How to view the verb "might" in 2 Cor. 5:21?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Edward63, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. Edward63

    Edward63
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2Co 5:21 ASV)

    The Macmillan Dictionary gives 2 meanings for "might" which can determine the full meaning of the term "might become". Does it mean 1) there is a possibility; or does it mean 2) an action in order to do something? The words "might become" or the KJV "might be made" are a grammatical construction in English of one Greek word: ginomai, Strong's #1096. Because of the construction in the Greek, it is difficult to do a Greek word study and get an exact determination of the meaning, so we end up going on context and comparing Scripture with Scripture. I ignore self-proclaimed Hebrew/Greek experts in online Forums and stick with recognized men of God.

    In the verse itself we have God's action making the Son sin in our place, and the merit for the righteousness is "in him", the merit is not in us. So, is being "in him" our act, our merit?

    Earlier in the paragraph we have been instructed:

    “Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation;” (2Co 5:17-18 ASV)

    Paul had told the Corinthians in his first epistle how it is the believers are in Christ:

    “that no flesh should glory before God. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” (1Co 1:29-31 ASV)

    Therefore the meaning of the verse 5:21 is clearly: “He has made Him who knew nothing of sin to be sin for us, in order that in Him we may become the righteousness of God.” (2Co 5:21 Wey)

    There is no "possibility" that the merit here is based on the "might" be action of man; it is the action of God through the merit of Jesus Christ. It is similar to Paul's statement in Galatians where the English "might" is found:

    “who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father:” (Ga 1:4 ASV)

    The word "might" is connected to the act of Jesus Christ, therefore it is not mere possibility, as again the 1912 Weymouth translation indicates:

    “who gave Himself to suffer for our sins in order to rescue us from the present wicked age in accordance with the will of our God and Father.” (Ga 1:4 Wey) It is in accordance with God' will, not the will of man!

    So in the English we have the word "might' meaning "in order to do something" with the merit and action being solidly based on the Triune God. No hint here of a mere possibility depending on man's will.
     
  2. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    You begin with this:

    “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf;”

    How did God make sin to be our behalf?

    By creating (making) creatures with human freedom.

    “…that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2Co 5:21 ASV)

    Within the Divine design of His creatures, our Omnipotent, Omniscient, *Omnibenevolent Father provided the Way of righteousness in Jesus Christ.

    How does that Way work? – Through Righteous Loving Judgment, in Truth

    Deu 32:4
    (4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

    In judgment all are lost but of the Grace He bestowed upon the world He created in His Loving Mercy.

    How is it decide who will receive this gift of Mercy, “might” receive righteousness “in Him”?

    :jesus:

    Joh 5:21-24
    (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
    (22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    (23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
    (24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


    TRULY – TRULY (It is absolutely TRUE!!!) that those (creatures that were designed with human freedom) who hear His Words (Good News/Gospel) and believe (have faith in the Omnipotent, Omniscient, *Omnibenevolent Father that created them) on Him that sent Christ will have everlasting life!

    :godisgood:

    Hear the Gospel à Believe the Gospel à Be sealed in the Spirit of the “promise” (which was cast upon all the Earth and the volitional creatures within it during creation because of His Omnibenevolent Nature which came forth through creation) Note the human freedom to believe and receive the promise - how and when this happens:

    Eph 1:13
    (13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    This is concerning the Loving promise made into all creation through Divine design in which God who knew no sin, yet allowed for sin on our behalf by creating us with the miracle of human freedom, will Judge us with Grace – Upon the condition of us (volitional creatures,- this has not changed!) dying to our will and living in the will of God.

    Concerning this promise make to His volitional creatures and the will of God:

    2Pe 3:9
    (9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    Jesus comes as promised and repeats the “TRULY-TRULY” Way judgment will come to these creatures that God designed which would themselves bring sin onto the world, yet that Loving Mercy “might” be bestowed upon them during their Righteous judgment – because our Omnipotent, Omniscient, *Omnibenevolent Father unchangingly created the world, ALL of it, to be “very good” in fact (Gen 1:31), with a genuine (Truly- truly- absolutely TRUE because that is WHO He is “Truth”) unchanging promise:

    Joh 14:6
    (6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    What a Glorious, Loving and Merciful God we have!!! Amen! In that He would give His Only Son in all His Glory, during creation, so that those (All of His soon to be fallen creatures in this creation!) would have genuine hope in the promises foretold of concerning His Way of True Judgment in that also Grace will be brought forth upon the condition of faith for those creatures, (His purposely volitionally designed creatures) who brought about sin all by their self, are responsibly for that sin, YET in His Love He provided His creatures, all of them, the Way, because of His Omnibenevolence, to be perfect, again “in Him”!!!

    And you end with this:

    Seemingly to suggest a Deterministically Sovereign God rather than a Providentially Sovereign God? Based on man's predetermined will? If so, why? To fit a theological system???

    It seems you would have to attempt to reduce the Glorious promise away from the conditions upon which it was made??? Would you remove “hope” for “ALL” God’s creatures and change the promise from “might” by placing a condition of “if” God predetermined them to choose that which disregards His “Way” of judgment??? If so, where did the human freedom go that allowed for sin in the first place??? How do you maintain God's True Way of Righteous Judgment, His perfect work in creating the world??? (Deut 32:4, Gen 1:31)

    Do you not realize that if one attempts to remove the “might” in doing so you have remove the absolute TRUE promises made of an Omnibenevolent God throughout creation and placed the responsibility for sin back on Him?!?

