual then he justly deserved death. If he acted in a representative capacity then we justly deserved condemnation and satisfied it completely in him.

So claiming he personally deserved condemnation under the law repudiates his qualifications to be a redeemer from the curse of the law as it makes him personally guilty. However, to claim that he acted in a substitutionary representative capacity on the cross and in that capacity he was "made to be sin" is in keeping with his Second Adamic covenant role and does no violence to his own personal righteousness.

The difference between the representative roles of the first and Second Adam are many. For example, the representative role of the first Adam was a test of obedience, which he failed as a person and as a representative. However, Christ never failed in the test of personal obedience. On the cross he was not acting in the role of obedience, but in the representative role as a sinner justly condemned because he represented justly condemned sinners.

 

[JonC]

Is there a law against becoming a man? Did Adam sin by becoming a man? Was it not God who made Adam a man? Was it not God who was responsible for the incarnation of Christ? This could only be a just basis for condemnation under the law if Christ by becoming a man became a sinner?

No, there is not a law against becoming man but there did stand a law against mankind. Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men (and even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men).

Are your suggesting that the Law could justly charge the person of Christ with sin because He was hung on a tree? Thus he actually and personally became a sinner himself under law and thereby God was just in administering the condemnation of the law to Christ upon the cross? If so, then he personally deserved it as he himself was the violator of the law as it was his body that hung on the tree and not mine or yours? Is that what you are saying? It seems to be! You are saying the law found Christ to be a sinner and personally cupable and justly condemnable by Law.

I am not sure how it seems to you that I am suggesting that the Law justly charged Christ with sin because He was hung on a tree. I said that Christ became a curse for us – NOT that He became a sinner by hanging on a tree. In fact, I did not even mention hanging on a tree at all (you are arguing against a text of Scripture, not against what I have suggested).

I am suggesting that Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to the Father by becoming flesh (by becoming human) and that this obedience extended even to death. When Jesus was born as a child in Bethlehem he was born under the curse. As soon as life begins to live, in that moment we begin to die. This is the curse – not hanging on a tree.

Hanging someone on a tree was not some supernatural act where by man could curse another man. It was, however, a visible sign that one was esteemed to be cursed. The passage you are referencing is Galatians 3:12-14 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” I am suggesting that you have misunderstood the passage to be that “Jesus became cursed by hanging on a tree” rather than “cursed is everyone who hangs” (which points to the work of Christ).

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Nonsense. God created light. But the absence of light is what we call darkness. God did not create darkness, it is merely the absence of the light He did create.

Sin is the absence of righteousness.

It is folly to suggest God created something which does not exist.

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

But He didn't create "sin".

 

[The Biblicist]

When Jesus was born as a child in Bethlehem he was born under the curse. As soon as life begins to live, in that moment we begin to die. This is the curse – not hanging on a tree.

The Bible says that death is due to sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:23) not to due to simply being human. or being born. If your theory were true then as soon as Adam was given life he was already under the curse as the moment he began to live he began to die.

The justification for condemning Christ under Law was not that he was born but because God "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6) as a sin offering.

 

[The Biblicist]

am not sure how it seems to you that I am suggesting that the Law justly charged Christ with sin because He was hung on a tree. I said that Christ became a curse for us .

The only scripture that says Jesus "became a curse for us" is the text in question. So yes, I assumed you were speaking of that text as no other text supports your language but that text.

Becoming a man no more brought him under the curse than Adam becoming a man. You agreed that God justly condemned Christ on the cross, but that justification is now found in him as he was sinless. It was found in him only as a "sin offering" or being judically made to be sin, as our sins were imputed to him as they were ceremonially imputed to the sin offering - "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all."

So he was both the sinless obedient son unto death as "a lamb led to the slaughter" but at the very same time he was judicially "made to be sin for us" by substitution under law.

 

[JonC]

The Bible says that death is due to sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:23) not to due to simply being human. or being born. If your theory were true then as soon as Adam was given life he was already under the curse as the moment he began to live he began to die.

The justification for condemning Christ under Law was not that he was born but because God "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6) as a sin offering.

Not exactly. The Bible says that death spread even to those who were not transgressors, but the point being that mankind came under the curse of death (God was not proven a liar in Genesis). The wages of sin is death, and mankind has inherited this wage from Adam just as men will now inherit life through Christ.

