Christ made Sin?

[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).

No. The point is that what works for one must work for the other. Both are accusative and Paul is using this construction to make a point, more than one, actually. You don't get to arbitrarily change meanings.

Also, I have noticed your range of meaning for hamartia here is really quite limited. The BDAG has quite a good range and there are many more options at the translator's disposal than you have probably understood. But, I digress...

Put yer thinkin cap on, bruther Archangel.

My thinking cap is firmly affixed. Whether one agrees with the great and mighty JonC is not the determiner of who is thinking and who is not. If I were you, I'd have to claim this to be an ad hominem.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

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

I think you may be confusing yourself a bit.

ἁμαρτία works in both places (so we can settle on tbe English word "sin"). But (just like letting the dead bury the dead when refering to a physically deceased person) the same meanings for ἁμαρτία do not work in both places.

This should be obvious to you as Christ was not literally made "an immoral act" and Christ was not without "sinners"....they were all around.

I actually expected a bit more from you in this area of discussion. You seem to be having the same problem that has been plaguing @Martin Marprelate , but I expected us to be discussing interpretation by now. (No insult, just not what I expected).

 

[JonC]

Also, I have noticed your range of meaning for hamartia here is really quite limited. The BDAG has quite a good range and there are many more options at the translator's disposal than you have probably understood.

Yes. That is true.

My only point was that @Martin Marprelate was misinformed that ἁμαρτία could not mean "sin offering", "imputed sin", etc. He was trying to force an interpretation by denying the word ἁμαρτία (or "sin") could mean anything except Satan as a type of Christ as Jesus became sin.

On another note (really the topic as well) do you also believe that Satan is a type of Christ as Christ became sin?

 

[The Archangel]

My only point was that @Martin Marprelate was misinformed that ἁμαρτία could not mean "sin offering", "imputed sin", etc. He was trying to force an interpretation by denying the word ἁμαρτία (or "sin") could mean anything except Satan as a type of Christ as Jesus became sin.

This is a bit problematic. You have been hanging the "for sin... Satan as a type of Christ" thing on him at every turn of this discussion and, frankly, you have not been able to distinguish that idea from any other he has offered. So, your engagement with him and your portrayal of him have been quite unfair and, at times, painfully dishonorable.

Again, without arguing about the typology issue, Paul does plainly say that Christ became sin. One does not need to make a Serpent-Satan-Christ connection to argue what Paul plainly says.

On another note (really the topic as well) do you also believe that Satan is a type of Christ as Christ became sin?

I don't care to engage the issue, partially do to your inability to discuss it fairly with @Martin Marprelate .

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I think you may be confusing yourself a bit.

ἁμαρτία works in both places (so we can settle on tbe English word "sin"). But (just like letting the dead bury the dead when refering to a physically deceased person) the same meanings for ἁμαρτία do not work in both places.

This should be obvious to you as Christ was not literally made "an immoral act" and Christ was not without "sinners"....they were all around.

These statements are rather myopic. You disqualify one meaning (the plain one) of ἁμαρτία because you don't like the implications that meaning brings--that's philosophy, not theology. Secondly, to reduce the semantic range of meaning of "sin" to "an immoral act" or "sinners" (even when the noun is singular) is quite off the mark. Not only is there a semantic range to a word, but there is a semantic range to an author's usage, which you seem to be missing.

Paul is up to something here in his argument, and it really is quite a robust argument--expertly crafted through the use of chiasms both grammatical and conceptual. So, there is much going on here that to focus on the one-word is to commit the very word-study fallacy you so decry in others.

I actually expected a bit more from you in this area of discussion. You seem to be having the same problem that has been plaguing @Martin Marprelate , but I expected us to be discussing interpretation by now. (No insult, just not what I expected).

"Problem?" Not at all.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

No. You are conflating two different things: Translation and Interpretation. Translation is to determine what the text actually says. Interpretation is to determine what the text means. Don't fiddle with the text so that it says what you want it to mean as the text says what it says. After you faithfully translate the text, then set yourself to the task of determining the meaning of the text. Ask: What is _____________'s range of meaning, etc.

Again the "of sin" that you are insisting on simply isn't there and it is beyond the semantic range of the text, as is "He treated." "He treated" denies the point that Paul is seeking to make: God MADE Him to be sin. Now, if you--to get your point across--want to say it means God treated Christ as a sinner, that's fine (whether it is accurate or not is a debate for another time). However, to translate "made" as "treated" does violence to the text.

The Archangel

1. I think "treated" falls within the range of meanings.
2. "of sin" is how the word in the same Greek form, is translated in some other verse.
3. Therefore the translation is viable from a grammar point of view.

Translation is interpretation anytime the source word has a range of meanings dictated by context.

 

[Van]

The copy I provided was out of the dictionary (as stated).
EDIT
That and they can make good people say stupid things.

I resemble that remark.

 

[JonC]

1. I think "treated" falls within the range of meanings.
2. "of sin" is how the word in the same Greek form, is translated in some other verse.
3. Therefore the translation is viable from a grammar point of view.

Translation is interpretation anytime the source word has a range of meanings dictated by context.

I don't see how "treated" can fall within the range of word meaning. It is, IMHO, systematically derived and (if that were a proof text) read into the verse ( e.g., the people or God could have treated Christ as if He were sinful).

 

[The Archangel]

1. I think "treated" falls within the range of meanings.

You would be wrong.

2. "of sin" is how the word in the same Greek form, is translated in some other verse.

The form here is Accusative. Of the 27 occurrences of this word in this form in the New Testament, not one of them is translated "of sin." Of the 34 occurrences of the Genitive form of this word in the New Testament, many of them are translated "of sin."

