Christ made Sin?

[HankD]

Under the old covenant a transfer of identity was made between the one who offered the sacrifice and the sacrifice itself.

Every animal sacrifice includes special treatment of the animal’s blood, which various biblical passages identity with the life force of the animal (see, for example, Gen 9:4, Deut 12:23). Despite the clear importance of this ritual use of blood, only one verse in the entire Hebrew Bible appears to explain its significance (Lev 17:11). This debated but crucial verse concerns life, not death; animal life on the altar preserves and enhances human life.

Sacrifice in Ancient Israel

The sinner brought "his sin" to the altar to be consumed and also identified with the destruction of the life force of sin - the flesh with its blood.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

I believe this is the parallel Paul is drawing in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

 

[kyredneck]

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

AGREE!

 

[The Archangel]

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 has stated the Greek quite well. As always, you have demonstrated a lack of acumen for anything having to do with Koine Greek. Here is the verse in Greek:

21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.​

For the sake of your limitations, I will provide a type of interlinear:

21 τὸν (The one) μὴ γνόντα (not having known) ἁμαρτίαν (sin) ὑπὲρ (on behalf) ἡμῶν (of us) ἁμαρτίαν (sin) ἐποίησεν (he made/caused), ἵνα (so that) ἡμεῖς (we) γενώμεθα (might become) δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) θεοῦ (of God) ἐν αὐτῷ (in Him).​

Some preliminary things:

1. "That we might become the righteousness of God in Him" isn't simply a dependent clause; the presence of ἵνα denotes both purpose and result in the second clause as it is related to the first clause. So, the first clause (He made Him who knew no sin...), being primary, has its fulfillment (for lack of a better word) in the second clause (that we might become...).
   
   
2. The word order of the clauses does not dictate the word order of the English translation. Often, word order in Greek will be used to emphasize certain aspects of the sentence itself. In this passage, Christ's sinlessness is what is highlighted by being placed first in the sentence--though it isn't the subject.

Now, for the pertinent information:

First clause (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν)

1. The subject of this clause is the last word, ἐποίησεν. ἐποίησεν is Aorist Active Indicative 3rd person singular. It is the only verb in the clause. Greek verbs have an implied subject. In this case the subject is "He," and it refers to God.
   
   
2. In Greek, the subject of a sentence is given in what is called the "Nominative case." There are no nominative nouns or pronouns in the first clause. Therefore, there is no possibility that something other than "He made" is the basic subject-verb of this clause.
   
   
3. ἁμαρτίαν is in the accusative case. In Greek the accusative case is the case of the direct object. In this instance, it precedes ἐποίησεν. So, the basic subject-verb-direct object is: He made sin.
   
   
4. τὸν (accusative pronoun related to γνόντα) μὴ (negative particle) γνόντα (aorist accusative participle, singular masculine related to τὸν ) ἁμαρτίαν (accusative noun) ὑπὲρ (preposition, with a genitive object, meaning "on behalf of) ἡμῶν (personal pronoun, 1st person genitive plural) are all accusative (except, of course the genitive pronoun).
   
   
5. Here is a good translation by a commentator:
   “For God caused Christ, who knew nothing of sin, to be sin for our sake.”[1]

So, it is not possible grammatically to take this as Jesus "taking on sin." For that to be the case, you would have to have ἐποίησεν in the middle voice, which you don't; it's in the active voice here. What is clear is that Jesus (the one who never knew sin) is being "made sin." In other words Jesus is being acted upon. In the context it is God who is acting on Him; it is God causing Him to be sin. Now, we might debate what "caused him to be sin" means, but it simply cannot be what you say it is. Jesus is not acting upon Himself and the grammar will not allow that as a possibility.

The Archangel


[1] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Milton Keynes, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Paternoster Press, 2005), 449.​

 

[Van]

Thanks Archangel, your post rings true. The subject must be supplied or a grammatical transformation must be performed.

The two points of enlightenment are, the subject must be supplied, and once supplied it is the subject doing the action, and therefore the One knowing no sin is being acted upon. Which of course leaves us with "made sin" or made a sin sacrifice.

So I am forced to join with many others and accept the "sin sacrifice" translation choice.

 

[Van]

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

Christ's sacrifice resulted in Him becoming our propitiatory shelter, so that anyone God transfers into Christ spiritually is made the righteousness of God.

 

[The Archangel]

Thanks Archangel, your post rings true. The subject must be supplied or a grammatical transformation must be performed. The two points of enlightenment are, the subject must be supplied, and once supplied it is the subject doing the action, and therefore the One knowing no sin is being acted upon.

