How Christ Was "Made Sin"

[John of Japan]

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?

Granted, the LXX is important in researching meaning. But of course it is only a translation, not the inspired original. I've compared many verses of the LXX to the Hebrew in many of the Psalms and in Proverbs 1-10 in my translation work, and it is quite often completely mistaken.

Contemporary usage is certainly a factor--but not the most important one. New Testament usage trumps all other factors in determining NT Greek meaning. What you must do to prove your point, then, is to find a NT verse where hamartia by itself actually means "sin offering."

So, you did not deal with Hebrews 10:8, in which hamartia certainly does not mean "sin offering" since there is a Greek phrase of three words for that very meaning.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

I did not say it doesn't matter. I said that it being common does not automatically follow.

 

[JonC]

Granted, the LXX is important in researching meaning. But of course it is only a translation, not the inspired original. I've compared many verses of the LXX to the Hebrew in many of the Psalms and in Proverbs 1-10 in my translation work, and it is quite often completely mistaken.

Contemporary usage is certainly a factor--but not the most important one. New Testament usage trumps all other factors in determining NT Greek meaning. What you must do to prove your point, then is to find a NT verse where hamartia by itself actually means "sin offering."

So, you did not deal with Hebrews 10:8, in which hamartia certainly does not mean "sin offering" since there is a Greek phrase of three words for that very meaning.

I did not deal with Hebrews, you are correct.

The reason is I believe that Hebrews was written to a Jewish population more versed in Hebrew than I would expect in 1st Century Cornith. I also don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews.

That is a presupposition on my part (Hebrews could have been addressed to Jews who only knew Greek and the Corinthians could have been Hebrews living in Corinth. And Paul could have written Hebrews). But it is an presupposition I'll own (and the reason I didnt address the verse in Hebrews).

I also acknowledge that in the LXX, the word is often (more than not) used not to mean "sin offering".

My argument is we know hamartia was used to mean "sin offering" outside of the NT and contemporary to Paul. I think we can agree on that.

So what remains is to show hamartia used in the NT actually meaning "sin offering".

That's easy - "He who knew no sin was made a sin offering for us". (kidding)


My point was that hamartia has been used to mean "sin offering", as a word and at least outside of the NT. So it needs to at least be considered alongside other meanings.

I an NOT saying it needs to be translated "sin offering", but I am saying that is how I interpret the translated word.

How do you define hamartia in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

What was He who knew no sin, in your opinion, made?

 

[JonC]

I did not say it doesn't matter. I said that it being common does not automatically follow.

I know it doesn't automatically follow. I agree there.

I could write today that your statement strikes me as queer (it strikes me as odd as automatically using any common meaning is something I find problematic). Others would question my use of "queer".

Point is, interpreting "sin" as "sin offering" is not adding to the text. It is using a meaning that you believe is incorrect, but not one outside of usage.


I have explained my interpretation of "sin" here. I do not know yours.

What do you believe Jesus was made (define "sin")?

 

[robycop3]

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?

Not wanting to derail this thread, so I'll make this comment quick: Many NT quites of OT Scripture match the Septuagint, including what JESYS read aloud in the synagogue in Luke 4 & called "this Scripture".

 

[John of Japan]

How do you define hamartia in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

What was He who knew no sin, in your opinion, made?

I think I have the flu, so I'm going to head home shortly, but this question is important.

The usage of hamartia in 2 Cor. 5:21 is metaphorical. In other words, it is impossible for a living person (Christ or us) to be actually made into sin, which is a non-corporeal concept. Then we ourselves cannot literally be made "righteousness," which is also non-corporeal. Therefore what the verse is saying is that Christ was separated from God the Father on the cross when He bore our sin, just as sin itself separates us from God.

Just found this in The Cross and Salvation, by Bruce Demarest. He notes on p. 174 that in Romans 8:3, the phrase peri hamaritias (περὶ ἁμαρτίας, literally "for sin") can legitimately be translated "sin offering." But that's hamartias plus the preposition.

Gotta go.

 

[JonC]

I think I have the flu, so I'm going to head home shortly, but this question is important.

