Two neglected aspects of the atonement in regards to Christ and sinfulness

dizerner

Well-known member
Two strong emphases in Scripture related to the product of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross speak to our current debate.

One is our union with Christ. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." We are said to be the Body of Christ and joined with him in baptism such that we can count ourselves as having been crucified with him on the Cross, and resurrected with him in new life. Now some are saying that if Christ associates himself with sinfulness in any way experientially he is somehow becoming less glorious and pure in his nature. Do they have such a high regard for themselves that they think they are pure enough that their union with Christ does not bring their own shortcomings and impurities into that union? Certainly we don't think we are bringing an equal purity into union with Christ—Christ is the one who is said to be the remedy for our shortcoming, and how can he redeem or remedy our problem without in some way being intimately associated with it? As if our "union" keeps us essentially compartmentalized away from Christ's being? It is interesting in the OT that the leper touching something made it unclean—yet in the NT, Jesus touching the leper made him clean. So strong is the union Paul says we were crucified with him!

And this is the second neglected aspect, our own death on the Cross. Here is how the sin nature is said to be dealt with at the Cross by a process of judging it and cutting it off. Our old man, our body of sin, the old Adam, our sinful nature is said to be crucified, judged, buried and rendered ineffective or inoperative (Romans 6, etc.). This ties right in the with the depiction of the snake on the pole, and some other metaphors like Haman hanging himself on his own gallows—that Satan was somehow tricked and trapped by this Work of the Cross, because it stripped him of his rights and power, as when David slew Goliath and all the Philistines ran. The authority and rights of Satan must therefore logically come from unjudged sin. Satan's power is a manifestation of the judgment of God that someone is turned over to Satan and his power to work evil. It is not a ransom that God pays Satan back, as if Satan were the one wronged or in ultimate control, but a ransom where God pays the judgments that allow and open the door to Satan as a part of the penalty and punishment of sin. Satan's power is a judgment on sin.

So if a pure and holy and innocent Christ "bore" our sins—we ask what does this mean. We could speculate imputation alone, that is, a pure person is punished with the punishment a sinful person deserves. And in fact I think this a better and adequate model of the atonement than rejecting the penal aspects, because it as least admits the severity of sin and the necessity of the holy law of God to be honored. But I think in digging deeper, especially studying out the above two points—the union we have with Christ and the judgment and cutting off of our old sin nature—we might well see Christ bore sin in a more direct way of association. The reason this would not impugn Christ's nature or character, was by virtue of the fact it was temporary and momentary, and once judged the sin has been eliminated. Death itself is associated with sin, and if Christ were to be never even associated in any way with sin, he simply could not even die—he would have eternal life on the Cross, nothing could kill or slay him, because only by sin comes death. He would live forever just hanging there sinless, or bounce right off that Cross immortal, and this in fact what some thought was about to happen when they thought he called for Elijah. But no, Christ died and said "I was dead." People who never partake of sin, never die, and Christ tasted death for every man. But when Christ rises from the dead he leaves all association with sin behind because it has been fully judged and destroyed.

"He who knew no sin became sin." Many try to salvage this with "sin offering," but in the OT, the sin offering was treated as if it were sin itself—hands were laid to transfer guilt, and it was killed and burned up! The symbol stands for the reality. Now it does seem strange to me that two people so different as R. C. Sproul a Calvinist and Todd White from Word of Faith, complete opposites in theology, would both agree that Christ somehow experienced and partook of the evils of sin on the Cross during those temporary moments of judging the sin of the whole world. This is a matter of record easily proven. But in the end I have to consider their reasoning very strong and solid on this one point. It ends up being a very self-righteous thing to deny Christ's generosity in paying for our sins, it is not somehow impiety and irreverence to accept Christ's ability to bear our sins in actuality—it is merely the humility and condescension of God to do this for us, and something only he could possibly do. I'm sensitive to the objections this is "blasphemous," although I find it misguided, and I honestly don't think R. C. Sproul or Todd White in any way wanted to be blasphemous, this is just their understanding of the atonement. And I don't think it logically follows that it's blasphemous, since this is the choice and decision of God himself as Judge who sets his own rules and fulfills his own judgments. As if it were any less blasphemous for the purity of Christ to live inside someone as vile as me!