No, the subjects doesn't have to be "supplied." The subject is present in the verb "made." There isn't an "implied" subject; there is an actual subject.

Do not mistake my words in the previous post about an "implied subject" to say that the reader/translator is supplying a subject where one does not exist. What I was expressing by "implied" can be illustrated by the English imperative. In English an imperative has the implied "You" as the subject. But, one is not assigning a subject; the grammar itself demands the subject. So, in Greek, there are definite articles, but they do not need to be present to articulate the presence of a subject. The verb ἐποίησεν, by definition, says "He made" because it is third person singular.

Which of course leaves us with "made sin" or made a sin sacrifice.

No, "made sin," or "made to be sin" is what it says. In Greek, the being verb is often omitted and must be supplied in English. Whether one chooses to supply it between "made" and "sin" cannot change the Greek into "sin sacrifice."

So I am forced to join with many others and accept the "sin sacrifice" translation choice.

"Sin sacrifice" is not a translation choice; it is an interpretation.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

John Gill was one of the greatest Baptist theologians of all time, and Jesus became sin did not mean that he actually became a sinner who needed to get born again, as WoF holds that meaning!

 

[The Archangel]

It should be noted:

In this discussion, the text is not saying that God made Jesus sin (as in compelled Him to violate the law, to commit an immoral act, etc.). If this was what Paul was intending to convey, he would likely have used the infinitive form of the verb γίνομαι.

When discussing the meaning of what it means that "God made him... sin" there are several factors to consider--most of which Martin Marprelate has done an excellent job in articulating. What must be remembered is that God is doing something to Christ with the result that we (those who believe in Him) will become the righteousness of God.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

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".

Neither martin nor myself ever state that Jesus became a sinner, and he did indeed face being forsaken by the Father while upon that Cross, as that was what happens to all who are judged by a Holy God, and Jesus as the sin bearer faced that judgment for our sake!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

He and I have NEVER stated that Jesus became a sinner, just that God had to treat Him as if he had! And you are the one that seems to be acting as if none of us who question your new "enlightened" views of any scripture to stand upon, as you have "advanced" beyond what you once held as being true!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Jesus took upon Himself all of our sin debts, and yet also remained sinless in his own natures!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, the subjects doesn't have to be "supplied." The subject is present in the verb "made." There isn't an "implied" subject; there is an actual subject.

Do not mistake my words in the previous post about an "implied subject" to say that the reader/translator is supplying a subject where one does not exist. What I was expressing by "implied" can be illustrated by the English imperative. In English an imperative has the implied "You" as the subject. But, one is not assigning a subject; the grammar itself demands the subject. So, in Greek, there are definite articles, but they do not need to be present to articulate the presence of a subject. The verb ἐποίησεν, by definition, says "He made" because it is third person singular.



No, "made sin," or "made to be sin" is what it says. In Greek, the being verb is often omitted and must be supplied in English. Whether one chooses to supply it between "made" and "sin" cannot change the Greek into "sin sacrifice."



"Sin sacrifice" is not a translation choice; it is an interpretation.

The Archangel

The actual Greek would favor what Martin holds with on this issue, as to get to sin offering, one is forced there by ones belief on things such as wrath of God, being forsaken, not from Greek text by itself!

 

[Yeshua1]

It should be noted:

In this discussion, the text is not saying that God made Jesus sin (as in compelled Him to violate the law, to commit an immoral act, etc.). If this was what Paul was intending to convey, he would likely have used the infinitive form of the verb γίνομαι.

When discussing the meaning of what it means that "God made him... sin" there are several factors to consider--most of which Martin Marprelate has done an excellent job in articulating. What must be remembered is that God is doing something to Christ with the result that we (those who believe in Him) will become the righteousness of God.

The Archangel

Whatever God did to Jesus while on that Cross, Jesus fully accepted it to be done, and it made the Father treat Him as he had had sinned, and was forsaken by God for our sake!

 

[Yeshua1]

Martin Marprelate has stated the Greek quite well. As always, you have demonstrated a lack of acumen for anything having to do with Koine Greek. Here is the verse in Greek:

21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.​

For the sake of your limitations, I will provide a type of interlinear:

21 τὸν (The one) μὴ γνόντα (not having known) ἁμαρτίαν (sin) ὑπὲρ (on behalf) ἡμῶν (of us) ἁμαρτίαν (sin) ἐποίησεν (he made/caused), ἵνα (so that) ἡμεῖς (we) γενώμεθα (might become) δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) θεοῦ (of God) ἐν αὐτῷ (in Him).​

Some preliminary things:

1. "That we might become the righteousness of God in Him" isn't simply a dependent clause; the presence of ἵνα denotes both purpose and result in the second clause as it is related to the first clause. So, the first clause (He made Him who knew no sin...), being primary, has its fulfillment (for lack of a better word) in the second clause (that we might become...).
   
