Christ made Sin?

[Martin Marprelate]

There have been various thread discussing Penal Substitution in the past.
On one of those, when we were discussing 2 Cor. 5:21-- 'For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him'-- it was suggested that rather than Christ being made 'sin' (Gk. hamartia), He was made a 'sin offering.' I felt this was very unlikely because then the natural translation would be '.....Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us....' which is nonsense, but the person in question still felt he was right and the discussion faded away.

I was thinking today about John 3:14-15, and Moses lifting up the bronze or copper serpent in the wilderness in Numbers 21:8. Now the serpent is obviously a type of Christ-- but why is our Lord on the cross typified as a bronze (KJV 'fiery') serpent? Surely, if Christ were made a sin offering, He should be typified by a bull (Leviticus 4:4ff) or possibly by a goat (Leviticus 16:5ff)? No, the serpent is a figure of Satan and typifies Christ made sin. There on the cross, He was made the very epitome of sin. All our sins were laid to His charge and heaped upon His sinless shoulders, so that He could pay the penalty due and satisfy God's outraged justice, and His perfect righteousness and obedience credited to us who believe.

 

[JonC]

It depends on what you mean by Christ becoming sin. Christ cannot be made, literally, sin (the act) or a sin (the self-centered rebelliousness against God behind the act) for, as Habakkuk 1:13 testifies, He is of purer eyes than to look upon sin (to condone sin). Likewise, what is done on the Cross is done by God, who is not the author of sin. And the Cross itself is the greatest expression of Christ’s obedience to the Father, and the Father did not command Jesus to sin. God could not have looked upon Jesus as sinful because this would create an inconsistently with God looking upon Jesus as His Son in Whom He was well pleased (God is not pleased with sin).

So there is a bit of caution that we need to take, I believe, so that we don’t invent what is not said in the passage. Some have taken passages like this to an unbiblical extreme (e.g., God punished Jesus because He looked at Jesus as a sinner) when Scripture testifies that God looked upon His Son as His beloved, His Righteous One, His Obedient One, and His Son.

I believe that Jesus being made sin on our behalf means that that He bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell on Him God was pleased 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 their iniquities. I believe this is the context in which Paul uses Jesus becoming sin (not to introduce some new doctrine but to teach what has already been taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ).

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ can be made literally "sin" in the sense of judicial action. The Law can treat him literally as sin by judicial position. Position is different than Person. Even in our own law courts there are JUST PERSONS who are literally legally viewed as CRIMINALS and condemned positionally even though they are later found out to be personally innocent.

However, in God's law court Jesus was predetermined according to God's eternal counsel (Acts 2;23) to be legally "made sin" in the eyes of the Law of God and so treated literally as a sinner would be treated. His just person and personal obedience has nothing to do with how the law treated Christ legally and thus positionally.

 

[Yeshua1]

It depends on what you mean by Christ becoming sin. Christ cannot be made, literally, sin (the act) or a sin (the self-centered rebelliousness against God behind the act) for, as Habakkuk 1:13 testifies, He is of purer eyes than to look upon sin (to condone sin). Likewise, what is done on the Cross is done by God, who is not the author of sin. And the Cross itself is the greatest expression of Christ’s obedience to the Father, and the Father did not command Jesus to sin. God could not have looked upon Jesus as sinful because this would create an inconsistently with God looking upon Jesus as His Son in Whom He was well pleased (God is not pleased with sin).

So there is a bit of caution that we need to take, I believe, so that we don’t invent what is not said in the passage. Some have taken passages like this to an unbiblical extreme (e.g., God punished Jesus because He looked at Jesus as a sinner) when Scripture testifies that God looked upon His Son as His beloved, His Righteous One, His Obedient One, and His Son.

I believe that Jesus being made sin on our behalf means that that He bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell on Him God was pleased 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 their iniquities. I believe this is the context in which Paul uses Jesus becoming sin (not to introduce some new doctrine but to teach what has already been taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ).

Jesus was cursed of God by hanging upon that Cross, and he was the sin bearer, sin offering made to the father in our stead, so God saw Jesus and poured out His Holy wrath just as if it was us and not Him on that Cross

Jesus became sin in the sense that God viewed and treated Him same way all lost sinners will be at the GWT.

 

[Yeshua1]

There have been various thread discussing Penal Substitution in the past.
On one of those, when we were discussing 2 Cor. 5:21-- 'For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him'-- it was suggested that rather than Christ being made 'sin' (Gk. hamartia), He was made a 'sin offering.' I felt this was very unlikely because then the natural translation would be '.....Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us....' which is nonsense, but the person in question still felt he was right and the discussion faded away.