The usage of hamartia in 2 Cor. 5:21 is metaphorical. In other words, it is impossible for a living person (Christ or us) to be actually made into sin, which is a non-corporeal concept. Then we ourselves cannot literally be made "righteousness," which is also non-corporeal. Therefore what the verse is saying is that Christ was separated from God the Father on the cross when He bore our sin, just as sin itself separates us from God.

Just found this in The Cross and Salvation, by Bruce Demarest. He notes on p. 174 that in Romans 8:3, the phrase peri hamaritias (περὶ ἁμαρτίας, literally "for sin") can legitimately be translated "sin offering." But that's hamartias plus the preposition.

Gotta go.

I hope you feel better soon.

When you get feeling better:

I will acknowledge that on the surface I disagree theologically as I do not believe the Son was separated from the Father on the cross (but I grant that "separated" requires unpacking to know...something to discuss at another time, perhaps).

My observation is twofold:

1. You object to my interpretation of hamartia as "sin offering" even though hamartia has been used to mean "sin offering" at least outside of the NT and although Scripture presents (in other places) Christ being a sin offering.

So you are not, from my understanding, rejecting the idea that "He who knew no sin was made a sin offering", just that Paul is restating this in 2 Corinthians.

2. You interpret the usage of hamartia to be a theological concept incorporating the separation of the Son from the Father on the cross as Christ bore our sins.

This appears to me, at least at this time, as reading theology into the text.

What examples would you point to in the NT where hamartia is used to mean something akin to separated from God the Father on the cross when the Son bore our sin, just as sin itself separates us from God?


(Again....for when you are feeling better.)

 

[George Antonios]

Not wanting to derail this thread, so I'll make this comment quick: Many NT quites of OT Scripture match the Septuagint, including what JESYS read aloud in the synagogue in Luke 4 & called "this Scripture".

Of course they do; that's precisely the point of what I said brother. The Septuagint was retro-actively designed to match those quotes. It is clearly a post NT work.

 

[George Antonios]

but not one outside of usage.

It is outside of usage in Greek.

 

[JonC]

It is outside of usage in Greek.

But it isn't. That's the point.

It is not outside the usage in the Greek language, just outside of how you believe Paul would have used the word (and without additional NT usage).

The problem is you have no leg to stand on until you offer another interpretation. In the Greek language the word has been used (outside of the NT) to mean "sin offering".

You seem to appreciate literal interpretations of words.

How do you interpret "sin" in the text?

 

[JonC]

@George Antonios ,

As far as those legitimately discussing the word goes, you are the only one who has refused to give your interpretation of "sin" in the passage.

I believe Paul is pointing to Christ as described elsewhere in numerous OT and NT passages (the Father sending the Son as a sin offering). I hold this is a literal interpretation based on the usage of the word in Greek (not necessarily elsewhere in the NT).

In the Greek language hamartia also means an inner movement of one's spirit that leads to a tragic end - especially the death of a hero (having nothing to do with guilt...in fact, the hamartia is often a virtue, but it concludes with the death of the hero).

If this is the literal definition you mean (I can agree with this as well) then "sin" equates to "flesh" (the Word was made flesh).

So there are a few literal interpretations avaliable (a movement of the spirit, particularly in the hero, that leads to a tragic end; a sin offering; a mistake, and a disobedience to God).

How do you interpret the verse?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Just found this in The Cross and Salvation, by Bruce Demarest. He notes on p. 174 that in Romans 8:3, the phrase peri hamaritias (περὶ ἁμαρτίας, literally "for sin") can legitimately be translated "sin offering." But that's hamartias plus the preposition.

You have this exactly right. There is nowhere n the NT where hamartia clearly means 'sin offering. In almost every one of 172 cases it must be translated as 'sin.' In Hebrews 10, which may not have been written by Paul, but was contemporay with him, uses prosphera peri hamartias and thusia peri hamartias for 'sin offering' and 'sin sacrifice.' These are contracted in the LXX to peri hamartias.

So why would Paul not use one or other of these terms in 2 Cor. 5:21 to distinguish 'sin' from 'sin offering? Answer: he didn't because he didn't need to because both times hamartia appears in 2 Cor. 5:21 it means the same thing - sin.