At any rate, one can clarify the sides of the debate and further strengthen their own reasons for believing what they do. In my simplistic and child-like way I often visualize the atonement as all my black and dark and bad things going into Christ on the Cross—and all Christ's pure and white and good things coming back to me through the resurrection. This why we died with Christ, were buried with Christ, were crucified with Christ, were resurrected with Christ. And I think it's really the most straightforward way to understand the verse:

for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin,
that we may become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21 YLT)
 
Two strong emphases in Scripture related to the product of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross speak to our current debate.

One is our union with Christ. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." We are said to be the Body of Christ and joined with him in baptism such that we can count ourselves as having been crucified with him on the Cross, and resurrected with him in new life. Now some are saying that if Christ associates himself with sinfulness in any way experientially he is somehow becoming less glorious and pure in his nature. Do they have such a high regard for themselves that they think they are pure enough that their union with Christ does not bring their own shortcomings and impurities into that union? Certainly we don't think we are bringing an equal purity into union with Christ—Christ is the one who is said to be the remedy for our shortcoming, and how can he redeem or remedy our problem without in some way being intimately associated with it? As if our "union" keeps us essentially compartmentalized away from Christ's being? It is interesting in the OT that the leper touching something made it unclean—yet in the NT, Jesus touching the leper made him clean. So strong is the union Paul says we were crucified with him!

And this is the second neglected aspect, our own death on the Cross. Here is how the sin nature is said to be dealt with at the Cross by a process of judging it and cutting it off. Our old man, our body of sin, the old Adam, our sinful nature is said to be crucified, judged, buried and rendered ineffective or inoperative (Romans 6, etc.). This ties right in the with the depiction of the snake on the pole, and some other metaphors like Haman hanging himself on his own gallows—that Satan was somehow tricked and trapped by this Work of the Cross, because it stripped him of his rights and power, as when David slew Goliath and all the Philistines ran. The authority and rights of Satan must therefore logically come from unjudged sin. Satan's power is a manifestation of the judgment of God that someone is turned over to Satan and his power to work evil. It is not a ransom that God pays Satan back, as if Satan were the one wronged or in ultimate control, but a ransom where God pays the judgments that allow and open the door to Satan as a part of the penalty and punishment of sin. Satan's power is a judgment on sin.

So if a pure and holy and innocent Christ "bore" our sins—we ask what does this mean. We could speculate imputation alone, that is, a pure person is punished with the punishment a sinful person deserves. And in fact I think this a better and adequate model of the atonement than rejecting the penal aspects, because it as least admits the severity of sin and the necessity of the holy law of God to be honored. But I think in digging deeper, especially studying out the above two points—the union we have with Christ and the judgment and cutting off of our old sin nature—we might well see Christ bore sin in a more direct way of association. The reason this would not impugn Christ's nature or character, was by virtue of the fact it was temporary and momentary, and once judged the sin has been eliminated. Death itself is associated with sin, and if Christ were to be never even associated in any way with sin, he simply could not even die—he would have eternal life on the Cross, nothing could kill or slay him, because only by sin comes death. He would live forever just hanging there sinless, or bounce right off that Cross immortal, and this in fact what some thought was about to happen when they thought he called for Elijah. But no, Christ died and said "I was dead." People who never partake of sin, never die, and Christ tasted death for every man. But when Christ rises from the dead he leaves all association with sin behind because it has been fully judged and destroyed.

"He who knew no sin became sin." Many try to salvage this with "sin offering," but in the OT, the sin offering was treated as if it were sin itself—hands were laid to transfer guilt, and it was killed and burned up! The symbol stands for the reality. Now it does seem strange to me that two people so different as R. C. Sproul a Calvinist and Todd White from Word of Faith, complete opposites in theology, would both agree that Christ somehow experienced and partook of the evils of sin on the Cross during those temporary moments of judging the sin of the whole world. This is a matter of record easily proven. But in the end I have to consider their reasoning very strong and solid on this one point. It ends up being a very self-righteous thing to deny Christ's generosity in paying for our sins, it is not somehow impiety and irreverence to accept Christ's ability to bear our sins in actuality—it is merely the humility and condescension of God to do this for us, and something only he could possibly do. I'm sensitive to the objections this is "blasphemous," although I find it misguided, and I honestly don't think R. C. Sproul or Todd White in any way wanted to be blasphemous, this is just their understanding of the atonement. And I don't think it logically follows that it's blasphemous, since this is the choice and decision of God himself as Judge who sets his own rules and fulfills his own judgments. As if it were any less blasphemous for the purity of Christ to live inside someone as vile as me!

