Christ made Sin?

[Van]

Still not possible. 'The One knowing no sin' cannot be the subject.

My version contains a subject (we) and a verb) might become and a dependent clause for the one knowing no sin for our sake took sin,

Would you finally give it a rest if we shuffled the words, That we might become the righteousness of God in Him, the One knowing no sin for our sake took sin. (And if you do not like took, how about ambushed sin, or carried out sin, or avenged sin.) Same idea of Christ inflicting something on sin.

 

[37818]

We in our witnessing and preaching, are to lift up Christ crucified before all people . . .

I disagree on this point, that the being "lifted up" refers to preaching of Jesus, rather it refers to how He was to die (John 12:33).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I disagree on this point, that the being "lifted up" refers to preaching of Jesus, rather it refers to how He was to die (John 12:33).

I suggest that it means both those things. Certainly 'lifted up'refers to the cross, but we lift up Christ crucified in our preaching.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My version contains a subject (we) and a verb) might become and a dependent clause for the one knowing no sin for our sake took sin,

Would you finally give it a rest if we shuffled the words, That we might become the righteousness of God in Him, the One knowing no sin for our sake took sin. (And if you do not like took, how about ambushed sin, or carried out sin, or avenged sin.) Same idea of Christ inflicting something on sin.

No! It still doesn't work. It contradicts basic grammar. Check it out with someone who knows Greek. I'm not explaining it again.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 10:6 I covered in the O.P. the expression is peri hamartias, 'concerning sin.' It has reference to thusia and prosphora in the preceding verse.
Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin (Gk. peri hamartias): He condemned sin in the flesh.' The KJV and ESV have 'for sin.' I understand that the NIV has 'to be a sin offering' but the words simply mean 'on account of sin.' Anything more is an interpretative gloss.
It certainly points to our sins being laid on Christ, but that is something I intend to bring out in my next post.

If you read my O.P. again (?) you will see that I said that 'I believe' that 'sin offering' is not possible. The whole purpose of the thread is to discuss. If I didn't want discussion I would have put it on my blog.

But the fact is that hamartia -- ἁμαρτία if you prefer -- is never used in the NT to mean a sin offering. Peri hamartias or huper hamartion, yes, but never hamartia on its own.

I am not sure what commentary you have choosen to follow (I suspect one that best agrees with your idea) but you are wrong about the word as used in the NT. I am not sure how much training you have in Greek, but the Greek word itself is not what drives interpretation. "Sin offering" and "sin" are both equally legitimate interpretations of the word. The CONTEXT (of the passage, not one's tradition) decides which definition is best.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure what commentary you have choosen to follow (I suspect one that best agrees with your idea) but you are wrong about the word as used in the NT. I am not sure how much training you have in Greek, but the Greek word itself is not what drives interpretation. "Sin offering" and "sin" are both equally legitimate interpretations of the word. The CONTEXT (of the passage, not one's tradition) decides which definition is best.

Do you think Martin and myself would see Jesus being made sin means that he literally became a sinner? That is how word of faith heretics see it, but not us!

 

[JonC]

Do you think Martin and myself would see Jesus being made sin means that he literally became a sinner? That is how word of faith heretics see it, but not us!

Do you believe that John Gill was a heretic for believing that the correct interpretation was "sin offering"?

Personally, I would be more worried about viewing Satan as a "Christ Type" than I would about misinterpreting the word here.

Have you ever considered that the reason the image of the "serpent" was related more to the circumstances in the wilderness than it was to Satan being a "Christ type"?

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you believe that John Gill was a heretic for believing that the correct interpretation was "sin offering"?

Personally, I would be more worried about viewing Satan as a "Christ Type" than I would about misinterpreting the word here.

Have you ever considered that the reason the image of the "serpent" was related more to the circumstances in the wilderness than it was to Satan being a "Christ type"?

I never called John Gill a heretic, nor you on this issue, just saying that we should take Jesus as being made sin for our sake as what actually happened!

 

[JonC]

I never called John Gill a heretic, nor you on this issue, just saying that we should take Jesus as being made sin for our sake as what actually happened!

John Gill says that Jesus "being made sin" is a "sin offering", that it is God laying our sins on Christ and offering Him as a sin offering.

Do you agree or disagree with Gill's conclusion?

Or do you agree with martin that Satan is a "type of Christ" ?

Neither hold that Jesus actually sinned. But they are very different interpretations.

 

[Yeshua1]

John Gill says that Jesus "being made sin" is a "sin offering", that it is God laying our sins on Christ and offering Him as a sin offering.

Do you agree or disagree with Gill's conclusion?

Or do you agree with martin that Satan is a "type of Christ" ?

Neither hold that Jesus actually sinned. But they are very different interpretations.

