Jesus was taking upon Himself the Bowl of wrath that the father had stored up to use in His judgement against the sins of the lost sinners!
Biblical Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Apr 27, 2020.
Page 8 of 11
-
-
God is always just. God alone can forgive sins. God has biblical reasons of how sin can be forgiven.
Agreed,Penal substitution is biblical, the other ideas or failed carnal philosophies. [/QUOTE]
I think that those holding to PST have done their homework in regards to what the scriptures teach on the Atonement of Jesus Christ! -
21.Him who knew no sin. Do you observe, that, according to Paul, there is no return to favor with God, except what is founded on the sacrifice of Christ alone? Let us learn, therefore, to turn our views in that direction, whenever we desire to be absolved from guilt. He now teaches more clearly, what we adverted to above — that God is propitious to us, when he acknowledges us as righteous. For these two things are equivalent — that we are acceptable to God, and that we are regarded by him as righteous.
To know no sin is to be free from sin. He says, then, that Christ, while he was entirely exempt from sin, was made sin for us. It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latin’s term it, piaculum (566) Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offense or crime. (567) But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)
How Was Jesus "Made" Sin? - Christian Research Institute -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
There is a contrast throughout the verse between Christ and us; the righteous and sinners as Simon Kistemaker point out:.
He made.......................so that
Him...............................we
Who knew no sin..........might become
to be sin........................God's righteousness
for us (on our behalf)....in Him. -
We know that the verse can be interpreted "sin offering". Experts like Mounce and Fee have emphasized this fact.
We know that Jesus did become a sin offering.
There is no reason to add to Jesus became sin the sentence "that is God looked upon him as if he were a sinner. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Secondly, it has everything to do with the grammar. I have checked my sources and I am satisfied that every usage of hamartia in the LXX is in the genitive when it is used for 'sin offering.' 'Of sin' or 'for sin.' I studied classical Greek for four years at school and the for three years at university, and then koine Greek when I became a Christian, at first on my own and then at seminary; there isn't that much difference between them. But in the very first year at school I learned that you can't muck about with the cases. In 2 Cor. 5:21, both usages of harmartia have to agree with 'Him' (ton) which is the object of 'made' (epoiesen). Therefore it has to be in the accusative, hamartian, and it is. If it meant 'sin offering' it would be in the genitive, hamartias.
I find your request for expert corroboration rather droll. When @Iconoclast quoted Charnock, Srurgeon etc., you said that we should rely on our own work, but now, all of a sudden, you want expert witnesses. However:
'It has sometimes been suggested that the 'sin' which Jesus is 'made' is the antitype to the Old Testament sin-offering....The interpretation is to be rejected for several reasons. First, in the Septuagint, the Greek word for sin, hamartia, when used for sin offering, is always in the genitive, 'for sin' or 'of sin.' This is not the case in 5:21. Second, the word 'sin' occurs twice in the verse, and consistency demands that it should have the same connotation in both circumstances.' Paul Naylor, 2 Corinthians Vol 1, Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2002. ISBN 0-85234-502-X.
It has been asked what it means that our Lord was 'made sin.' It means that all our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), that He was made legally responsible for them as if they were His own, and punished for them on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5) though personally innocent (Hebrews 7:21), and that He willingly bore those sins and the curse of them on the cross / tree (1 Peter 2:24). -
And we know that the LXX uses ἁμαρτία as a translation for חַטָּאת, which also means “sin offering” (even more than it means “sin” in Exodus).
My request was for for a scholar in biblical languages. I posted two very respected (even in Reformed circles, and mainstream) scholars of biblical Greek. I have two years of graduate studies in Greek and would not consider myself anywhere near a novice (we rely on those who study the language as their Christian vocation). So yes, we use the tools available to us. You are relying on commentators and theologians who are not experts in the language to refute Christian scholars who are experts in the language and whose scholarship is in the languages themselves. I would not trust Mounce to teach me theology. That is not his field of expertise. I certainly would not trust Spurgeon to exegate Greek. His ministry was pastoral.
What you are saying is that you do not care that the experts in the language say ἁμαρτία can mean "sin offering" because there are people who are not experts in the language who say it cannot and that is what you want to believe.
For my part, the evidence is more than enough that I accept the interpretation of "sin offering". I know that you do not (I know you accept the truth He was a sin offering but reject this meaning in the verse at hand).
How many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”? -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I provided a leading expert in pneumatology and textual criticism of the New Testament who disagrees with your conclusion. So you are just going to have to accept that I do not believe your conclusions are true.
But you cannot keep arguing against Christian scholars saying that their conclusions are beyond the realm of possibility while you are ignoring the implications of ἁμαρτία in your interpretation by reading into it your theology.
The verse does not say that “God considered Jesus as if He were a sinner” or “God lay our iniquity upon Christ (we’d agree there)”. You are rejecting one view based on your determination that it does not fit the grammar to offer an interpretation that is not in the text at all.
Stop trying to defeat my view (it is not yours to defeat) and start defending what you believe the passage does say. That is an issue with these kinds of discussions. People what to defeat the other person they never get around to explaining how they support their view. I am telling you what I believe and why. I am not asking you to believe it.
I believe that Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians what Paul is saying in Romans 8:3. God sent His Son as an offering for sin.
Now, how many times are you saying that Paul uses ἁμαρτία to mean “as if he were sin”? -
@Martin Marprelate ,
I think that we are getting a little off subject with the "sin offering" and "sin" topic (at least from my position).
The reason is that I do believe that Paul is pointing to God as "sending His Son the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin" (Romans 8:3).
I mentioned before about Mounce saying that it can mean both and I believe that it does. But I've been stressing "sin offering" absent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" I think just because of getting caught up in the argument.
My point is that it can mean either "sin" as in "sinful flesh" and/or "sin offering" but it cannot mean "God viewing Christ as if he were a sinner". The reason is God is never the one who misunderstood Christ as"stricken by God". It was man. Man deemed Christ stricken by God. The Jews handed Him over to godless men to be killed. It was the will of God (He was pleased to "crush" Him) but it was under the powers of darkness that Christ suffered and died and He was vindicated by the Father through the Resurrection (Acts 4 – 5; Ephesians 1:2-23; Philemon 2).
My point is that PSA is wrong, not because Christ was not "made sin" because He was. Paul tells us in Romans 8 that God sent Christ as a sin offering and in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Both are true. But what we are talking about with PSA has nothing to do with these passages. It has to do with ascribing to God what Scripture ascribes to the wicked (the suffering and death of Christ). -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin, is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.'
-
I provided two.
You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.
But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I'm going to take a short break and explore the LXX for a bit to see what I can turn up. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Please re-read my post.
I provided two.
You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.
But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.[/QUOTE]
Jesus came in our likeness, but not sameness, as we have a sin nature, and he did not! -
-
Think that we would have to take the NT uses of the greek term, as LXX not inspired! -
Please re-read my post.
I provided two.
You said there is no passage that speaks of Christ being a sin offering. I gave you one.
But either way is fine. In Romans we read God sent Christ as an "offering for sin" and he came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Scripture interprets Scripture.[/QUOTE]
You do hold to God imputing to us the righteousness of Jesus Christ, correct? -
Page 8 of 11