At any rate, one can clarify the sides of the debate and further strengthen their own reasons for believing what they do. In my simplistic and child-like way I often visualize the atonement as all my black and dark and bad things going into Christ on the Cross—and all Christ's pure and white and good things coming back to me through the resurrection. This why we died with Christ, were buried with Christ, were crucified with Christ, were resurrected with Christ. And I think it's really the most straightforward way to understand the verse:

for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin,
that we may become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21 YLT)
So I take it you believe Christ "Became" sin in a actual sense?
What of Azazel?


Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8).
 
So I take it you believe Christ "Became" sin in a actual sense?
What of Azazel?


Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8).

Azazel represents the atonement as applied to the devil, it is the declaration of the finished work for the cleansing of the conscience.

We overcome the accuser of the brethren by the Blood of the Lamb.

It is interesting—they say the goat at first starting coming back to the camp to eat the garbage, so they started throwing it off a cliff.

It's like the devil coming and looking for our sin to accuse us—throw him off the cliff!
 
Azazel represents the atonement as applied to the devil, it is the declaration of the finished work for the cleansing of the conscience.

We overcome the accuser of the brethren by the Blood of the Lamb.

It is interesting—they say the goat at first starting coming back to the camp to eat the garbage, so they started throwing it off a cliff.

It's like the devil coming and looking for our sin to accuse us—throw him off the cliff!
I am aware of this-but my question to you was-Do you believe Christ Jesus became sin personified?
 
I am aware of this-but my question to you was-Do you believe Christ Jesus became sin personified?

You asked two questions actually.

Like Azazel somehow contradicted the first.

This made me think you thought Azazel somehow "contradicted" the first question—naturally.

The Bible clearly says Christ became sin—how could anyone doubt it.

God does not sweep sin under the rug.
 
You asked two questions actually.

Like Azazel somehow contradicted the first.

This made me think you thought Azazel somehow "contradicted" the first question—naturally.

The Bible clearly says Christ became sin—how could anyone doubt it.

God does not sweep sin under the rug.
Yes, well, I can understand why you think Messiah "became" inherently sinful but that is not the case.

Indeed, far from it. But I am not here to "sway" you or convince you otherwise.
J.

But I'll leave you with this.

Him who knew no sin (ton mē gnonta hamartian). Definite claim by Paul that Jesus did not commit sin, had no personal acquaintance (mē gnonta, second aorist active participle of ginōskō) with it. Jesus made this claim for himself (Joh_8:46). This statement occurs also in 1Pe_2:22; Heb_4:15; Heb_7:26; 1Jn_3:5. Christ was and is “a moral miracle” (Bernard) and so more than mere man.

He made to be sin (hamartian epoiēsen). The words “to be” are not in the Greek. “Sin” here is the substantive, not the verb. God “treated as sin” the one “who knew no sin.”

But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Heb_12:3). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: “My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?” (Mat_27:46).
RWS.


Meaning of Isaiah 53:10
But lets us assume that “crush” is indeed the correct translation. What could Isaiah have meant when he declared “the LORD was pleased to crush Him”?

First, we must remember that Isaiah 53 is a metaphorical style of writing, of a prophecy which portrays Israel’s point of view. We should be careful not to take every word literally. After all, there is no hovering arm of God floating from the skies touching people (verse 1), Jesus is not a root (verse 2), we are not sheep (verse 6), Jesus was not always silent (verse 7), and He did not have babies (verse 10). In the same way, we should look at “the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (verse 10) – with the same metaphorical view in mind.

