Just keeping it going
In the OT the word translated "sin" (חֵטְא) means:
1. A fault
2. Disobedience to God
3. The punishment for a crime
In the NT "sin" is generally taken to mean a disobedience to God.
The Greek word for sin (hamartia) also has several meanings.
1. In the 8th Century BC Homer used the word to mean "missing the mark" in describing battles.
2. 1st Century Jews used the word to mean an offense (against one another) or a disobedience to God (particularly the Mosaic Law).
3. In Greek literature the word indicates an inner movement that ultimately leads to one's death or to a tragic event (think of Oedipus, who left Corinth to avoid his fate, yet in leaving Corinth ultimately fulfilled that fate).
Where we are:
@Martin Marprelate suggested "sin" means "missing the mark" (He who knew no sin was made "missing the mark").
The problem with that definition is twofold. First, it was archaic by the time of Paul writing to the Corinth church. Second, to apply this morally or ethically is to westernize the word.
@George Antonios suggests it means "sin". I assume he means "disobedience to God".
@John of Japan suggests Paul is using it as a metaphor to mean the separation of Christ from God as Christ bore our sins. John pointed out that Christ cannot literally be made a non-corporeal thing.
I also believe Paul is using the word metaphorically (but that it also carries the literal meaning of "sin" in the Greek language as Christ was obedient even unto death) to speak of the work of Christ as previously stated in the text of Scripture (Christ offering Himself for our sins, bearing our sins, becoming a curse for us, and dying for our sins).
I believe thus far @Martin Marprelate 's is the most popular view here.
Here is the first thread: How Christ Was "Made Sin"
Christ being made sin Volume 2
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 4, 2023.
Page 1 of 8
-
George Antonios Well-Known Member
-
If I speed driving down the highway that "sin" is an action. It is not a literal "thing". -
George Antonios Well-Known Member
This is a false dichotomy arising from our almost-zero knowledge of the realities of the spiritual world.
Your speeding action, if sinful, produces a literal manifestation in the spiritual world that must be contained, like nuclear waste.
It's a like an aberration in the matrix of the universe that results in a metaphysical reality which can be bagged and dumped. -
Edit - By "why" I mean what do you believe to have been their error in translating....not why you believe the KJV is wrong. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
My definition of sin that Christ bore on his cross can best be stated in a stanza of a song by Joseph Hart 1711-1768... Called Gethsemane
Sins against a holy God,
Sins against his righteous laws,
Sins against his love, his blood,
Sins against his name and cause
Sins immense as in the sea!
Hide me, O Gethsemane!... Bother Glen:) -
If that is what you mean then I agree in most cases. Sin is an opposition to God (when sin is against God rather than man).
But I disagree in this case as I can't read that Christ was made to oppose God in the passage (He was doing God's will). -
If Jesus was sin, he was not sinless! What is the claim of those pushing mistaken doctrine based on mistaken understanding?
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. -
2) The claim Jesus was made "to be sin" is not the same as Jesus was made to suffer for our sin as our sin offering, the Lamb of God.
3) Rather than question my vocabulary, why not address the issue.
4) Note that no where does this poster deny Jesus was made to be sin.
5) The issue is not that Jesus was sinless before He was made to be sin, the issue is whether Jesus was sinless when He was made to be sin.
Here is a literal translation of 2 Corinthians 5:21:
For the One knowing no sin, for the benefit of us he makes "sin," that we may become the righteousness of God in Him.
For Jesus to be sinless, He did not become sin as far as missing the mark, but did become sin as far as receiving the consequence of sinful behavior. Thus Jesus was and is God's sinless sin offering, sacrificed to provide the forgiveness of our sins, all of us who have been transferred into Christ and have undergone the washing of regeneration. -
I must have missed the post that Jesus became us.
I'll take the liberty to express my own belief (I'm afraid if I don't somebody may try to express it for me and fumble the ball).
I believe that our redemption is dependent on the Messiah as described in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 (among other places) and incorporates God's redemptive work from the Incarnation through the Resurrection.
So it is true that I do not believe in a "deathless" redemption (that we were redeemed by God punishing Christ instead of punishing us, and even this prior Christ's Spirit being commended into the Father's hands).
But I don't get the idea you are arguing against with Christ becoming sin by becoming us. Are you saying we are all God (or gods)? -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Having finished my sermon prep I have time for a quick post.
The question is asked, how did Christ become sin? He became sin (not a siinner) in the same way that we sinners become righteousness (not righteous). By imputation. The Bible tells us that 'The iniquity of us all was laid on Him' and 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of xulon, 'tree' instead of stauron, 'cross' indicates that our Lord as well as being made sin, 'Became a curse [not cursed] for us' (Gal. 3:13). The curse that was upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26) and upon the world (Genesis 3:17-19) was laid upon Him and He expiated it (Romans 8:20-21; Revelation 22:3). Now God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.
All this is so simple and straightforward that a child can understand it. 'See you here the foundation truth of Christianity, the rock on which our hopes are built. It is the only hope of a sinner, and the only true joy of the Christian—the great transaction, the great substitution, the great lifting of sin from the sinner to the sinner’s Surety, the punishment of the Surety instead of the sinner, the pouring out of the vials of wrath, which were due to the transgressor, upon the head of his Substitute, the grandest transaction which ever took place on earth, the most wonderful sight that even hell ever beheld, and the most stupendous marvel that heaven itself ever executed—Jesus Christ made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him!'
C.H. Spurgeon. Enjoy the whole sermon here:
https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3203.pdf
-
I do believe that the Jesus was with God, and was God, from eternity past but there was a point in time when He be ame flesh (human) without ceasing to be God.
And I do believe that God's work of redeeming man includes the Word being made flesh. I believe this is why John chose to include it.
As to Jesus being made sin, I also believe this indicates Jesus as "one of us" bearing our sin on our behalf. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. -
So if you mean Jesus was not actually made man, just in some likeness of man, then we disagree.
I believe Jesus was no more man in His humanity, no less God in His divinity. God-man. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Hebrews 10: 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. -
18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. -
I need to point out to you (and @DaveXR650 , you may find this interesting) that my interpretation is not in a vacuum.
John Owen ( Doctrine of Justification by Faith) interprets "sin" in that passage as "sin offering". Owen explains that Christ, who knew no sin, was made a "sin offering". He also states that "sin" is used in the OT to mean "sin offering" and that this is the idea Paul was communicating.
So your conclusions about me based on my interpretation also apply to Owen as he holds the exact same interpretation of the passage.
Do you consider John Owen to be uneducated in Scripture, unaware of Greek, and adding to Scripture?
That was a rhetorical question - of course you do based on how you received me stating the exact same thing.
Who would have thought it....here our disagreement is that I agree with John Owen while you think he was reading into Scripture. :) -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
There are however several refences in the book to 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Owen does not find it necessary to correct the translation: For example:
However, I don't think you will be able to show that Owen used the verse to try and disprove the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. :) -
Owen's comments are "Doctrine of Justification by Faith".
You are correct that Owen was not arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He held firmly to Reformed Theology.
I brought his work up simply because you objected so strongly to Owen's interpretation of Christ being made sin. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not hinge on ones interpretation of that passage (most Reformed Christians view the passage to mean something other than Christ literally being made sin while affirming the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).
Page 1 of 8