 

[JonC]

You have this exactly right. There is nowhere n the NT where hamartia clearly means 'sin offering. In almost every one of 172 cases it must be translated as 'sin.' In Hebrews 10, which may not have been written by Paul, but was contemporay with him, uses prosphera peri hamartias and thusia peri hamartias for 'sin offering' and 'sin sacrifice.' These are contracted in the LXX to peri hamartias.

So why would Paul not use one or other of these terms in 2 Cor. 5:21 to distinguish 'sin' from 'sin offering? Answer: he didn't because he didn't need to because both times hamartia appears in 2 Cor. 5:21 it means the same thing - sin.

There is a fatal flaw with your logic. It depends on your choice of meanings being correct and you ultimately reject that interpretation as well.

You pretend that hamartia only means "sin" as you define it, but in this case you reject using hamartia in that way.

The most common meaning of hamartia in the ancient Greek language is a type of flaw that leads to a hero's death or that leads to a tragic event (often the flaw is a virtue). On this case, it could be that Paul is referring to Christ being made flesh.

The second most common use is "missing tge mark", seen often in Homer's battle scenes.

Then we have hamartia as an evil, disobedient act against God.

Are you suggesting that God literally made Jesus disobedient?

Or are you reading the passage through your theology thereby avoiding blasphemy?

You have already answered this in other threads. You believe the latter (that Paul uses hamartia differently in this one place to represent an entire theological idea). BUT you can provide no other instances where this is done.


If I were to choose an exact literal interpretation, I suppose it would be the Word being made flesh and all that this entails. This would be the most common use of hamartia in the ancient Greek language (the trait that concluded in the death of Christ).

 

[JonC]

@George Antonios ,

What I am asking for is how you interpret the passage.

You seem to reject the ancient Greek use of hamartia in favor of sin as disobedience to God.

But how do you interpret that? Literally (that Jesus literally became evil)?

Or do you read the word hamartia as representing whatever your theology is?

And if so, can you cite any other instances in the NT where hamartia literally means your theological view?

 

[JonC]

@John of Japan

I will note that I have gone back and forth with hamartia in this text.

I kinda short cut it to "sin offering".

Initially I considered it as encompassing the Son being made man (resulting in sharing our "infirmities"). But I don't know how that would translate.

In a translation I would stick with "sin". I don't see it as a metaphorical use, though.

In ancient Greek literature hamartia often carried an idea that I'm not sure translates well in English (that component in the protagonist that drives the plot to a tragic conclusion...like Oedipus trying to avoid his fate by not returning to Cornith, but nevertheless his purpose was fulfilled through his actions).

That is how I view Paul's use. The Father gave the Son as a sin offering, the Son became man and experienced the consequences in its fullest).

 

[George Antonios]

(outside of the NT)

Right.

I don't have to define how he was made sin. But the Bible says "sin". Not "sin offering".

Sin exists as a literal metaphysical reality on its own according to some Bible verses.

 

[JonC]

Right.

I don't have to define how he was made sin. But the Bible says "sin". Not "sin offering".

Sin exists as a literal metaphysical reality on its own according to some Bible verses.

I have no problem translating it as the English word "sin". That is not the issue here. The issue is how "sin" is defined.

Do you mean "sin" as "disobedience to God"? Do you mean "sin" as missing a goal or target (as in Homer)? Do you mean the Greek definition of "sin" as a quality leading to a tragic event?

Or do you have no clue what "sin" in that verse means??

Do you just ignore it as meaningless or beyond human understanding?

Isn't that kinda like keeping "ass" in the Bible without knowing an "ass" is a donkey?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is a fatal flaw with your logic. It depends on your choice of meanings being correct and you ultimately reject that interpretation as well.

You pretend that hamartia only means "sin" as you define it,

I do not 'pretend' anything. Sin is anything that falls short of God's standards; hence, 'missing the mark.'.

but in this case you reject using hamartia in that way.

What way? As 'sin offering'? Most certainly I do, for the reasons I have already given in this thread, and for one or two others..

The most common meaning of hamartia in the ancient Greek language is a type of flaw that leads to a hero's death or that leads to a tragic event (often the flaw is a virtue).

[/QUOTE]
I think I have told you that I studied Classical Greek at University. My special subject was Greek drama so I know all about heroic flaws and also the hubris that leads to nemesis. Interestingly, the word hubris barely figures in the NT, which is a good reason not to try and impose Classical Greek upon Koine Greek. In the NT, hamartia is always used in an ethical sense.

