is the NEW nature In Christ the Holy Spirit Indwelling us?

[12strings]

Hi 12 Strings, I do not think your "nearly every biblcal and language expert agrees" statement is valid. If you read the commentaries of Barnes and Clark, they present well studied views in total agreement with me. Remember the concept concordance. Over 90 times that same word is translated sin offering or offering for sin in the Septuigint. Which is to say a Hebrew word or phrase, which is translated into English as sin offering or offering for sin, is translated into the word found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. So a concordant translation, where the same idea is translated in the same way would read sin offering or offering for sin.

Here is the link to Barnes and others: http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/5-21.htm

It seems to me that Barnes is not here going as far as you. He does not deny that Jesus was "made sin" but rather seeks to explain what it means. He says it is either (1) he was made a sin offering or (2) he was treated as a sinner by God the Father. I would accept both of those, simply because they do not deny the actual text, which even barnes notes should stand as is:

FROM BARNES COMMENTARY:

The doctrine of imputation of sin to Christ is here, by plain enough inference at least. The rendering in our Bibles, however, asserts it in a more direct form. Nor, after all the criticism that has been expended on the text, does there seem any necessity for the abandonment of that rendering, on the part of the advocate of imputation. For first ἁμαρτία hamartia in the Septuagint, and the corresponding אשׁם 'aashaam in the Hebrew, denote both the sin and the sin-offering, the peculiar sacrifice and the crime itself. Second, the antithesis in the passage, so obvious and beautiful, is destroyed by the adoption of "sin-offering." Christ was made sin, we righteousness.

My main point is not to say Jesus what not a sin offering, or even that sin offering is not part of what is being said in this verse; but rather that I cannot say "Jesus did not become sin for us" when clearly this verse says he did. Once there, I can go on to determine what exactly that means, and rightly conclude that Jesus did not become a sinner.

 

[convicted1]

It seems to me that Barnes is not here going as far as you. He does not deny that Jesus was "made sin" but rather seeks to explain what it means. He says it is either (1) he was made a sin offering or (2) he was treated as a sinner by God the Father. I would accept both of those, simply because they do not deny the actual text, which even barnes notes should stand as is:

FROM BARNES COMMENTARY:


My main point is not to say Jesus what not a sin offering, or even that sin offering is not part of what is being said in this verse; but rather that I cannot say "Jesus did not become sin for us" when clearly this verse says he did. Once there, I can go on to determine what exactly that means, and rightly conclude that Jesus did not become a sinner.

When all of the sins that would be ever committed were placed upon Him, God would have to withdraw Himself from His Son. Jesus took the wrath of God upon Himself, and bore our infirmities, and our sins, upon Himself, being the Scapegoat in Leviticus chapter 16. He was sinless, yet through the Father's will, He became sin to suffer what was supposed to have happened to us. Praise His sweet name.

 

[Van]

Hi 12 Strings, we are going to disagree on this one. In the OT Septuigint, the word was translated sin many times, but sin offering over ninty times, i.e. sin offering was translated into that same word, see Clark's commentary.

Therefore a literal translation could be sin offering, and providing the same truth as found in all the other verses. No need for creating a paradox through sloppy translation.

 

[Van]

Understanding 2 Corinthians 5:21

While we will look at the whole verse, the main difficulty with the verse is the claim by Calvinists and others that this verse says Jesus was made sin. Now, first we must consider what sin is. It is not a pile of dung. Sin is both the act of missing the mark and thinking or doing something that conflicts with the will of God, and the consequence or penalty imposed by God for that offense.

I do not think anyone says Jesus was sinless when He was put on the cross; but when He bore our sins in His body, He became our sins. I think everyone agrees He never became sin, and therefore He is sinless to this day.

But, some will say, why do all the modern translations render the verse made to be sin for us, or made sin for us? Because the word, transliterated hamartian, means sin. However it can be used to refer to the consequence or penalty of sin, rather than the thought or deed that was the offense.

Paul seems to use this word primarily to refer to the consequence or penalty of sin, rather than the offense. Paul uses this form, hamartian, about 10 times, and the idea always seems to be the consequence or result or penalty for either sinning, or being in a sinful state “in Adam.” Paul says we are under hamartian which refers to the result or penalty of sin, Romans 3:9; Romans 7:14; and Galatians 3:22.

In Romans 8:3 we see Jesus was sent either “as a sin offering,” or “for sin” or “on account of sin.” So the sin problem was being addressed in some manner, and that problem (in bondage to sin) was condemned by Jesus in His flesh.

In Romans 8:10 we again see that the consequence of sin is in view, i.e. the body is dead because of sin.

In Romans 7:7 Paul’s says he came to know sin through the Law. Now of course he had known the thoughts and deeds, they were after all his, but that those thoughts and deeds were sin and had consequences - that knowledge came through the law.

In Romans 4:8 we see we are blessed when God does not count our sin against us. So yet again, it is the consequence or result or penalty that is in view, when Paul uses this form of the word.

In 2 Corinthians 11:7 we see Paul asking the rhetorical question: Or did I sin in humbling myself? At first blush this seems to refer to the deed rather than the consequence, but in light of the context, did Paul “rob” other churches to obtain support to preach to the Corinthians, the answer is he did the action, but it carried no penalty.

Therefore in every other usage of this form of the word for sin, Paul had the consequence or penalty for sin in view.

Now lets turn to our verse: “For the sake of us, the One not knowing “hamartian,” He makes “hamartian” that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Now had Jesus been tempted to sin? Yes, in every way we are. So what did He not know? What it was to be “under” the bondage of sin! And the wages of sin is what? Death. And the wages are the consequences, result and penalty of even one sin.

In summary, the One not knowing the bondage of sin was made the penalty of sin, on the cross. Never forget Paul preaches Christ crucified!

May God Bless.

 

[JesusFan]

It seems to me that Barnes is not here going as far as you. He does not deny that Jesus was "made sin" but rather seeks to explain what it means. He says it is either (1) he was made a sin offering or (2) he was treated as a sinner by God the Father. I would accept both of those, simply because they do not deny the actual text, which even barnes notes should stand as is:

FROM BARNES COMMENTARY:


My main point is not to say Jesus what not a sin offering, or even that sin offering is not part of what is being said in this verse; but rather that I cannot say "Jesus did not become sin for us" when clearly this verse says he did. Once there, I can go on to determine what exactly that means, and rightly conclude that Jesus did not become a sinner.

Jesus was taking upon himself the punishment due to us as being sinners, faced the judgement/wrath of God against Sin, was treated as just a sinner would be by God, yet could NOT have become literally same as us, a real sinner, as he would than have died a spiritual deatrh upon the Cross, and would have needed to be born again in hell... Right out of Word of Faith theology 101!