Christ made Sin?

[HankD]

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

That was one aspect.

 

[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!

Yes, but....

To say that the second instance of the word "sin" in 2 Cor 5:21 is simply "sin offering" isn't required by the text, and it doesn't fit with the range of usage in the Bible (as Martin Marprelate has clearly pointed out).

However, those insisting on "sin offering" are shorting the expression. Clearly both instances of "sin" in the verse do not mean exactly the same thing. Paul is engaging in master wordsmanship here. In the passage, he has built a rather personal idea of what God has done. In the Old Testament, the sin offering--being a dumb animal--never could have known the personal nature of substituting for a sinner. And, the animal could never have given consent. However, Christ--not being a dumb animal--gave consent and knew in a personal way those for whom He is substituting Himself.

So, I would argue, that "sin offering" doesn't go far enough in the context of the passage and the context of scripture as a whole. The cultic aspect of the sacrificial system is not personal while what Jesus did for is could not be more personal.

Murray Harris explains:

Paul here probably construes ἁμαρτία in a more personal, interrelational sense than is represented by “sacrifice for sin” or “victim for sin”; (iii) one might have expected a verb such as προέθετο (cf. Rom. 3:25) or ἔδωκεν or ἔθηκεν if ἁμαρτία signified “sin offering”; and (iv) if ἁμαρτία is parallel to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, it is more likely to bear a judicial or forensic sense than a sacrificial or cultic meaning.

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), 453.
​

I also like Harris' conclusion concerning 2 Cor 5:21:

We conclude that in v. 21a Paul is not saying that at the crucifixion the sinless Christ became in some sense a sinner, yet he is affirming more than that Christ became a sin offering or even a sin bearer. In a sense beyond human comprehension, God treated Christ as “sin,” aligning him so totally with sin and its dire consequences that from God’s viewpoint he became indistinguishable from sin itself.

Ibid., 454.​

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but....

To say that the second instance of the word "sin" in 2 Cor 5:21 is simply "sin offering" isn't required by the text, and it doesn't fit with the range of usage in the Bible (as Martin Marprelate has clearly pointed out).

However, those insisting on "sin offering" are shorting the expression. Clearly both instances of "sin" in the verse do not mean exactly the same thing. Paul is engaging in master wordsmanship here. In the passage, he has built a rather personal idea of what God has done. In the Old Testament, the sin offering--being a dumb animal--never could have known the personal nature of substituting for a sinner. And, the animal could never have given consent. However, Christ--not being a dumb animal--gave consent and knew in a personal way those for whom He is substituting Himself.

So, I would argue, that "sin offering" doesn't go far enough in the context of the passage and the context of scripture as a whole. The cultic aspect of the sacrificial system is not personal while what Jesus did for is could not be more personal.

Murray Harris explains:

Paul here probably construes ἁμαρτία in a more personal, interrelational sense than is represented by “sacrifice for sin” or “victim for sin”; (iii) one might have expected a verb such as προέθετο (cf. Rom. 3:25) or ἔδωκεν or ἔθηκεν if ἁμαρτία signified “sin offering”; and (iv) if ἁμαρτία is parallel to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, it is more likely to bear a judicial or forensic sense than a sacrificial or cultic meaning.

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), 453.
​

I also like Harris' conclusion concerning 2 Cor 5:21:

We conclude that in v. 21a Paul is not saying that at the crucifixion the sinless Christ became in some sense a sinner, yet he is affirming more than that Christ became a sin offering or even a sin bearer. In a sense beyond human comprehension, God treated Christ as “sin,” aligning him so totally with sin and its dire consequences that from God’s viewpoint he became indistinguishable from sin itself.

Ibid., 454.​

Blessings,

The Archangel

The Father treated Jesus while upon that Cross as a sinner, and was actually forsaking Jesus while Jesus bearing the wrath of God towards all sins.

 

[Van]

I think a sin sacrifice if more than a sin offering. Obviously nothing in the Greek grammar precludes such a translation choice (a sin offering). In many of the translations I see [to be] sin, such that "to be" was supplied. Why couldn't the translators have supplied [for] sin? Obviously the Lamb of God was made for sin.