Jesus had to become whatever would have caused the Father to pour out His wrath against sin on Him, and to cause Him to experience being forsaken!

 

[JonC]

Jesus had to become whatever would have caused the Father to pour out His wrath against sin on Him, and to cause Him to experience being forsaken!

So your answer is that John Gill is full of baloney and Jesus had to become sin and Satan is, as MartinM suggests, a "Christ type". Correct?

 

[Dave G]

Gentlemen,
Didn't we already hash this out quite thoroughly?

" But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
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." ( Isaiah 53:5-6 )

" And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." ( Isaiah 53:9-12 )

He did not sin.
His Father did not forsake Him and never turned His back on Him.
There is no Scripture that objectively states that God looked upon His own Son and despised Him as a sinner.
There is no Scripture that clearly states that God forsook His Son.
His crying out on the cross was, as a man, feeling forsaken by God, just as David felt in Psalms 22.
David, a man after God's own heart ( 1 Samuel 13:14, Acts of the Apostles 13:22 ) which, after His Spirit came upon him, never left ( 1 Samuel 16:13 ).

David, a "type of Christ", in my opinion.

Christ was made sin in the sense that He bore our iniquities...He had our sins laid upon Him.
As I see it, God never looked at Him as a sinner, but always as His Son.

John Gill says that Jesus "being made sin" is a "sin offering", that it is God laying our sins on Christ and offering Him as a sin offering.

In this case, I'd have to agree with Mr. Gill.

For the sake of brevity, and the fact that my position has been stated very plainly in other threads, I will refrain from replying further on this subject.


May God bless you all.

 

[JonC]

Gentlemen,
Didn't we already hash this out quite thoroughly?

" But he was wounded for our transgressions, [he] was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
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." ( Isaiah 53:5-6 )

" And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." ( Isaiah 53:9-12 )

He was made sin in the sense that He bore our iniquities...He had our sins laid upon Him.



In this case, I'd have to agree with Mr. Gill.

Yep. I agree with Mr. Gill this time as well. And you are exactly right - Christ "being made sin" is Christ bearing our sins. He was never literally made sin.

And Satan certainly is not presented in the Bible as "a type of Christ".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not sure what commentary you have chosen to follow (I suspect one that best agrees with your idea) but you are wrong about the word as used in the NT. I am not sure how much training you have in Greek, but the Greek word itself is not what drives interpretation. "Sin offering" and "sin" are both equally legitimate interpretations of the word. The CONTEXT (of the passage, not one's tradition) decides which definition is best.

I agree that context is important; why don't you tell us why you think the context of 2 Cor. 5:21 favours 'sin offering'? But the point is that usage is also important. Hamartia appears 173 times in the NT. 172 times it is translated as 'sin' in the KJV and once as 'offense.' I do not believe it is ever used in the NT to mean 'sin offering.' I have covered the question of Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 10:6 above; if you want to debate what I have written, feel free. As for the Septuagint, I have not investigated every occurrence of hamartia there, but as you surmised, have relied on others.

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus was made is the antitype to the O.T. sin offering. That this was so is true, but it is not what is meant here. The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint the Greek word for sin, hamartia,when used for 'sin offering' is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. [2 Corinthians Vol.1, by Dr Peter Naylor, Evangelical Press, 2002. Dr Naylor was a Baptist Minister in Britain for many years]

Dr Naylor goes on to mention the repetition of hamartia in the verse, but that is brought up so often by so many people that I can't remember where I first read it or whether I observed it in the text myself. I would only add that what investigations of the Septuagint I have made leads me to think that 'sin offering' is usually not just the genitive of hamartia but peri hamartias or peri hamartion. So if hamartia was in the genitive in 2 Cor 5:21, you might have a point, but since it is in the accusative, I don't think you have one. If Paul had been eager to speak of Christ being made a sin offering, the linguistic means were there for him to do so.

 

[JonC]

I agree that context is important; why don't you tell us why you think the context of 2 Cor. 5:21 favours 'sin offering'? But the point is that usage is also important. Hamartia appears 173 times in the NT. 172 times it is translated as 'sin' in the KJV and once as 'offense.' I do not believe it is ever used in the NT to mean 'sin offering.' I have covered the question of Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 10:6 above; if you want to debate what I have written, feel free. As for the Septuagint, I have not investigated every occurrence of hamartia there, but as you surmised, have relied on others.

'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus was made is the antitype to the O.T. sin offering. That this was so is true, but it is not what is meant here. The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint the Greek word for sin, hamartia,when used for 'sin offering' is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. [2 Corinthians Vol.1, by Dr Peter Naylor, Evangelical Press, 2002. Dr Naylor was a Baptist Minister in Britain for many years]

Dr Naylor goes on to mention the repetition of hamartia in the verse, but that is brought up so often by so many people that I can't remember where I first read it or whether I observed it in the text myself. I would only add that what investigations of the Septuagint I have made leads me to think that 'sin offering' is usually not just the genitive of hamartia but peri hamartias or peri hamartion. So if hamartia was in the genitive in 2 Cor 5:21, you might have a point, but since it is in the accusative, I don't think you have one. If Paul had been eager to speak of Christ being made a sin offering, the linguistic means were there for him to do so.