The Old Testament describes sacrifices as something in which God takes pleasure in.
A “soothing aroma” that God “smells”.[15]

Let’s consider Isaiah 1:11:
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.”

God is no longer taking pleasure in the aroma coming from Israel’s sacrifices.
That word for “pleasure” (חָפָצְתִּי) in Isaiah 1:11 is the same Hebrew word Isaiah uses in the first line of Isaiah 53:10, “But the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (חָפֵץ).
In other words, God is not taking pleasure in the aroma coming from the sacrifice of animals (Isaiah 1). He does take pleasure however, in the aroma coming from the sacrifice of the righteous, glorified and flawless Messiah. It is not in the death itself that God takes pleasure, but in what that death produces.[16]

God takes pleasure and satisfaction in the fact that the need for atonement (in exchange for our lives) is being met. An atonement that took place thanks to the death of the Messiah.


The point is, that God took pleasure not in the Messiah being rejected, tortured and dying (which would make Him a bullying, angry, harsh, vengeful God) but rather took pleasure in the perfect sacrifice finally being provided. Metaphorically, it is as if Isaiah was saying: “the LORD was pleased to receive Him as sacrifice.”
Or, as the words of Professor N. T. Wright:

“As somebody said to me years ago, “If you take a half-truth and make it into the whole truth, it becomes an untruth.” And that’s a very serious thing because then the vision of God that people have is distorted, and so many people are actually put off the gospel – they just say, “No, that sounds like a bullying God. If there is a God he can’t really be like that.” When some people talk about the gospel, you’d think that John 3:16 said: “God so hated the world that he killed his only Son.” Sometimes people say: “That picture is important – wrath and sin and hell and all the rest of it, and it’s because God loves us.” But simply adding the word ‘love’ onto the end of that story can be actually even worse. It is like what abusers do when they say, “I love you so much” – it’s hideous.”[17]

Please read the whole article.

Thanks.
J.
 
So I take it you believe Christ "Became" sin in a actual sense?
What of Azazel?


Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8).
Impossible otherwise He became sinful. There was no Evil or sin in Christ. He was our substitute which provided our forgiveness of sins.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This verse has inspired a great deal of debate among theologians over the years. There is no doubt that the verse expresses a unique truth about Jesus: He became sin for us. While on the one hand the verse states the simple gospel truth that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all who would ever believe in Him, it also makes a somewhat enigmatic statement. How exactly did God make Jesus to be sin for us?

Perhaps the best way to understand He became sin for us is to begin with what it does not mean. First, it does not mean that Jesus actually became sin itself. To posit such a theory denies all of Scripture, which clearly presents Jesus Christ as the One in whom there is no sin (1 John 3:5), who commits no sin (1 Peter 2:22), and who is holy, blameless, and pure (Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14; Revelation 3:7). For Jesus to “become” sin, even for a moment, would mean He ceased to be God. But Scripture presents Jesus as “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He was and is and always will be the Second Person of the Godhead (John 1:1).

Second, the idea that Jesus became sin for us does not mean that He became a sinner, not even for a moment. Some have said that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind (or at least of the elect) became His own sins. When Christ suffered in our place and died for us, He bore the punishment for our sins in His own body (1 Peter 2:24). But Jesus at no time became a sinner personally.

Third, it does not mean He was guilty of actual sin. No one is truly guilty who has not transgressed the law of God, which Jesus never did. If He were guilty, then He deserved to die, and His death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty person. Even the Pharisees who sent Jesus to Calvary knew He was guiltless: “And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed” (Acts 13:28).

If He became sin for us does not mean Jesus was sin, or a sinner, or guilty of sin, the proper interpretation can only be found in the doctrine of imputation. This is confirmed by the second part of 2 Corinthians 5:21: “So that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” To impute something is to ascribe or attribute it to someone. On the cross, our sin was imputed to Christ. That is how Christ paid our sin debt to God. He had no sin in Himself, but our sin was imputed (attributed) to Him so, as He suffered, He took the just penalty that our sin deserves. At the same time, through faith, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Now we can stand before God sinless, just as Jesus is sinless. We are not righteous in ourselves; rather, Christ’s righteousness is applied to us.