3. Therefore the translation is viable from a grammar point of view.

Not at all.

Translation is interpretation anytime the source word has a range of meanings dictated by context.

Not necessarily.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

These statements are rather myopic. You disqualify one meaning (the plain one) of ἁμαρτία because you don't like the implications that meaning brings--that's philosophy, not theology. Secondly, to reduce the semantic range of meaning of "sin" to "an immoral act" or "sinners" (even when the noun is singular) is quite off the mark. Not only is there a semantic range to a word, but there is a semantic range to an author's usage, which you seem to be missing.

Paul is up to something here in his argument, and it really is quite a robust argument--expertly crafted through the use of chiasms both grammatical and conceptual. So, there is much going on here that to focus on the one-word is to commit the very word-study fallacy you so decry in others.



"Problem?" Not at all.

The Archangel

Ahhhh.....hitting the false assumptions a little early I see. We must be getting ready to close the thread. Got to get them in while you still can.

1. You do not know whether or not I like the implications of the verse meaning the English word "sin". That was an asinine claim on your part.

2. My complaint is with the words themselves. My charge is that you are dealing falsely with the various interpretations that have been offered by men like Gordon Fee and Bill Mounce (I already claimed I am not attempting to translate the verse).

3. While I may think several things ignorant, the only thing I found offensive was the conclusion thar Satan is a type of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Jesus became sin in the sense to God the Father saw Him just as He would being a sinner, had to forsake and pour out His wrath upon Him for our sake!
The Paradox is that while all of that was happening, Jesus still was sinless, and still fully God!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:20 PM Pacific.

 

[Van]

Yes, of sin is not found in the accusative. My bad.
Treated simply refers to doing something and easily falls within the range. God "purposed." appointed, and provided, so treated says the same.
I think my translation is interpretation statement is not only valid, it is obvious.

 

[Van]

God treated the One knowing no sin [to be] sin, so that...

Looks great to me.

 

[JonC]

Jesus became sin in the sense to God the Father saw Him just as He would being a sinner, had to forsake and pour out His wrath upon Him for our sake!
The Paradox is that while all of that was happening, Jesus still was sinless, and still fully God!

So you don't believe any of the actual meanings ἁμαρτία could carry, but rather that Paul was using "sin" as a sort of short-cut to mean that God saw Jesus just as if He were a sinner. Correct?

 

[JonC]

The bottom line, and what I want anyone who stumbles across this to get, is not to allow one camp to bully you into believing a word dictates the meaning of a passage. The words are important. The tenses are important. But just as with our language, context dictates meaning.

In the case of ἁμαρτία, it can have many meanings. Do not fall into the trap of exploring the different English means of "sin". Look at the context, look at what Paul is saying, look at the possible meanings, and form an interpretation. Read others, not to adopt their view but to make sure you have not invented a new (and wrong) understanding.

Schreiner explains that the verse can mean that Jesus was “counted as a sinner” or “became a sacrifice for sin” for our sake (Schreiner; 2 Corinthians).

William Mounce concludes that the passage literally means that Christ became a “sin-offering” (Mounce; Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary).

John Gill holds this was “imputed sin” (Gill’s Exposition of the Bible).

Calvin held that this pointed to Jesus’ condemnation that “by His stripes we are healed” (Calvin’s commentaries).

Don't just read something you want to believe and take that as the end-all. Remember that not all theologians are Greek or Hebrew scholars (and vise versa). Don't let tradition guide you.

Edit: and if you get to the point your view leads you to believe Satan is a type of Christ....turn back to the Bible (you will not find that idea there).

 

[The Archangel]

God treated the One knowing no sin [to be] sin, so that...

Looks great to me.

But that's not what ἐποίησεν means. So you will have to hold to that in contradiction of the text.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

I am sorry sir, but treated falls easily within the range of meanings, as does (1) purposed, (2) appointed, and (3) provided. Treat means to behave in a specific way toward someone or something. Christ was treated to be sin.

Sorry it took so long to solve the difficulty.

Look at Luke 2:48 and note that not only does the NASB include treat within the range of meanings, so do more than a nine other versions.

 

[The Archangel]

I am sorry sir, but treated falls easily within the range of meanings, as does (1) purposed, (2) appointed, and (3) provided. Treat means to behave in a specific way toward someone or something. Christ was treated to be sin.

Sorry it took so long to solve the difficulty.

The difficulty for you is not solved as ἐποίησεν cannot mean "treated." The word ἐποίησεν is used 568 times in the New Testament. The Aorist Active Indicative 3rd Singular is used 75 times. Not one of those times is it remotely close to "treated."

The BDAG and other lexicions do not list "treated" as an option. Your position is greatly complicated by the fact that ἐποίησεν appears with a double accusative which means it is translated as "something is made into something else."

Your edit:

Look at Luke 2:48 and note that not only does the NASB include treat within the range of meanings, so do more than a nine other versions.

The Aorist Active Indicative 2nd Singular is used 6 times. But, the translation "treated" is based on Mary's words to Jesus: "Why have you done us this way." So in that instance, "treated" may work. However, as stated before, the construction of Luke 2:48 does not include the double accusative as 2 Corinthians 5:21 does. The double accusative severely limits your choices, and "treated" isn't one of them.

So you are still quite wrong.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

I think we can cut to the chase, there is no basic word meaning difference from 2 person singular and 3 person singular. The difference relates to "you treated" (2 Person Singular) and He treated (3 Person Singular.)

He treated [sinless Christ] to be sin. Something treated as something else.

Proper translation results in the opportunity for proper doctrine.