I think that paul knew that his take on this would be " as sin", and the Holy Spirit inspired that particular Greek wording there!
Biblical Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Apr 27, 2020.
Page 7 of 11
-
-
-
-
I appreciate your explanation.
I have two questions:
1. Do you believe Christ was a sin offering? A yes or no will suffice.
2. Why did you not pull in the greater context of 2 Cor. 5 as Paul is explaining the greater realities of the New Covenant in Christ, as opposed to the first covenant given by Moses (Chapters 3-5)? -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. I don't think it affects the meaning of verse 21,
2. I have a life outside of this board! :p -
-
Hey--i love the fact that we are all learning and growing and we are serious about understanding the great works of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! We need a greater revelation of His love (Eph. 3)! May it never be that my replies or responses dim the fact that i Love my brothers and sisters here on the board!!! To Christ alone be all the glory! -
1. There are plenty of references we could use to say that via allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture Jesus was made a "sin offering". There is no other reference where we could possibly say that Jesus became sin, except perhaps if we push "becoming a curse". But even there, the language Paul uses in Galatians 3:13 (that Jesus freed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us) can be viewed as supportive of a "sin offering" as it is literally the argument of Christus Victor theory. God gave Christ as a sin offering, He lay down his life as an offering for sin, etc. So none of us would deny that He was made a "sin offering". But nowhere do we find another passage saying He was "made sin".
2. There are plenty of references in the the LXX where ἁμαρτια is used to mean "sin offering". In fact, there are over 90 times the word ἁμαρτια means "sin offering" in the Old Testament.
Here is one example: Exodus 29:14
14 But burn the bull's meat, skin, and excrement outside the camp. It is an offering for sin.
τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν.
3. In the Hebrew "sin" has been used to refer to "sin offering".
4. The context, in my view, demands either the interpretation "sin offering" or "flesh" (along the lines of Paul's words in Galatians 3). I believe "sin offering" the better interpretation.
5. Even those who reject the interpretation of "sin offering" in favor of "Christ was made sin" do not defend that statement on a literal basis (that Christ was literally made, to use @Iconoclast 's commentary, "a deviation from God's truth or His moral rectitude"). -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I can tell you that the word is used 94 times to mean "sin offering" in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
So you have my reasons for holding the meaning "sin offering".
I know that you agree my view is not incorrect in terms of doctrine (because we all agree Christ was a "sin offering").
But how exactly do you define "sin" in this verse? -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I want now to look at the third of my objections to the idea that ἁμαρτία means 'sin offering in 2 Cor 5:21. It may also help to understand what 'made sin' actually means. When I introduced this concept on another forum, @JonC had an attack of the vapours, so I suggest that he keeps some smelling salts handy. ;)
In John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of figure of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? How can looking at a representation of a serpent bring about anyone's healing? How can the Lord Jesus possibly be likened to a serpent? The Israelites certainly didn't understand it because they started worshiping the serpent (2 Kings 18:4).
So, where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a figure of Christ? He is a figure of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Therefore Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10) , defeated 'by the blood of the Lamb' (v.11). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin, and the outstanding debt of it, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).
Christ was 'made sin' by having all the iniquity of His people laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6). He bore those sins, and the curse attached to them on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). So when God says, 'Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other' (Isaiah 45:22), it is the Lord Jesus Christ saying, "Look to Me, made sin for you! Look to Me, bearing all you sin and guilt, and the punishment of them! Look to Me, the One who is of purer eyes than to behold evil, carrying all your wickedness and then understand the horror of Gethsemane! This is what your God has done to save you! Now abhor yourselves in dust and ashes, repent of your sins that have led Me to this awful cross and trust in Me for forgiveness and eternal life."
If you go to one of the great art galleries and look at the paintings of the old masters, you mustn't just glance at them and move on. You survey them, and try to understand all the aspects of what the artist is portraying. So it is with the cross.
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.' -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I provided two scholars of the language who I believe correct.
I know many theologians and teachers have fallen on both sides of the topic.
For my education (to give me a scholarly reference), will you provide a Greek scholar (an expert in the language rather than a theologian) who interprets the word as you believe correct?
Thank you. -
What you are presenting has nothing at all to do with the grammer (or, in fact, to the text of the verse itself).
You are applying your theology to the verse to come up with a meaning that, of course, advances your theology while the word ἁμαρτία itself is never used to represent those ideas you are bringing to the verse.
You are rejecting a position which is at least based on other passages, states an agreed upon truth, is consistent with the Hebrew use of "sin", and aside from arguments over grammer is very common to the LXX use of ἁμαρτία in the Old Testament.
But what you are offering has nothing to do with ἁμαρτία or even the actual text. It appears to be injected into the text rather than derived from it. -
@Martin Marprelate and @JonShaff ,
I need to make a clarification and a bit of a correction to what I had posted.
What Mounce said of ἁμαρτία is that it is a fact it can refer to either sin or sin offering and that this has a profound implication for understanding Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21. The word is used in Leviticus (in the LXX) to refer to "sin" eight times and as a "sin offering" eleven times. He determines that Paul is saying both that Christ was made a "sin offering" and that he bore our sins (something, again, that I believe we can all affirm as a truth even if we disagree about this verse).
I do not know that that changes anything (it is implied, I think in the term "sin offering"). -
-
I disagree that the cup Christ bore was Sin. Jesus told the disciples that they would share in that cup, so it does not make sense to me to hold it as Sin. Also, in Scripture the "cup" does not always signify Sin or wrath. When it does it is typically expressed as such.
I believe it points to the suffering and death that Jesus was facing. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
JonC,
[QUOTE]Christ died for us “according to the Scriptures”, not according to a few texts we can pull out as proof text while holding Scripture at an arms length[/QUOTE].
All of the men quoted have written much on the topic. To post more when most here cannot handle a few paragraphs, would not be productive. I notice no one has even began to try and refute any portion of what was quoted, as predicted. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
JonC,
[QUOTE]Is God just to forgive those who repent?
Or would God be unjust to forgive those who repent as forgiveness is based on punished sins?[/QUOTE]
These comments make no sense. They are fragmented thoughts
God is always just. God alone can forgive sins. God has biblical reasons of how sin can be forgiven.
Page 7 of 11