   
2. The word order of the clauses does not dictate the word order of the English translation. Often, word order in Greek will be used to emphasize certain aspects of the sentence itself. In this passage, Christ's sinlessness is what is highlighted by being placed first in the sentence--though it isn't the subject.

Now, for the pertinent information:

First clause (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν)

1. The subject of this clause is the last word, ἐποίησεν. ἐποίησεν is Aorist Active Indicative 3rd person singular. It is the only verb in the clause. Greek verbs have an implied subject. In this case the subject is "He," and it refers to God.
   
   
2. In Greek, the subject of a sentence is given in what is called the "Nominative case." There are no nominative nouns or pronouns in the first clause. Therefore, there is no possibility that something other than "He made" is the basic subject-verb of this clause.
   
   
3. ἁμαρτίαν is in the accusative case. In Greek the accusative case is the case of the direct object. In this instance, it precedes ἐποίησεν. So, the basic subject-verb-direct object is: He made sin.
   
   
4. τὸν (accusative pronoun related to γνόντα) μὴ (negative particle) γνόντα (aorist accusative participle, singular masculine related to τὸν ) ἁμαρτίαν (accusative noun) ὑπὲρ (preposition, with a genitive object, meaning "on behalf of) ἡμῶν (personal pronoun, 1st person genitive plural) are all accusative (except, of course the genitive pronoun).
   
   
5. Here is a good translation by a commentator:
   “For God caused Christ, who knew nothing of sin, to be sin for our sake.”[1]

So, it is not possible grammatically to take this as Jesus "taking on sin." For that to be the case, you would have to have ἐποίησεν in the middle voice, which you don't; it's in the active voice here. What is clear is that Jesus (the one who never knew sin) is being "made sin." In other words Jesus is being acted upon. In the context it is God who is acting on Him; it is God causing Him to be sin. Now, we might debate what "caused him to be sin" means, but it simply cannot be what you say it is. Jesus is not acting upon Himself and the grammar will not allow that as a possibility.

The Archangel


[1] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Milton Keynes, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Paternoster Press, 2005), 449.​

Would you say that this involves a transaction between God and Jesus that allows us to receive His own righteousness, as He receives in some sense our sin debts?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So I am forced to join with many others and accept the "sin sacrifice" translation choice.

So you have changed your mind from your initial post?

Some good observations which I an unequipped to refute. For example, same word in same form with two different meanings. I agree, not likely.

Since the word is used to refer to a sin offering, I do not think the meaning can be excluded from a possible translation choice. However, that takes back to the first observation, so the choice is not likely.

Of course you are quite entitled to change your mind. I will only remind you that 'the word' is hamartian (twice) and that word is never used SFAIK to describe a sin offering in the Bible.

 

[The Archangel]

Would you say that this involves a transaction between God and Jesus that allows us to receive His own righteousness, as He receives in some sense our sin debts?

Would I? Perhaps. Transaction here is not necessarily in view. I would say "yes" as long as it is understood that Jesus is not an unwilling participant in this drama. Also, imputation is strongly suggested by the use of ἁμαρτίαν in 2 Cor 5:21, and the surrounding context shows what you're describing here: Double imputation.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

So you have changed your mind from your initial post?

Of course you are quite entitled to change your mind. I will only remind you that 'the word' is hamartian (twice) and that word is never used SFAIK to describe a sin offering in the Bible.

One gets to it being sin offering only by bringing into this as they view wrath of God towards Jesus, and Him being really forsaken, as those against that view will force sin offering into text!

 

[Yeshua1]

Would I? Yes. Imputation is strongly suggested by the use of ἁμαρτίαν in 2 Cor 5:21 and the surrounding context show what you're describing here: Double imputation.

The Archangel

This is why the PST view really nails the atonement, as it explains just how and why this double imputation happened!

 

[The Archangel]

This is why the PST view really nails the atonement, as it explains just how and why this double imputation happened!

Notice that I updated my post in the minute between my posting it and you quoting it.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Notice that I updated my post in the minute between my posting it and you quoting it.

The Archangel

Interesting how some here keep stating that those of us like Martin and yourself and me are allowing our "traditions" to override the scriptures, and yet what we hold with comes from the Greek itself, as its just the way it was written down!