So, “God made him . . . to be sin for us” means that Jesus, although sinless, was treated as if He were not. Although He remained holy, He was regarded as guilty of all the sin in the world. Got?

hope this helps !!!
 
What Did Paul Mean?
So, what does Paul mean when he says this in Romans 8:3—“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh”? There is much for our consideration in this text, but here I restrict myself to the phrase “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” What does this mean?

There is no doubt but that by “sinful flesh” Paul refers to fallen human nature. The question, then, is this: Why did he not simply say that God sent his Son “in the flesh”? That is what John says in John 1:14 (“and the Word became flesh”). Why did he include the adjective “sinful”? Had he said, “in sinful flesh” without qualification we would likely conclude that Jesus did in fact have a fallen, sinful human nature. Which raises the question, why does he include the word “likeness”?

Some argue that Paul introduced the word “likeness” because he wanted to avoid affirming the true humanity of Christ. This is one version of the ancient heresy known as Docetism. According to this view, Christ’s “flesh” or human nature only seemed (from the Greek, dokeō) to be human flesh. Rather, the body of Jesus was a phantom or took on a ghost-like appearance.

But in the second half of verse 3, Paul says that God condemned sin “in the flesh” and there is no qualification of the reality of the “flesh” that was condemned when Christ was nailed to the cross. Also, and even more explicitly, the apostle John says that “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2b) and that every spirit that does not make this confession is “the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3). And then there are numerous other places in the New Testament where the reality of Christ’s human nature (his flesh) is clearly asserted.

Others contend that Paul makes use of the word “likeness” in Romans 8:3 to affirm that Jesus never committed an act of sin. Thus, he took on fallen human nature, like ours, but unlike ours in that he never actually acted on a sinful impulse. Unfortunately, though, that does not address the question of whether he experienced “sinful impulses” from within his own human nature.

We know that he was not guilty of human sin, like we are. Tom Schreiner also points out that whereas “likeness” may denote “mere similarity” it also has the notion of “identity,” such that “the Son did not merely resemble human flesh but participated fully in sinful flesh. Still, it doesn’t follow logically that the Son himself sinned” (Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Books, 2nd Edition, 2018], 399).

My only concern here is with the phrase “participated fully in sinful flesh.” What precisely does that mean?

Also, if all that Paul intended was that Jesus never actually committed any act of sin, it reads quite awkwardly. To say that he came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” is an admittedly odd way of saying he never actually sinned. The word “likeness” more likely is used to indicate a difference between Christ’s human nature and ours, not what he did with or how he acted upon that nature.

Consider homoiōma
C. E. B. Cranfield has yet another interpretation. He suggests that “the intention behind the use of homoiōma [‘likeness’] here . . . was to take account of the fact that the Son of God was not, in being sent by the Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining himself.”

The Son of God was not, in being sent by the Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining himself.


Thus “the intention is not in any way to call into question or to water down the reality of Christ’s sarx hamartias [‘sinful flesh’] but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed sarx hamartias, he never became sarx hamartias and nothing more” (The Epistle to the Romans, Volume 1 [T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1975] 1:381). Again, says Cranfield, “the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours, but that in his case that fallen human nature was never the whole of him—he never ceased to be the eternal Son of God” (1:382).

Then there are those, including me, who contend that Paul used the word “likeness” to avoid saying that Christ assumed fallen human nature. He took on flesh like ours, because it was really and truly human flesh, a genuine human nature. But it was only “like” ours, and not identical with it, because it was unfallen. He does not use the word “likeness” to deny or undermine the reality of Christ’s human nature, as if to say that his flesh only resembles ours but has no qualitative affinity with it. He uses “likeness” because he feels compelled to use the phrase “sinful flesh” instead of merely “flesh.” Had Paul omitted the word “sinful” he also would have omitted the word “likeness.”

The question, then, is why Paul includes the word “sinful” at all? John Murray explains:

He is concerned to show that when the Father sent the Son into this world of sin, of misery, and of death, he sent him in a manner that brought him into the closest relation to sinful humanity that it was possible for him to come without becoming himself sinful. He himself was holy and undefiled—the word “likeness” guards this truth. But he came in the same human nature. And that is the purpose of saying “sinful flesh.” No other combination of terms could have fulfilled these purposes so perfectly.” (The Epistle to the Romans, [Eerdmans, 1960], 1:280).