What you are not grasping here is the difference between a satsifactory punishment and a simple punishment. Sin does not create a debt that must be collected by God (God is not "injured") but a sin debt that is a deficiency in man.

 

[JonC]

The only scripture that says Jesus "became a curse for us" is the text in question. So yes, I assumed you were speaking of that text as no other text supports your language but that text.

Becoming a man no more brought him under the curse than Adam becoming a man. You agreed that God justly condemned Christ on the cross, but that justification is now found in him as he was sinless. It was found in him only as a "sin offering" or being judically made to be sin, as our sins were imputed to him as they were ceremonially imputed to the sin offering - "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all."

So he was both the sinless obedient son unto death as "a lamb led to the slaughter" but at the very same time he was judicially "made to be sin for us" by substitution under law.

Yet Scripture indicates Christ's obedience to include being made flesh (the Incarnation is not separate from God laying our iniquities on Christ). What you have done here is take the atonement and place it in a contemporary framework. This is fine if you are illustrating a point, but it should never become the basis of your theology.

There is no "substitution" under the Law. There is only obedience, disobedience, and atonement to propitiate the consequences of disobedience (a substitution only in the sense it satisfies the demands of the Law Giver).

The difference here is that you are viewing sin as having an effect on God rather than on man (you are elevating the role of man). So a sin is a wrong to God which forms a debt that must be collected. But what if all of this focuses on God and not man? Then a sin is a matter the heart and punishment can only be in relation to the will of those who sinned. Jesus could not have been punished (in this sense) for the sins of anyone else. But Jesus could receive punishment (or the consequences) for our sins in terms of satisfying the demands of the Law Giver on our behalf (God literally redeemed man by becoming man, reconciling man to Himself).

Jesus was made to be sin for us, that is he was made to be substitute for our sins.

 

[TCassidy]

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

But He didn't create "sin".

Context is your friend. Especially cultural context.

It was the supreme principle of the Magian religion, which prevailed in Persia in the time of Cyrus, and in which he was educated, that there are two supreme, co-eternal, and independent causes always acting in opposition one to the other; one the author of all good, the other of all evil.

The good being they called Light; the evil being they called Darkness. When Light was ascendant, then good and happiness prevailed among men; when Darkness reigned, then eviI and misery abounded.

Isaiah is telling Cyrus to acknowledge the one and only Supreme Being, infinitely good as well as powerful. Isaiah asserts God's omnipotence and absolute supremacy over the false dieties of the Magian religion and its nonsense.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for your reply and clarification to my question. While we are not talking about guns and cannoli, I’ll take your explanation and leave the insult as you can’t fathom what I can’t grasp .... I'd truly amaze you.

Which is why I'm going to insist on Scripture as apparently I'm just too stupid to grasp your philosophical meanderings. I offered Scripture. You countered that on the Cross God hated Jesus so much He abandoned Him, viewing Jesus as evil personified (as sin itself). Due to my lack of education and sheer inability to grasp these things....I can't keep up with what seems to my uneducated mind as a different gospel than was taught in the Bible. I need you to give me the passages you are referencing about God despising His Son so that I can try to work my through them despite my obvious illiteracy.

Jesus became the Sin Bearer, became the One who took on the sin debt in full of all ever to get saved, and God the father saw Him while on the Cross as being in the same place that all sinners will be, as God judged Sin, and unleashed his full wrath upon Jesus.
Jesus experience seperation from His father, as that was the One thing that he feared would happen when he took the cup of wrath of God.
Jesus was at same time the loved and Obedient Son, but also the God forsaken One of God, and that mystery is simply beyond human understanding!

 

[JonC]

Jesus became the Sin Bearer, became the One who took on the sin debt in full of all ever to get saved, and God the father saw Him while on the Cross as being in the same place that all sinners will be, as God judged Sin, and unleashed his full wrath upon Jesus.
Jesus experience seperation from His father, as that was the One thing that he feared would happen when he took the cup of wrath of God.
Jesus was at same time the loved and Obedient Son, but also the God forsaken One of God, and that mystery is simply beyond human understanding!

The reason it is a mystery is not because it is beyond our understanding but because your idea of punishment contradicts what Scripture says. My suggestion is your theory may not be exactly right.The fact that some passages speak against your conclusion should have led you to reexamine things instead of appealing to mystery.