How about: God through us as ambassadors of Christ, begs you: Be reconciled to God, for He made for our sake the One knowing no sin [for] sin, 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]

I think a sin sacrifice if more than a sin offering. Obviously nothing in the Greek grammar precludes such a translation choice (a sin offering). In many of the translations I see [to be] sin, such that "to be" was supplied. Why couldn't the translators have supplied [for] sin? Obviously the Lamb of God was made for sin.

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

No. Greek doesn’t work that way. Sometimes the being verb is omitted. “For” is not a being verb.

To be can (notice: can) be supplied in translation, for cannot. Greek uses some pretty specific ways to express “for” and omission isn’t one of them.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

But at the beginning of the verse we see "for" (gar) yet some MSS do not have "for." Thus "for is sometimes omitted in the Greek. Perhaps if the "for" were added in italics to make the meaning clear.

 

[The Archangel]

But at the beginning of the verse we see "for" (gar) yet some MSS do not have "for." Thus "for is sometimes omitted in the Greek. Perhaps if the "for" were added in italics to make the meaning clear.

There is no "for" at the beginning of the verse and it isn't omitted. Most English translations put "for" at the beginning of this verse (though it is the 5th word in the order) and, in this case, it is from the preposition ὑπέρ, meaning "on behalf of."

Also, when we do see γάρ it serves as a logical connector, as in "therefore" and translators do not supply "γάρ."

Furthermore, the participle ὑπέρ here is genitive, as is the pronoun ἐγώ (inflected: ἡμῶν). ἁμαρτίαν, on the other hand is accusative, so the participle "for" isn't taking "sin" as its object (because ἡμῶν is the closer cognate). And, if ὑπέρ were taking ἁμαρτίαν as its object, ὑπέρ would no longer mean "for; on behalf of," it would mean "above."

The Archangel

 

[Van]

I did not see why "for" cannot be added in italics to clarify the purpose of the One who knew no sin.

The Greek word order in the Interlinear I use, has two "for" words, the second word (gar) and the sixth word (huper) meaning "for the sake of". In your version, the first "for" has been omitted. I got the idea for omission from Ellicott's Commentary for the English Readers. It seems the CT does not have "for"(gar) but the MT and TR do have it. Either the "for" has been omitted in the CT, or been added in the MT and TR.

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

 

[The Archangel]

I did not see why "for" cannot be added in italics to clarify the purpose of the One who knew no sin.

The Greek word order in the Interlinear I use, has two "for" words, the second word (gar) and the sixth word (huper) meaning "for the sake of". In your version, the first "for" has been omitted. I got the idea for omission from Ellicott's Commentary for the English Readers. It seems the CT does not have "for" but the MT and TR do have it. Either the "for" has been omitted in the CT, or been added in the MT and TR.

But the presence or absence of gar (which carries the meaning of “therefore”) has no bearing on your idea of “for sin” since far is a logical connector and you are looking for a preposition “for,” which isn’t there for “sin.”

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Yes, I know it is not there! But it can be added to clarify the Lamb of God, who knew no sin was made for sin. Many translations are full of added (italicized) words for clarity. If the CT is right, the someone added gar for clarity. "Gar" sometimes is used to "assign the reason" as in steak for food.
Here the idea is the One who knew no sin was made "for" sin.

 

[The Archangel]

Yes, I know it is not there! But it can be added to clarify the Lamb of God, who knew no sin was made for sin. Many translations are full of added (italicized) words for clarity. If the CT is right, the someone added gar for clarity. "Gar" sometimes is used to "assign the reason" as in steak for food.
Here the idea is the One who knew no sin was made "for" sin.

No, it can’t be added to make it say “made for sin.” Gar doesn’t work like that and you are confusing two different Greek parts of speech with two entirely different functions.