Similarly, Douglas J. Moo argues that homoiōma “probably has the nuance of ‘form’ rather than ‘likeness’ or ‘copy.’ In other words, the word does not suggest superficial or outward similarity, but inward and real participation or ‘expression’” (The Letter to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Eerdmans, 2018], 479). Paul, he suggests, “is walking a fine line here. On the one hand, he wants to insist that Christ fully entered into the human condition, became ‘in-fleshed’ (in-carnis), and, as such, exposed himself to the power of sin (cf. 6:8–10). On the other hand, he must avoid suggesting that Christ so participated in this realm that he became imprisoned ‘in the flesh’ . . . and became, thus, so subject to sin that he could be personally guilty of it” (479–80).

This leaves one fundamental question unanswered. Is it inherently “sinful” to experience sinful urges or inclinations, or is it only sinful to act upon them?

Is it inherently “sinful” to experience sinful urges or inclinations, or is it only sinful to act upon them?


Peter speaks of “the passions of the flesh, which wage war against” our souls (1 Pet. 2:11). Did Jesus experience such passions but simply refused to yield to them? Is the mere existence of such passions in a human soul an indictment, or must there be a choice to follow their promptings in concrete thought and action?

In the final analysis, I must concur with Murray and Moo. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. Although he was susceptible to the effects of the fall, insofar as he experienced physical weakness and, ultimately, physical death, he experienced no sinful or selfish passions.

One thing is certain and beyond debate. Jesus never committed an act of sin. The sinless life of Jesus is absolutely essential for his capacity to serve as our sacrificial substitute, an atoning death in which he was not dying for his own transgressions but for ours (see 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).

Thanks @civic

2Co 5:21 The one who in his person had no da'as of chattat (sin) [Ac 3:14; Yn 8:46; MJ 4:15; 7:26; 1K 2:22; 1Y 3:5], this one Hashem made a chattat sin offering [Ga 3:13; YESHAYAH 53:10; VAYIKRA 4:24 TARGUM HASHIVIM] on our behalf that we might become the Tzidkat Hashem [DANIEL 9:24] in Moshiach. [1C 1:30; Pp 3:9] [T.N. In this next chapter Rav Sha’ul warns against associations or worldly influences or fascinations that will contaminate the believer, who should not think he can have both the world’s evil pleasures and the House of G-d’s holy chelek.]


he: Isa_53:4-6, Isa_53:9-12; Dan_9:26; Zec_13:7; Rom_8:3; Gal_3:13; Eph_5:2; 1Pe_3:18; 1Jn_2:1-2
who: Isa_53:9; Luk_1:35; Heb_7:26; 1Pe_2:22-24; 1Jn_3:5
we: 2Co_5:17; Isa_45:24-25, Isa_53:11; Jer_23:26, Jer_33:16; Dan_9:24; Rom_1:17, Rom_3:21-26; Rom_5:19, Rom_8:1-4, Rom_10:3-4; 1Co_1:30; Php_3:9
 
Wuest: He who did not know sin in an experiential way, on behalf of us and instead of us, was made [the representative of] sin, in order that, as for us, we might become a righteousness of God in Him. (Eerdmans)

Made...to be sin - The words "to be" are not in the Greek text but are added by the translators. Note Jesus was not made sinful but sin. Paul is not saying that Jesus became a sinner or that God made Him commit sins. The NT (see passages above) repeated testifies to our Lord's sinless state which definitively excludes the possibility that He was ever a sinner. He was not a sinner and He did not become one on the Cross! On the Cross, Christ was not personally guilty of sin. Nor was He punished for ANY SIN OF HIS OWN.

James Smith - He was made sin for us. He was not made a sinner—or He could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for sin. Sin was not transfused into Him, though it was laid upon Him (1Pe 2:24).