On this case, it could be that Paul is referring to Christ being made flesh.

So you translate 2 Cor 5:21 as 'God made Him who knew no flesh to be flesh for us'? I don't think so. How then would we become the righteousness of God is Him?

To cut to the chase, we must let the Bible explain itself. What does it mean that our Lord was made sin? 'And the LORD has laid [or 'caused to land'] on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' It is not any particular sin but all sin (James 2:10).

 

[JonC]

I do not 'pretend' anything. Sin is anything that falls short of God's standards; hence, 'missing the mark.'.
What way? As 'sin offering'? Most certainly I do, for the reasons I have already given in this thread, and for one or two others..

I think I have told you that I studied Classical Greek at University. My special subject was Greek drama so I know all about heroic flaws and also the hubris that leads to nemesis. Interestingly, the word hubris barely figures in the NT, which is a good reason not to try and impose Classical Greek upon Koine Greek. In the NT, hamartia is always used in an ethical sense.

So you translate 2 Cor 5:21 as 'God made Him who knew no flesh to be flesh for us'? I don't think so. How then would we become the righteousness of God is Him?

To cut to the chase, we must let the Bible explain itself. What does it mean that our Lord was made sin? 'And the LORD has laid [or 'caused to land'] on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' It is not any particular sin but all sin (James 2:10).

We are saying the same thing, just using different words.

We both define "sin" here as the work of redemption.

We both say Paul is using "sin" in a way not used elsewhere in the NT.

The only difference is I believe Paul was using the word "sin" in a legitimate way (a legitimate definition that would be familiar to the people of Cornith because of their literature).

So what if Paul wasn't? We agree on the meaning. Paul was speaking of Christ bearing our sins. I extend this to sharing in our infirmity and becoming a curse for us (Christ's complete work). But we are saying exactly the same thing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is you can fill in anything for "sin" in the verse using your method.

Hamartia does not mean "bore our sins". It means "sins". You have no grounds to refute it meaning "sin offering" because it also does not mean "bore sins".

You are being deliberately obtuse. I have never said that hamartia means 'bore sins' as you know very well. I have told you what it means - missing the mark. You are reminding why I have not engaged with you over the past year or so and been much happier as a result. If you don't know what hamartia means then look it up in a dictionary. But if you want to know again why I do not believe it means 'sin offering, here goes again, with one of two additions..
1. In 172 instances where hamartia appears in the NT, there is no place where the context demands that it means 'sin offering' and 170 places where the context demands that it doesn't means 'sin offering.' I gave some examples of this earlier in the thread.
2. To say 'God made Him who know no sin offering to be a sin offering for us' makes no sense.
3. The writer to the Hebrews who, if he wasn't Paul was certainly one of the Pauline circle (Hebrews 13:23) is the only NT writer who refers to a 'sin offering.' To do, in Hebrews 10, so he uses prosphera peri hamartias. When he is quoting from the LXX he uses just peri hamartias, a sort of short-hand term that was used in the LXX. The fact that he doesn't use it in his own writing suggests that it wasn't in current usage in the second half of the 1st Century. But Paul could have used it in 2 Cor. 5:21 if he had wanted to to distinguish it from his first use of hamartia in that verse. He didn't, which suggests that he didn't want to distinguish it because the word means the same in both instances.
4. You cannot impose the meaning of a Hebrew word onto the Greek.

My view, that Paul is referring to the work of Christ becoming a curse for us and giving Himself as a sin offering fits with the meaning of hamartia (not necessarily elsewhere in the NT).

Thank you for admitting that your definition is unbiblical.

BUT your definition of hamartia is also not used elsewhere in the NT, and it is not related to any actual definition of hamartia.

You are playing a shell game. You reject my view because the definition I use, while a legitimate use of hamartia, is not used that way elsewhere in the NT. So you say it means "sin". But by "sin" you mean an idea that is not used anywhere in the NT, the OT, or secularly for hamartia.

Disprove that. Where in the NT is hamartia used to mean "bore our sins"?

This is absolutely disgraceful! I have never ever said that. Go and take the matter up with the apostle Peter (1 Peter 2:24). How he defines sin and how the NT defines sin is what I believe.