Christ made Sin?

[The Archangel]

It depends on one's philosophy of translation. For example - how do you render "Logos"? As "Word"? Does the English "word" accurately reflect the meaning of "Logos"?

I am OK with using "Word" because it is an English word. I would be OK with using "Logos" as well. Relate this to our point here:

Should hamartia be rendered "sin"? In the first part, yes, of course. Because it is "sin". But in the second part it does not make complete sense in the English language (no one can be "made sin" because sin is not such a thing....as @Martin Marprelate even acknowledged when agreeing that God cannot punish "sin" but punishes the "sinner".

So, are you suggesting that hamartia be translated "sinner"? That would make sense (the English words), but is it accurate?

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."

By translating the second hamartia "sin" this allows the interpreter to interpret the passage through it's own context (like with "Word"). Does "sin" here mean "sin" as just stated in the passage (i.e., Christ literally made sin)? No, of course not, that would not only be nonsense but it would be heresy as God would literally become evil and unholy.

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

So does "sin" then mean "imputed sin"? It's possible. I think it is reading a little into the text, but I have to acknowledge it is a possible translation based on the actual range of meaning for the word. And it is essentially pointing to "sin" as a "sin offering" as well.

Does "sin" mean "sin-offering"? I believe so. This is the most popular translation as it points to the work of Christ as a whole. But it is not the only interpretation.

Does "sin" mean "expiatory sacrifice"? Again, I think it is adding a bit to the text, but it is possible. And again, it is still pointing to a sin offering.

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.

Basically, @Martin Marprelate is wrong. Just as he insisted that God separated from Christ because "forsake" means to separate from, he is reading his theories into the text. I know that you share his theology. But I doubt that you share his reasoning. You know better. He doesn't.

@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.

My only intention with @Martin Marprelate was to point out that there are actually several legitimate interpretations of the text. He should therefore argue his interpretation to be correct. But he has failed to even see that the text itself can be legitimately interpreted (based on the text) differently. That is ignorance, plain and simple. And there is nothing that can be done about it - unless you are willing to explain it to him as you hold his view. My concern is I doubt that you will work with him because I believe you are looking to defend a "camp" rather than engage in dialogue of interpretation. But I may be wrong (I sincerely hope I am).

Once we are all on the same page regarding the range of meanings, translations, and what it is to interpret the text, then we can all see that there are several legitimate interpretations based on the text alone. From there we can discuss which one is correct and why. Until then, there is nothing that can be said.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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 Greek. 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

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....

 

[The Archangel]

A little correction here, as well. What you seem to be looking for is a "word for word" equivalent. While I prefer that translations worked this way, unfortunately this is not always possible. There are instances where a phrase more adequately defines a Greek word than the word translations like the NASB (my favorite) uses. I know that you know this, I'm stating it for clarity.

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.).

It would be just as legitimate to claim that the word be translated "sin offering" in every place and the reader can make out the proper meaning. Paraphrase is not a bad thing when the phrase best represents the actual meaning of the translated word.

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.

The sad part is some do not take the time to study what the words mean. I don't mean a "word study", but I do mean looking up words that do not quite "fit" or only fit when exposed to a theory (like the second "sin" in the verse). When someone reads the verse they should think "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" and then dive into the verse. This does not always happen. Sometimes, like with @Martin Marprelate , it leads one into serious error because of their traditions and they come out believing that Satan is a type of Christ.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

So if, as I have argued, hamartian does not mean a sin offering, what does it mean? How can the Christ, before whom the angels veil their eyes and cry, “Holy, holy, holy!” possibly be made sin? There is so much that is paradoxical about the cross. How can the One called ‘Saviour’ be chided with the words, “Himself He cannot save” (Matthew 27:42)? How can the ‘Mighty God’ Isaiah 9:6) die in apparent helplessness and weakness? No wonder that the cross is ‘to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks, foolishness’ (1 Corinthians 1:23-25). To devout people like the Jews, the idea of the Messiah suffering and being made sin is blasphemous – pious Moslems react with horror at the very idea of a prophet of God being executed in such a barbaric way -- and to secular folk like the Greeks the whole idea is barmy! ‘But to those who are being saved, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.’

So what does it mean that Christ is ‘made sin’? Well, first of all, it means that all the sins of all the elect were laid upon His sinless shoulders. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Not that He was made a sinner – God forbid! There are more than enough Bible verses to show that He was never that – but that our sins were charged upon Him. “Christ was ‘made sin for us’ by the reckoning of our guilt to His account, not in mere semblance, but in dread reality. Because of this, Divine Justice took satisfaction from Him; because of this He died ‘the Just for the unjust’” (A.W. Pink).

But not only our sins were laid upon the sinless Christ, but also the curse of God upon those who commit them. ‘For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”……Yet……Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’ (Galatians 3:10, 13, quoting Deuteronomy 27:26).