I was thinking today about John 3:14-15, and Moses lifting up the bronze or copper serpent in the wilderness in Numbers 21:8. Now the serpent is obviously a type of Christ-- but why is our Lord on the cross typified as a bronze (KJV 'fiery') serpent? Surely, if Christ were made a sin offering, He should be typified by a bull (Leviticus 4:4ff) or possibly by a goat (Leviticus 16:5ff)? No, the serpent is a figure of Satan and typifies Christ made sin. There on the cross, He was made the very epitome of sin. All our sins were laid to His charge and heaped upon His sinless shoulders, so that He could pay the penalty due and satisfy God's outraged justice, and His perfect righteousness and obedience credited to us who believe.

Much of this depends on if you view God the father really actually pouring out Holy wrath on Jesus, and forsaking Him in some fashion, or not!!

 

[Alcott]

I thought this would be about whether Christ created sin; as he made all things and without him nothing was made that was made. If sin exists, he created it, indicates John 1:3.

 

[TCassidy]

If sin exists, he created it,

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Also, there are some things not even God can do or create, as not consistent with His nature and attributes!

 

[Alcott]

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

Sin does not exist?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It depends on what you mean by Christ becoming sin. Christ cannot be made, literally, sin (the act) or a sin (the self-centered rebelliousness against God behind the act) for, as Habakkuk 1:13 testifies, He is of purer eyes than to look upon sin (to condone sin). Likewise, what is done on the Cross is done by God, who is not the author of sin. And the Cross itself is the greatest expression of Christ’s obedience to the Father, and the Father did not command Jesus to sin. God could not have looked upon Jesus as sinful because this would create an inconsistently with God looking upon Jesus as His Son in Whom He was well pleased (God is not pleased with sin).

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).

So there is a bit of caution that we need to take, I believe, so that we don’t invent what is not said in the passage. Some have taken passages like this to an unbiblical extreme (e.g., God punished Jesus because He looked at Jesus as a sinner) when Scripture testifies that God looked upon His Son as His beloved, His Righteous One, His Obedient One, and His Son.

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.

I believe that Jesus being made sin on our behalf means that that He bore our sins, was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, that the chastening for our well-being fell on Him God was pleased 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 their iniquities. I believe this is the context in which Paul uses Jesus becoming sin (not to introduce some new doctrine but to teach what has already been taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ).

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

 

[JonC]

Christ can be made literally "sin" in the sense of judicial action. The Law can treat him literally as sin by judicial position. Position is different than Person. Even in our own law courts there are JUST PERSONS who are literally legally viewed as CRIMINALS and condemned positionally even though they are later found out to be personally innocent.

However, in God's law court Jesus was predetermined according to God's eternal counsel (Acts 2;23) to be legally "made sin" in the eyes of the Law of God and so treated literally as a sinner would be treated. His just person and personal obedience has nothing to do with how the law treated Christ legally and thus positionally.

Do you mean something like "declared to be sin" (i.e , God declared Jesus to be the literal embodiment evil....evil personified....in a judicial sense)?

 

[TCassidy]

Sin does not exist?

Not as something concrete. It is the absence of righteousness which works itself out in actions contrary to God's will.

 

[JonC]

Jesus became sin in the sense that God viewed and treated Him same way all lost sinners will be at the GWT.

There is no biblical warrant for this conclusion. But let me explain why I say this.

Throughout these discussions people will go back to the early church and declare an observed doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory. This, however, depends on how you view penal substitution and the Cross. It is one thing to say that Christ suffered the consequences (or punishment) of sin in our stead and quite another to say the Father punished Christ for our sins, or worse yet….viewed him the same way all lost sinners will be at the Great White Throne Judgment. The first is biblical. The second is what we get when we take the first statement and run it through a very simplified and legalistic Reformed understanding. Perhaps this is why the second idea never appears outside of Reformed influence.

The reason I say the statement is unbiblical is not simply because it adopts law court language beyond what is offered in Scripture. I actually think John Calvin’s Penal Substitution is mild compared to what many hold today (and for Calvin, the language was natural…he was a lawyer).

The reason I say the view that the Atonement was God viewing Jesus Christ the same way He will view all lost sinners at the Great White Throne Judgment is that this is denied in Scripture. Scripture says God will view those condemned souls with wrath as deserving of death, unholy, evil, unrighteous, unworthy, rebellious enemies. Yet on the Cross Jesus Christ is not viewed this way. He is described as God’s Righteous One, His Holy One, His Obedient One, Life itself, Truth itself, too pure to even look upon evil, God’s own Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.

Jesus did suffer the consequences of our sins. But God did not look upon His Son as an evil disobedient enemy. He looked upon His Son as His Righteous One upon Whom God the Father laid our iniquities upon and offered Him as a guilt offering.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no biblical warrant for this conclusion. But let me explain why I say this.

Throughout these discussions people will go back to the early church and declare an observed doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory. This, however, depends on how you view penal substitution and the Cross. It is one thing to say that Christ suffered the consequences (or punishment) of sin in our stead and quite another to say the Father punished Christ for our sins, or worse yet….viewed him the same way all lost sinners will be at the Great White Throne Judgment. .