The context is reconciliation to God. Paul tells us that this was what God was doing through Christ on the cross (v. 19). Hamartia can be interpreted as a "sin offering" not only because it is a legitimate use of the word itself but also because of the context which points to the whole of God offering the Son as a sin offering, laying man's sin on Christ (Christ becoming a curse for us), and Christ bearing our iniquities.

 

[Van]

No! It still doesn't work. It contradicts basic grammar. Check it out with someone who knows Greek. I'm not explaining it again.

Since you are unable to present the subject and the verb in verse 21, you have lost all credibility. No need for you to explain it, the first time, as we are very familiar with efforts to support bogus doctrine with bogus Greek grammar claims.

God through us as ambassadors of Christ, begs you: Be reconciled to God, for the One knowing no sin for our sake took sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since you are unable to present the subject and the verb in verse 21, you have lost all credibility. No need for you to explain it, the first time, as we are very familiar with efforts to support bogus doctrine with bogus Greek grammar claims.

God through us as ambassadors of Christ, begs you: Be reconciled to God, for the One knowing no sin for our sake took sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it; it's wrong. The 'One knowing no sin' is in the accusative case and therefore cannot be the subject. It doesn't matter if you view verse 21 as a clause or as a sentence. If you just learned some English grammar it would help you understand the Greek.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The context is reconciliation to God. Paul tells us that this was what God was doing through Christ on the cross (v. 19).

Absolutely.

Hamartia can be interpreted as a "sin offering" not only because it is a legitimate use of the word itself but also because of the context which points to the whole of God offering the Son as a sin offering, laying man's sin on Christ (Christ becoming a curse for us), and Christ bearing our iniquities.

Obviously there is a sense in which Christ is a sin offering (Isaiah 53:10), but that's not the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:21. If Paul had written peri hamartias, or better yet, prosphoran peri hamartias (Hebrews 10:18) instead of hamartian you might have a point, but he didn't and you don't.

I think the time has come for me to lay out exactly how I believe that Christ was made sin, which I will do with my next post.

 

[JonC]

Absolutely.

Obviously there is a sense in which Christ is a sin offering (Isaiah 53:10), but that's not the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:21. If Paul had written peri hamartias, or better yet, prosphoran peri hamartias (Hebrews 10:18) instead of hamartian you might have a point, but he didn't and you don't.

I think the time has come for me to lay out exactly how I believe that Christ was made sin, which I will do with my next post.

My point was actually made by other teachers (like John Gill, Piper, Carson, ect.) who advocate the context dictates the word be interpreted "sin offering" and Greek scholars (like Mounce) who teach the proper translation of the word is "sin offering". Having studied Greek at a graduate level I am inclined to dismiss your claims rather quickly. I studied for one semister under Mounce (and this was an example he used of the hazards of "word studies") so I am probably a bit predisposed to his conclusion.

(Mounce notes that the word ἁμαρτία can have several meanings associated with sin: sin, wrongdoing, error, sinful propensity, imputation of sin, sin-offering, and expiatory victim).

So, like I predicted in a previous thread, your attempt to prove the word cannot mean "sin-offering" does not fly. It is simply wrong. Whether it does, however, mean "sin offering" is a different issue and a matter of interpretation. That is where you seem to err when it comes to interpreting Scripture. You often believe that your interpretation is the only legitimate possibility a word or phrase can be interpreted (you did this with "forsaken" on another thread). That is either willful ignorance (you know the other interpretations are possible) or genuine ignorance (you truly believe the word meaning cannot allow for other interpretations). Either way it is an erroneous position to hold.

It is also past time for you to explain how you believe Christ literally was made into an immoral act.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, I remember from many years ago at another church I was asked to lead in prayer.

I used the words "Lord we thank you for the one who was made sin for us who knew no sin" in my prayer.

The pastor later came to me and told me of a person who came to him quite upset with my prayer not realizing that I had quoted scripture. The pastor had to prove it and the person was somewhat bewildered,

it is a difficult concept for us to grasp but IMO Martin is correct.

Now Martin may disagree with the my hermeneutic of the passage but here is my understanding.

Christ completely identified with the sin of mankind in His incarnation and atonement.
So much so that it could be said :"He was made sin who knew no sin".

A supporting passage:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh (sarx), and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This passage is a bit more subtle. Look up the meaning of sarx.

No I don't believe He ever sinned or was even able to do so.