So in what way were our sins laid upon Christ? Well, in what way do we become ‘the righteousness of God in Him’? By imputation. ‘….God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them…..’ ‘Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity’ (2 Cor. 5:19; Psalms 32:2). Our sins are not imputed to us because they have been imputed to Christ. His perfect righteousness and obedience is, in turn, imputed to us. He is made sin so that we might become the righteousness of God.’ Two quotations from long ago may be helpful:

“He was made sin, we are made ‘righteousness.’ The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the only sense in which He was made sin, is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us” [Charles Hodge: A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians]

“Him who was such that He knew no sin, sin never entered for one moment the region of His personal experience, Him – on our behalf – He made sin, so charged Him, loaded Him, implicated Him, in an inscrutable reality, with man’s sin that it was, for the purpose of Redemption, as if He were it; in order that on the amazing other side, that we might become, might ipso facto be, on coming to Him, God’s righteousness in Him; that we sinners, implicated and joined to the Lord, might in a wonderful correspondence be dealt with as if we were the embodied righteousness of God, the thing which wholly corresponds to His law, and so wholly receives the smile and welcome of the Judge” [Bishop Handley Moule: The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Emphases in the original]

We are not made a ‘righteousness offering,’ if there were such a thing. We are made, according to the verse, righteousness itself, and the righteousness of God at that. When God, as Judge, looks at us He sees not sinners struggling and often failing to keep His just commandments; no! He sees the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ. So on the cross, the Father, as Judge, did not see the perfect spotless righteousness of Christ, but all the sins of the elect –all the lies, lust, pride, rage and spite – piled upon the Son and laid to His account. ‘He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.’ The apostle’s use of the word ‘tree’ (Gk. xulon) instead of ‘cross’ (Gk. stauron), is there to remind us that Christ bore not only the weight of our sins, but the curse of God that rested upon them (Galatians 3:13).

I think it is very natural for people to shy away from the idea that Christ bore the curse of God against sin and sinners, but it is what the Bible explicitly teaches. When faced with the word of God we have to set aside squeamishness and presuppositions, and follow the Bible, wherever it takes us. Otherwise in toning down the 'offense of the cross' we may be in danger of making it 'of none effect.'

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe that we are "clothed" in Christ's righteousness as we die to sin and are made alive in Him so that Christ Himself is the Firstborn among many brethern. In my view this is a rebirth and we are purchased (not our sins).

I know that goes against Satan as a type of Christ as Jesus does not literally become "sin" or really even imputed with our individual sins. So I know we disagree.

Double Imputation was happening at that Cross....

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

The copy I provided was out of the dictionary (as stated).

You are confusing things a bit. I am saying Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee have provided a range of meanings for a word you claim can mean only one thing. I do believe Mounce made the correct choice here ("sin offering"), but that is not the point. The point is you and @The Archangel have been going on and on with @Van that his use of "for sin" is impossible as it adds "gar". His interpretation is actually within the range of possible translations (gar is not needed)

This is a problem with "word studies" - not in what you affirm but in what you deny. That and they can make good people say stupid things.

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!

 

[JonC]

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 Greek. 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

No, brother. Paul wrote ἁμαρτία. "Sin" is an English word that represents one meaning of ἁμαρτία. That said, I prefer it be rendered "sin" because it forces the astute reader to look into this passage and the context of the passage. If they do this they cannot walk away believing the word is "sin" as in the first ἁμαρτία (unless they add to it a theory explaining away God becoming evil).

Since we both agree on the range of meaning for
ἁμαρτία, we could discuss interpretation (we agree on translation). But @Martin Marprelate cannot because the possible range of meanings escape him - his proof (as with "forsaken") is that it dictates his interpretation.

I did not think there was any question in regard to the bold text. When I complained of @Martin Marprelate 's repeated representation of my interpretation (he accused me of denying Scripture because ἁμαρτία can't mean "sin-offering") did you step in to mediate or did you take offence that I pointed out his reply was not honest? I do not expect you to change.

I am not rejecting your interpretation. I am rejecting @Martin Marprelate 's right to have one. As long as one cannot grasp the range of a word that one cannot offer anything of value in terms of interpretation. He believes his "interpretation" is essentially dictated - no other real interpretation can exist. That is foolish and I believe you know it.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, brother. Paul wrote ἁμαρτία. "Sin" is an English word that represents one meaning of ἁμαρτία. That said, I prefer it be rendered "sin" because it forces the astute reader to look into this passage and the context of the passage. If they do this they cannot walk away believing the word is "sin" as in the first ἁμαρτία (unless they add to it a theory explaining away God becoming evil).