Whether the TR or the MT has it or not isn’t a translation decision. If it was added, it was added as a scribal error. If it was omitted, it was admitted as a scribal error. The presence of gar would only formally connect v. 21 with v. 20. Under no circumstances would gar be translated as “for sin.” You would need a the preposition “on behalf of” with hamartia in the genitive case. Hamartia is accusative. You simply cannot have the Greek say that which you wish it said.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

At very least Christ in our passage is identified with sin but not that He Himself is a sinner.

I believe this has more to do with His incarnation than the atonement - a distinctly different howbeit connected matter.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...

 

[percho]

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.

As in: Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: - yet- For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:15

However, how did he feel, as the curse, hanging on the tree? My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[Van]

You seem not to grasp that "for" can be added for clarity without being dictated by Greek grammar.

 

[percho]

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

Would it be fair and or correct to say that Christ had to become, sin, < a noun) which resulted in obedient death (shed blood) in order that righteousness would by grace rather than by the works of the law.

In other words, as is said here: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezek 18:20

All have sinned (verb) therefore they can only die for themselves. Bot thee righteousness One, Christ can be made sin (noun) die, then be made alive again whereby we can become the righteousness of God.

 

[The Archangel]

You seem not to grasp that "for" can be added for clarity without being dictated by Greek grammar.

You are simply wrong. The "for" you are seeking to add isn't for clarity, it is to change what the verse says.

The Archangel

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are simply wrong. The "for" you are seeking to add isn't for clarity, it is to change what the verse says.

The Archangel

I am amazed that someone who has zero formal training in Greek(that I know of) is trying to tell someone who has the Greek expertise you have how Greek works and doesn't work.

I'd be afraid to be on a plane with him...he'd tell the pilot to get out of the cockpit as he is taking over.

 

[Van]

Of course, you are not trying to alter the meaning, only the side that says "made a sin sacrifice" is altering the message.

But I do want to thank you, Archangel, for accurately presenting the Greek grammar that dictates both my translation efforts were bogus.

 

[Van]

How can the One who knew no sin, and is our immutable God, be made to be sin? Several well qualified people believe the word translated as sin is not in the grammatical form used to refer to a sin sacrifice.

Now "sin" has two aspects, the act (say I steal a car) and the consequence God requires as a result, for example the wages of sin is death. Is "sin" sometimes used to refer to the act (thought or action) by itself, and at other times, to the consequence imposed by God, the debt or burden created by the act? For example, in Hebrews 9:28, Christ is carrying away the burden imposed by God, such that they are redeemed.

Could made sin in 2 Cor. 5:21 refer to some aspect of sin, such as the substitute for sin, or that which would redeem the debt or burden of the sin of the world, i.e. the Lamb of God. Thus the idea would be "made to be the sin substitute? Are the contextual meanings of the word broad enough to cover "sin substitute?"

 

[JonC]

I am amazed that someone who has zero formal training in Greek(that I know of) is trying to tell someone who has the Greek expertise you have how Greek works and doesn't work.

I'd be afraid to be on a plane with him...he'd tell the pilot to get out of the cockpit as he is taking over.

At the same time you have Bill Mounce who does have formal training in Greek saying the Greek can mean "sin" or "sin-offering" and argues for the latter.

I have formal Greek training (undergraduate and graduate level). I can tell you the word itself can mean "sin", "imputed sin", ""sin offering", and "sacrifice for sin".

Too often people work off the basis of their tradition and pretend interpretation is not necessary because translation itself dictates their theory as the only viable meaning. For the uneducated I tend to chaulk this up to ignorance (I have met people who believe the words in italics were emphasized in the original manuscripts). For the educated I tend to attribute this as an integrity issue. If we can pretend the Greek dictates our conclusion then we don't have to defend our theory. In that case it is dishonesty.

Ancient languages are not exactly the same as its contemporary counterparts. Most (if not all) words can have a range of meaning depending on context. We can argue within the range of word meanings, but context dictates the interpretation.

@Van is correct that the word itself can be interpreted "for sin" in the sense the word can legitimately mean the "expiatory victim".