If you mean transfered from us to Christ, then yes, that is what I am saying.
I believe the iniquity of us all were laid upon Him and He became a curse for us.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Christ Was "Made Sin"
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
- Status
I believe the iniquity of us all were laid upon Him and He became a curse for us.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Are you saying you agree or don't agree with the sins of God's elect being laid on Christ?
I believe that the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Let's try again.
Do you believe in the doctrine of imputation the elect's sins to Christ? Yes or no. If you do not, then we are not simply talking past each other.
I don't know what you mean (it is a question loaded with assumptions).
Do I believe that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Yes.
Do I believe Christ is the Propitiation for only the sins of some men? No.
Do I believe God caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him? Yes.
Do I believe God caused the iniquity of only some people to fall on Christ? No.
KenH
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. I asked a straightforward question.
Anyway, we are definitely not just talking past each other.
Have a nice evening, Jon.
You too.
If you come up with a better way of asking what you want to know just reply and I'll get back with you.
It's just I don't want to give you a misleading answer (I can't tell if we agree or disagree).
KenH
Well-Known Member
If you don't agree with imputation, then we do not agree.
I don't know if I agree with your definition of imputation or not. I told you what I believe and you couldn't see that it was in agreement or disagreement with "imputation".
Perhaps it would be easier to just stick with passages. That way we wouldn't risk talking past one another.
In my post #8, I asked a question.
Wine mixed with myrrh is an analgesic. It was the one tiny morsel of kindness in the whole brutal affair of crucifixion. It gave just a miniscule amount of relief from the terrible agony that the one crucified would suffer. Surely no one could object to our Lord availing Himself of that crumb of comfort?
But the Lord Jesus was not suffering for Himself; He was standing surety (Hebrews 7:22) for the sins of His people and giving satisfaction to the outraged justice of God. He must drink the cup of God's wrath against sin down to the very dregs (Psalms 75:8; Matthew 26:42) so that we sinners who trust in Him and in His finished work of propitiation will be made the very righteousness of God in Him. Therefore voluntarily, He refuses the drink so that His people may receive such a great salvation.
Since no one has come back to me with an answer, I'll give you mine.
Wine mixed with myrrh is an analgesic. It was the one tiny morsel of kindness in the whole brutal affair of crucifixion. It gave just a miniscule amount of relief from the terrible agony that the one crucified would suffer. Surely no one could object to our Lord availing Himself of that crumb of comfort?
But the Lord Jesus was not suffering for Himself; He was standing surety (Hebrews 7:22) for the sins of His people and giving satisfaction to the outraged justice of God. He must drink the cup of God's wrath against sin down to the very dregs (Psalms 75:8; Matthew 26:42) so that we sinners who trust in Him and in His finished work of propitiation will be made the very righteousness of God in Him. Therefore voluntarily, He refuses the drink so that His people may receive such a great salvation.
Regardless of the validity of that view, the issue is this is not what the verse (if you are talking about 2 Cor 5:21) actually says.
The only possible meaning of "made sin" in the verse - IF we take a literal interpretation of the text - is that He was made a "sin offering".
The reason is the word sin can mean a "sinful act" (a disobedience to God) or a "sin offering" (the Hebrew equivalent means "sin offering" over 100 times in the OT, and the Greek word carries that meaning as well as evidenced by its use in the LXX) BUT the former definition would be unChristian.
That, of course, doesn't go against your view.
I'm just not sure we should avoid a literal interpretation for that verse.
Shortly before His crucifixion. Spurgeon suggests that it was at Gethsemane when, 'He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed' (Matthew 26:37-38) as He felt the awful weight of sin bearing down upon Him.
'The wages of sin is death' but of course, 'After this, the judgment' (Hebrews 9:27).
Until the 'ninth hour' when Jesus knew that 'All things were now accomplished' and declared, "It is finished!" (Or 'accomplished' or 'paid').