He was made an offering for sin, or a sin offering, and therefore He was treated as a sinner. The sins of all He represented, of all for whom He became a substitute—were placed to His account. He became answerable for them. He voluntarily undertook to become responsible for them (He 10:7, 9). The whole debt became His (Ro 3:23). Our breaches of the law—were to be answered for by him. Therefore as sin was imputed to Him, or placed to His account, it was punished in His person.

All that it was necessary to inflict, in order to satisfy divine justice, and present an example of God's hatred to sin, to the universe, was inflicted on Him. The whole curse of the law (Gal 3:13), the whole desert of sin, the whole of the wrath of God for sin, was put into one cup, and presented to Him. He looked into it and trembled, crying out, "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say?" He took it, and fell to the ground, blood oozing from every pore of his body, he cried in bitter agony (Lk 22:44), "If it is possible—let this cup pass from me!" (Mt 26:39) He drank of it, and exclaimed, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46) But it pleased the Lord to bruise him, Jehovah put him to grief, when he made his soul an offering for sin (Isa 53:10KJV). O the tremendous agony which He endured! O the depths of woe through which He waded! O the waves and billows of divine wrath, that went over Him! (From The Marvelous Exchange - James Smith)

Related Resource:

Christ Made Sin - Stephen Charnock
Spurgeon - Christ was not guilty, and could not be made guilty; but he was treated as if He were guilty, because He willed to stand in the place of the guilty. Yea, He was not only treated as a sinner, but He was treated as if He had been sin itself in the abstract. This is an amazing utterance. The sinless one was made to be sin.

Isaiah speaks of how Jesus was made to be sin...

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried, yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6)



It is crucial, therefore, to understand that the only sense in which Jesus was made sin was by imputation. (Ed: Webster on to impute = to lay the the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly; to reckon, account or credit to one what does not belong to him; to charge something to a person's account). He was personally pure, yet officially culpable; personally holy, yet forensically guilty. But in dying on the cross Christ did not become evil like we are, nor do redeemed sinners become inherently as holy as He is. God credits believers’ sin to Christ’s account, and His righteousness to theirs. (MacArthur, J: 2Corinthians. Chicago: Moody Press)

“Oh, hear that piercing cry!

What can its meaning be?

’My God! my God! oh! why hast thou

In wrath forsaken me?’

“Oh ’twas because our sins

On him by God were laid;

He who himself had never sinn’d,

For sinners, sin was made.”

Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary adds: In addition to guilt imputed from Adam’s sin, all people are also charged with guilt for their personal sins.

This Paul describes as “imputing their trespasses to them” (2Co 5:19). The Lord Jesus, whose supernatural conception and birth freed Him from guilt from Adam’s sin and who committed no personal sin, had no sin counted against Him. But when He died as our substitute, God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us” (2Co 5:21) so that He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1Pe 2:24). This is made explicit in the Book of Isaiah, where the prophet says of the Lord Jesus, “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Is 53:6). (Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

MacDonald adds...We must beware of any idea that on the Cross of Calvary the Lord Jesus Christ actually became sinful in Himself. Such an idea is false. Our sins were placed on Him, but they were not in Him. What happened is that God made Him to be a sin-offering on our behalf. Trusting in Him, we are reckoned righteous by God. The claims of the law have been fully satisfied by our Substitute. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson)

Hughes makes a good point reminding us that...Not for one moment does He (Jesus) cease to be righteous, else the radical exchange envisaged by the Apostle here, whereby our sin is transferred to Him and His righteousness is transferred to us, would be no more than a fiction or an hallucination.

Shalom
Johann.
 
Impossible otherwise He became sinful. There was no Evil or sin in Christ. He was our substitute which provided our forgiveness of sins.
I'm amazed people are still thinking that way brother-old people, advanced in years, not that I have anything against Ol' people-simply love them, but to think Messiah became sin personified on the cross is somewhat beyond me.

Johann.
 
But I'll leave you with this.

Why don't you leave me with Scripture:

He who knew no sin became sin.

It's done. It says it.

But waiiiiit, give me 100 pages of stuff and I can tell you that means the opposite of what it says.

That's what the devil does, he "sways" you away from what Scripture says.