Since we both agree on the range of meaning for
ἁμαρτία, we could discuss interpretation (we agree on translation). But @Martin Marprelate cannot because the possible range of meanings escape him - his proof (as with "forsaken") is that it dictates his interpretation.

I did not think there was any question in regard to the bold text. When I complained of @Martin Marprelate 's repeated representation of my interpretation (he accused me of denying Scripture because ἁμαρτία can't mean "sin-offering") did you step in to mediate or did you take offence that I pointed out his reply was not honest? I do not expect you to change.

I am not rejecting your interpretation. I am rejecting @Martin Marprelate 's right to have one. As long as one cannot grasp the range of a word that one cannot offer anything of value in terms of interpretation. He believes his "interpretation" is essentially dictated - no other real interpretation can exist. That is foolish and I believe you know it.

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"

 

[JonC]

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

I agree insofar as "word for word". Your ad hominem adide, I already agreed the translation should be "sin". I am not offended by those who believe this literally means "sin...or evil" (altjough it is offensive, I suppose). I am not even ashamed for the ignorant who believe those who prefer their language follow the rules of grammer delicate. Quite simply, it does not take a rocket scientist (or a linguist) to recognize the English word "sin" does not quite work. It does, perhaps, take one at least mildly versed in his or her own language.

 

[JonC]

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"

Do you believe God literally made Jesus to become evil? If not, then reexamine your words more carefully.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you believe God literally made Jesus to become evil? If not, then reexamine your words more carefully.

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

 

[JonC]

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

I do too. I believe this means Hod made Christ who knew no sin (evil, immoral act) to become sin (a sin-offering) for us.

But given the range of meanings are you going to stick with Jecus actually becoming evil?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do too. I believe this means Hod made Christ who knew no sin (evil, immoral act) to become sin (a sin-offering) for us.

But given the range of meanings are you going to stick with Jecus actually becoming evil?

No, that he became sin for us!

 

[JonC]

No, that he became sin for us!

As already noted, the word tranlated "sin" has a range of meanings. Is it the English meaning that Jesus became "an immoral act"? Or is it ine of the other possibilities ("sin-offering", "expiatory sacrifice", ect.)....or do you simply have no clue?

 

[The Archangel]

No, brother. Paul wrote ἁμαρτία. "Sin" is an English word that represents one meaning of ἁμαρτία. That said, I prefer it be rendered "sin" because it forces the astute reader to look into this passage and the context of the passage. If they do this they cannot walk away believing the word is "sin" as in the first ἁμαρτία (unless they add to it a theory explaining away God becoming evil).

Since we both agree on the range of meaning for
ἁμαρτία, we could discuss interpretation (we agree on translation). But @Martin Marprelate cannot because the possible range of meanings escape him - his proof (as with "forsaken") is that it dictates his interpretation.

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.

I did not think there was any question in regard to the bold text. When I complained of @Martin Marprelate 's repeated representation of my interpretation (he accused me of denying Scripture because ἁμαρτία can't mean "sin-offering") did you step in to mediate or did you take offence that I pointed out his reply was not honest? I do not expect you to change.

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?!

I am not rejecting your interpretation. I am rejecting @Martin Marprelate 's right to have one. As long as one cannot grasp the range of a word that one cannot offer anything of value in terms of interpretation. He believes his "interpretation" is essentially dictated - no other real interpretation can exist. That is foolish and I believe you know it.

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

 

[The Archangel]

I agree insofar as "word for word". Your ad hominem adide, I already agreed the translation should be "sin". I am not offended by those who believe this literally means "sin...or evil" (altjough it is offensive, I suppose). I am not even ashamed for the ignorant who believe those who prefer their language follow the rules of grammer delicate. Quite simply, it does not take a rocket scientist (or a linguist) to recognize the English word "sin" does not quite work. It does, perhaps, take one at least mildly versed in his or her own language.

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

 

[The Archangel]

I agree insofar as "word for word". Your ad hominem adide, I already agreed the translation should be "sin". I am not offended by those who believe this literally means "sin...or evil" (altjough it is offensive, I suppose). I am not even ashamed for the ignorant who believe those who prefer their language follow the rules of grammer delicate. Quite simply, it does not take a rocket scientist (or a linguist) to recognize the English word "sin" does not quite work. It does, perhaps, take one at least mildly versed in his or her own language.

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

 

[JonC]

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

No. "Sin" works for the first, just not the second. They are not even the same type.

God made Him who knew no "sin" (immoral act, evil, wickedness) become "sin" (Sin-offering, Propitiation) for us.

NOT God made Him who knew no immoral act become an immoral act. This does not work. "Sinner" (another meaning in range) does not work either because He did not become a sinner.

I think your best meaning here would be "imputed sin" (again, linking back to the Hebrew, this is within range....even though I don't accept the i interpretation).

Put yer thinkin cap on, bruther Archangel.