Christ made Sin?

The word should be translated "sin," because that's what Paul wrote. Logos, it should be translated "Word," because that's how logos translates into English. Again (and again), the task of determining "what does the text say" is different from "what does the text mean."

But it does seem that's Paul's point, though--that Christ became sin (that which He never has a part of).

Is "sin offering" inside the range of semantic meaning? Perhaps. But, even if it is (which it might be in certain grammatical and contextual situations) the key is trying to figure out what Paul is meaning here. Does Paul mean to say that Jesus simply became the "bearer of sin?" His use of the word hamartia seem to go beyond that--even the construction of the sentence (word order, etc.) suggests that.

@Martin Marprelate has argued his points quite well. It is not an issue whether I agree with him or not. The issue is whether you can adequately articulate why you disagree with him. For myself, I have found many of your arguments lacking.

The bolded text above is very telling. Obviously you cannot come to the table to have a legitimate discussion with Martin Marprelate or myself if you think this. You have already determined--a priori--that any argument from us is to be discarded, not based on the merits or lack thereof, but on who is making the argument. Anyone in the "camp" need not apply.

The Archangel

 

Worse yet, those who seem to be able to understand better what Jesus and Paul really meant to say then they did themselves!

 

The problem is that some bring to the text what they assume that it must mean, or in this case, what it cannot mean, as to them Jesus never could have been made sin....

 

Correction? Surely you must be joking. I know quite well what a word-for-word equivalent is. I too prefer them. However, the "dynamic equivalency" of, say, the NIV, while helpful for understanding, goes beyond the text itself and ventures into paraphrase. Some dynamic equivalents venture further than others. It does not mean they are not helpful, it does mean, however, that they may not accurately represent the original text. (Disclosure: Though I use the ESV daily, I am a big fan of the NLT for new believers, etc.).

Actually "sin offering" would not be legitimate in every place because the grammatical construction wouldn't be support the idea.

Also, there is a difference in using two or three words in a translation to translate one word from the original and making a paraphrase. For instance: in French potato is pomme de terre. When we translate pomme de terre we use one word--Potato. We do not use "Apple of Earth." Engaging in translation, though, doesn't mean we've paraphrased. Paraphrase, for lack of a better description, means making exegetical decisions for the reader. The best translations do not do so, though some bias does appear in every translation.

You're coming to your conclusion about "wait...Jesus was without sin but made sin...."sin" can't mean the same thing each time unless we are saying Jesus was made a sinner, which contradicts Scripture" based on your own theological pre-committments. Rather than saying "Paul can't mean Jesus became sin," you should be asking "in what way does mean that Jesus became sin?"

Of course, Paul is not saying Jesus was made to sin or became Himself a sinner (that would also require a different part of speech than an accusative noun). But, what is Paul saying by telling us that "God made Jesus [to be] sin?" That's the task, not to find which translations in the semantic range doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities.

The Archangel

 

He became the accursed one of God, the sin bearer, the One who propiated the very wrath of God, and yet all the time remained the Sinless Son of God!

 

Double Imputation was happening at that Cross....

 

Paul seems to be indicating that Jesus was made sin was a fact, and while we cannot fully grasp what exactly was meant, that would be true!

 

I believe both of them are not saying there can be a range of meanings, but that the way the Greek construction was written there by Paul, can ONLY mean what they see it as meaning!

 

The truth is that he view of it fits what Paul was saying to use though better than sin offering or some other English wording than just "sin"

 

I believe that God made Him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf!

 

No, that he became sin for us!

 

By the same token, if you insist that the meaning (note: not the translation) of he second "sin" is "sin-bearer" (or similar), then by your own rule stated above you have to translate the first "sin" as "sin-bearer." Since "sin bearer" cannot work for the first; it cannot work for the second.

Furthermore, saying Christ "was made sin" by God does not have to mean that "God becomes evil." You assume it does, but those are your philosophical pre-committments, not a fair reading of the text.

Why would you expect me to "jump in" in a conversation between you and Martin if I choose not do do so? Are you prepared to make blatant what you are implying here: Only those who defend you are worthy of you? That is preposterously arrogant is that is what you are meaning to say. In any case, I'm unworthy because I don't defend you??? Seriously?!

By this criteria you would have to reject your own right to any interpretation since you cannot and do not grasp the range of all the words of scripture. If the threshold is "grasping the range" of a word, then none of us--even you--can meet the (somewhat arbitrary) requirement to have and voice an interpretation. But, it would seem, you feel quite comfortable to define for the rest of us among the great unwashed which words we need to understand (and to what extent) to even have the right to an opinion. Rarely have I seen something so arrogant expressed here.

The Archangel

 

Seriously, you need to learn what an ad hominem is. Saying "you must be joking" is not an ad hominem.

 

If "sin" does not work in the second instance, then it does not work in the first--seeing that they are the same word and the same form.

The Archangel