First, the law court scenario is very Biblical as the writers use forensic terms drawn straight from the court system established by God among the israelites. Second, your comparison makes no sense. He suffers the consequences BECAUSE the Law views him as guilty regardless if he is personally guilty or not. He stands in the position of guilt, and is treated as a sinner, as guilty by the Father with regard to the Law. The law veiws him as it does those that will stand before the White Seat Judgement as the law does not discriminate.

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. The type had to be a lamb without blemish, and yet when it was placed on the altar it was treated legally and positionally as sin and thus called a "sin" offering.

Personally, I could care less what Roman and Reformed Roman Catholic traditions say or don't say. The Levitical ceremonial system clearly lays the basis for the atonement and it is unmistakenly clear as to its penal substitutionary nature. The law that is broken is not Satan's law and Satan did not need satisfaction, it was the law of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and it is God's law that needs full satisfaction and the type and antitype that satisfies the wrath of God against sin - or violation of His law (Isa. 53:12 "he shall be satisfied")

Your view contradicts scripture and is simply wrong and dreadfully wrong as it is an attack upon the very Biblical nature of the atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you mean something like "declared to be sin" (i.e , God declared Jesus to be the literal embodiment evil....evil personified....in a judicial sense)?

He was "made to be sin" in the sight of God as Judge in administration of His Law. His personal obedience made him fit to be a substitute for sinners. The ceremonial qualifications for a "sin" offering had to be a lamb without spot or blemish with regard to its PERSONAL qualifications but once it was placed upon the "brazen" altar it was treated as a "sin" offering in a very clear sense of a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE. You seemingly can't grasp that one does not deny the other but both are equally true.

 

[The Biblicist]

I thought this would be about whether Christ created sin; as he made all things and without him nothing was made that was made. If sin exists, he created it, indicates John 1:3.

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."

 

[JonC]

He was "made to be sin" in the sight of God as Judge in administration of His Law. His personal obedience made him fit to be a substitute for sinners. The ceremonial qualifications for a "sin" offering had to be a lamb without spot or blemish with regard to its PERSONAL qualifications but once it was placed upon the "brazen" altar it was treated as a "sin" offering in a very clear sense of a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE. You seemingly can't grasp that one does not deny the other but both are equally true.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Start by being honest about what I said versus what I did note say. I never said, "God hated Jesus" or "His viewing Jesus as evil personified." And what I did say was "You seemingly can't grasp" which you claim was meant to be an "insult" (good at reading hearts I suppose) and then to support that claim you distort what I said to be "too stupid to grasp....uneducated mind....obvious illiteracy....." Your education, and IQ have nothing to do with Biblical understanding - The Spirit of God either opens your mind to receive the truth or He does not.

However, I see that you intend to make something personal that was never intended to be personal on my part. It is obivous you neither understand or receive the truth of the penal substitution as the Biblical teaching. You pit his person before the Father against his position before law. I just stated the obvious.

In fact, I said the very opposite. With regard to His Person he is without blame, spotless, perfect and obedient to the Father. Therefore, he is personified as holy. That is what makes him a suitable penal substitute in the law court, as otherwise, he would deserve all that he suffered. While to his position before the Law he is "made to be sin" that which is hated by God, that which is despised and condemned by God and that which takes the consequences in our place.

 

[JonC]

Start by being honest .

You were less than honest when you responded to my post, but I think a rule change will do us both some good. So that's fine. Let's be honest.

What I am saying is that on the Cross God did not view Jesus as sin itself. Had God viewed Jesus as sin (literally) then God would have viewed Jesus as evil (something you clearly reject). Had God viewed Jesus as sin in a legal sense, God would have viewed Jesus as unrighteous (something you affirm).

Scripture is replete with instances where the Father views Christ as holy, obedient, His beloved, His anointed, etc. In terms of a judicial or legal view, Scripture teaches that the Father views Christ as His Righteous One.

Please provide three passages where God is said to have looked upon His Son as unrighteous (as sin in the legal sense).

 

[The Biblicist]

You were less than honest when you responded to my post,

and how so?

but I think a rule change will do us both some good. So that's fine. Let's be honest.

What I am saying is that on the Cross God did not view Jesus as sin itself.

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

Had God viewed Jesus as sin (literally) then God would have viewed Jesus as evil (something you clearly reject). Had God viewed Jesus as sin in a legal sense, God would have viewed Jesus as unrighteous (something you affirm).

Here is a clear example of your confusion and incapability of distinguishing between PERSON and POSITION. With regard to the LITERAL Person of Christ He is the beloved of the Father and always will be. With regard to his LEGAL POSITION on the cross he is "made to be sin" before the Father as the only fit or qualified substitute for sinners must be PERSONALLY blameless so that he can fulfill the LEGAL role of a penal substutite or take the place of sinners JUDICIALLY and thus POSITIONALLY.