Away. The same place as the scapegoat carried the sins of the Israelites (Leviticus 16:21-22).[/QUOTE]
Forgive me, but I see no 100% semantic equivalent between the Hebrew and the Greek for "sin offering." It is rare that a single religious word has complete semantic equivalence with a single word in another language. In this case, the LXX translators did not necessarily mean complete semantic equivalent between the Hebrew and Greek, but simply used what they thought was the best Greek word they had. Example: the one English (or Greek) word "justify" in the Japanese Bible must be three words, gi to mitomeru (義と認める).
Look at Hebrews 10:18, where we have προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, three words to say "offering for sin," including separate words for "offering" and "for" and "sin." In fact, back in Hebrews 10:8 we have ὁλοκαυτώματα (accusative) for "burnt offering," then following that περὶ ἁμαρτίας, indicating another offering, a sin offering, following the context of a burnt offering, and using two words for "sin offering" with "offering" being in italics in the KJV.
In Hebrew, on the other hand, there are separate words for "sin offering" (חטּאה) and just "offering" (מנחה), and that is different from Greek.
Last edited:
Concerning 1 Cor. 5:21, it has to be translated "sin" because that's what the original says--not "sin offering." What are the ramifications of that? I like what my favorite NT commentator says, A. T. Robertson, who wrote, "The words 'to be' are not in the Greek. 'Sin' here is the substantive, not the verb. God 'treated as sin' the one 'who knew no sin.' But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Heb 12:3). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ's suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: 'My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?' (Mt 27:46)."
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
A) True, and that is a peculiarity of the Hebrew. Paul did not write 2Corinthians 5 in Hebrew.
You would have to show the identical phenomenon in Greek.
B) Even if one could show that in Greek, it still would not automatically follow that that must be the intended sense.
A) The notion that the Septuagint is a BC translation is a canard that must die once and for all.
The Septuagint is an AD work that sought to retro-actively harmonize NT quotes of the OT and references to the OT with some supposed OT text that was being quoted and referenced.
B) The notion that it was common in Paul's day, again, does not automatically derive.
In the absence of evidence, the sense stands: he was made sin, not "sin offering".
Again I say, the sense matches his physical transformation on the cross to match Moses' serpent and a worm.
And yes, that is a heavy doctrine, And who is sufficient for these things?
[/QUOTE]
So you tell me, the death, is the result of sin . What was Jesus the Christ raised out of by the resurrection? From whence was Christ resurrected per Acts 2:31?
Exactly how long did Jesus himself say he would be dead? Is Hades the realm of the living or the dead?
It appears to me when Jesus said, "My God, My God why has thou forsaken (g1459 ἐγκατέλιπες ( From ἐν (G1722) and καταλείπω (G2641) me," is when he was made sin, Why else would he at that time have felt forsaken? Then he said, "It (whatever, "it," was) is finished and then said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:" and he was dead.
That's when Jesus died for our sins. He had just been talking moments before that.
Then Acts 2:31 and 27 the prophet David states that by resurrection (Out of the dead) the soul of him would not be (G2641, see above) in Hades nor the flesh of him see corruption.
Is that not what the Spirit of Truth says?
I believe from James 1:15, "It," of, "it is finished," is Christ being made sin and then giving his life for out sin.
Everybody jump in the water is fine.
I am not saying there is. 100% equlivance. To be fair, I don't know that there could be or of that should be our expectation.
My point with the LXX is not a 100% equlivance but a usage contemporary to the authorship of the NT.
I believe that Paul wrote 2 Corinthians to the Christians who lived in Corinth in the mid 1st century AD. So their understanding of word usage, even if not "proper", determines the meaning.
We have to allow for less than academic usages of words if common usages were sometimes less than academic.
The question is not whether the word should have been used for "sin offering" in the common language but if it was.
Did the people use the word for "sin" to mean "sin offering"?
Example - What does calling a person "nimrod" mean? It means they are a great hunter. But does it really?
We can show the identical in Greek (in the LXX).
I'm not saying that is the academic use of the word. I am saying that that is how the word was used, therefore we have to consider what Paul's audience would have understood.
The fact it was common in Paul's day does matter - especially when considering the audience was Corinth.
- Status