    There is no “mere possibility” that God’s Loving promise is absolutely 100% True, it is UNCHANGINGLY TRUE as set forth in creation, in which the purposeful Divine design of His volitional creatures must meet that condition of faith. Because of His unchanging Nature of Love for ALL the creatures He made He longsuffering works to influence these volitional creatures to make that free choice.

    That said, although free, we are not so free as to avoid making that choice to accept His gift of Grace in love for His Truths brought forth by Him. None will have an excuse not to respond to His influences that He Lovingly puts into all the world:

    Rom 1:20
    (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Therefore, “might” miraculously became the reality from the Omnipotent, Omniscient, *Omnibenevolent Father who created the world through Christ for ALL the creatures He designed to be in it.

    The promise unchangingly remains absolutely 100% TRUE for all, because God is Love in Truth!

    :godisgood:
     
    #2 Benjamin, Jul 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2013
  3. Edward63

    Edward63
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    You started with a nonsensical statement. Give the book, chapter, verse and maybe the Scripture will clarify what you tried to state. If you cannot be coherent in your statements, it is a waste of space and time.
     
  4. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    Oh, I think I made plenty sense out of that statement using scripture throughout to explain it while I maintained God's promises as absolute true and in accordance to His True Nature in creating the world.

    You just weren't able to see it through those Determinist glasses which fog your vision from the truths brought forth in creation in the promises of God.

    Your time is only wasted because of your unwillingness to see past your manmade Determinist theological system. So sad for you.
     
  5. Edward63

    Edward63
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0

    “To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.” (Isa 8:20 ASV)

    I have no time for pretentious youngsters with no biblical knowledge, having mere opinions they view as wisdom. Grow up!
     
  6. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    Another Determinist' elitist...oh, great! :rolleyes:

    :cool:
     
  7. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't waster YOUR time Ben.
     
  8. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well it is relevant to point out that the word here is γενώμεθα which is a 2nd Aorist, Middle Subjunctive 1 person plural verb.

    The NET seems to grab the nuance here: we would become

    I don't know what to do with this. Do you wish to have an honest conversation or will you simply object to anything which differs from your conclusions?

    Just asking. :)

    Ultimately you've got to decide how the aorist resolves itself. If the action of justification is punctiliar (which I contend it is) then it certainly is not something of ourselves. Yet if one approaches the aorist with a continuing state of progression, then there is an aspect of continued justification across a period of time.

    We agree on the nature of the aorist.


    You certainly can draw this conclusion, though it is important to note that it is not based on the English word "might" since the Greek words between the two passages which you have translated "might" are different.

    Though I agree, it is important to not place too much of this conclusion on the rendering of the Greek. As observed above, Paul uses different words within the his soteriological discussions to indicate differing actions. Just because some translator, or translating committee, translated a couple of phrases the same way in English, regardless of their Greek roots, doesn't, and shouldn't, place a whole lot of confidence in the conclusion based purely on the English word. A deeper study of the Greek used would indicate a nuanced approach. :)
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,368
    Likes Received:
    790
    Holy cow! Yet another arrogant Calvinist. What woodwork are these coming from.
     
  10. Edward63

    Edward63
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi PnJ... we are just getting to know each other, so let me expand on some points to clarify my remarks. First, I am one of the many who does not read Greek or understand the Greek grammar. I can use Greek-English lexicons and do a Greek word study. So, I must go to authorities of repute, or those recognized scholars known by us all for Greek grammar. Even then, I must compare and use context and comparing Scripture with Scripture to satisfy my mind. You speak and have a demeanor that you truly have studied Greek and know the Grammar. But, since I do not, I cannot have a discussion on that level with you. I can only take what you say and compare to my Greek helps and scholars. What is it in politics, "trust but verify"? :)

    Now, my remark about self-proclaimed Greek scholars was aimed at those I have encountered many times in the past. You see, I have been on various types of Christian discussion forums since 1995 off and on. I learned quickly that some who claim to be saints, will lie online about their qualifications, or claim to be quoting the BDAG when they are actually inaccurately paraphrasing or outright lifting out of context dishonestly. I know from reading in theological works from the past, many great theologians themselves who know Greek or Hebrew, will quote the authorities to bolster their own interpretation. I was not slamming true and honest students of the Greek NT. :)

    In my study of the English word "might" in the two passages I mentioned, I found out fast that trying a simple Greek word study as I can usually do will not fit the bill. The Strong's #1096 in 2Co5:21, is translated in these various ways in the KVJ according to Strong's -

    "1096. γίνομαι ginomai ghin’-om-ahee; a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):*—* arise, be assembled, be(-come, fall, have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought."

    I was able to see the word in the BDAG is in section 5a so I could compare similar word uses in the NT as given there. You see, I must use the Englishman's helps; but, as I know you would admit, those of us limited in our Greek knowledge, have many great and respected helps we can appeal to. Even though I do shun the modern translations after the 1912 Weymouth and 1936 Williams NT(both Baptists), I do have the modern versions and the NET with the full notes which I consult. I even consult the NRSV and the modernist "The New Interpreters Study Bible". LOL

    I tend to learn from honest discussion/debate style, but debate with sincere and honest persons seeking God's truth from Scripture, not trying to pile up debate points or acting childish like some teenager with his sarcasm and mockery. I hope this will give you a better idea of my approach. I take God's word very seriously and have little patience with the impudent and willingly ignorant that infest such forums as this. But, PnJ, I will learn by going to Scripture and my helps to see if what you say is true. That is how I learn and from what I can gather, we are in general agreement here and maybe only fine-tuning is needed as I study. ;-) Thanks for your patience in inquiring as to my perspective.
     

Share This Page

Loading...