I won't listen to the devil anymore. :)
 
Why don't you leave me with Scripture:

He who knew no sin became sin.

It's done. It says it.

But waiiiiit, give me 100 pages of stuff and I can tell you that means the opposite of what it says.

That's what the devil does, he "sways" you away from what Scripture says.

I won't listen to the devil anymore. :)
I have provide a biblical based doctrinal dissertation on the atonement in a thread in the PSA section that discusses it all
 
But waiiiiit, give me 100 pages of stuff and I can tell you that means the opposite of what it says.

That's what the devil does, he "sways" you away from what Scripture says.

I won't listen to the devil anymore.
All good @dizerner-I proof read everything I post and believe we have the necessary discernment to discern error from truth-right?

But if you hold Messiah became inherently sinful-that's you belief, not mine.
We can agree to disagree in a amicable way and manner.

I don't want to "flood" the Forum with heretical lies-willfully and with malicious intent-now would I?

I leave the artful sophistry and intellectualism to others, just here to give God the glory, all boasting excluded since I am a simpleton and just want to finish well


Act 20:23 But only that THE Holy Spirit witnesseth to me in city by city, saying that bonds and tribulations wait for me.

Act 20:24 But I make of no account these things, neither hold I my life precious unto myself, so that I might finish my course ... , and the ministry, which I have received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Act 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have passed through preaching the kingdom ..., shall see my face no longer.

Act 20:26 Wherefore I am witnessed to by you today, that I am clean and free from responsibility of the blood of all men.


Act 20:27 For I have not shrunk, or kept back not to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

This Forum is not "what's it in for me" but hopefully to edify others as I am being edified.

J.
 
All good @dizerner-I proof read everything I post and believe we have the necessary discernment to discern error from truth-right?

But if you hold Messiah became inherently sinful-that's you belief, not mine.
We can agree to disagree in a amicable way and manner.

I don't want to "flood" the Forum with heretical lies-willfully and with malicious intent-now would I?

I leave the artful sophistry and intellectualism to others, just here to give God the glory, all boasting excluded since I am a simpleton and just want to finish well


Act 20:23 But only that THE Holy Spirit witnesseth to me in city by city, saying that bonds and tribulations wait for me.

Act 20:24 But I make of no account these things, neither hold I my life precious unto myself, so that I might finish my course ... , and the ministry, which I have received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Act 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have passed through preaching the kingdom ..., shall see my face no longer.

Act 20:26 Wherefore I am witnessed to by you today, that I am clean and free from responsibility of the blood of all men.


Act 20:27 For I have not shrunk, or kept back not to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

This Forum is not "what's it in for me" but hopefully to edify others as I am being edified.
J.

Amen !
 
"He who knew no sin became sin." Many try to salvage this with "sin offering," but in the OT, the sin offering was treated as if it were sin itself—hands were laid to transfer guilt, and it was killed and burned up! The symbol stands for the reality. Now it does seem strange to me that two people so different as R. C. Sproul a Calvinist and Todd White from Word of Faith, complete opposites in theology, would both agree that Christ somehow experienced and partook of the evils of sin on the Cross during those temporary moments of judging the sin of the whole world. This is a matter of record easily proven. But in the end I have to consider their reasoning very strong and solid on this one point. It ends up being a very self-righteous thing to deny Christ's generosity in paying for our sins, it is not somehow impiety and irreverence to accept Christ's ability to bear our sins in actuality—it is merely the humility and condescension of God to do this for us, and something only he could possibly do. I'm sensitive to the objections this is "blasphemous," although I find it misguided, and I honestly don't think R. C. Sproul or Todd White in any way wanted to be blasphemous, this is just their understanding of the atonement. And I don't think it logically follows that it's blasphemous, since this is the choice and decision of God himself as Judge who sets his own rules and fulfills his own judgments. As if it were any less blasphemous for the purity of Christ to live inside someone as vile as me!

The same could be said of you and kenneth copeland- you both agree that Jesus emptied himself of his deity for 33 years. You are both completely different in your theological beliefs yet agree on kenosis. Its proof positive your argument is fallacoius since that belief is heretical just like the one both RC and White espouse. As they say two wrongs don't make a right. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom