Jesus made "sin" - from whose point of view?

[jerusalem]

Corinthians 5:21 presents an antithesis: God made Jesus 'sin' that we might become 'the righteousness of God' in Him. Doesn't this show that the 'sin' of mankind became imputed to Christ at the cross?

There is an antithesis in this verse, but one that can easily be misinterpreted if we do not take into account the statement made in that same passage at 2 Corinthians 5:16 and similar antitheses to that expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:21 presented elsewhere by Paul, especially in his letters to the Corinthians. It is the antithesis between truth and error, reality and falsehood, the perspective of God and the view of the world, or 'flesh'. Let us examine this passage again:



‘So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer' (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). How the world sees us and judges us is different to the way God sees us and judges us. There is a worldly point of view, and there is a godly point of view. In the eyes of God, as true believers, we are righteous because Christ is our righteousness. The world looks upon us differently.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: 'For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of a procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe ...' (1 Cor.4:9, NIV). Who did this? ... God. According to Paul, God had made the apostles to be viewed as foolish and weak: 'the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world' (1 Cor.4:9-13, NIV). There is an outward appearance and an inner reality. God allowed the apostles to go hungry and thirsty; to be in rags and brutally treated; to be homeless, cursed, persecuted and slandered. In the eyes of the world, the apostles were worthless scum. Paul said that they had once regarded Christ in this way—from a worldly point of view (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). Jesus was treated like a common criminal, spat upon, slandered, verbally and physically abused, mocked, scourged, nailed to a cross and left to die. In the eyes of the world, Jesus was sin. The mob had shouted for His death. He was regarded as one who had blasphemed God and who had worked miracles by the power of Satan (Mat.26:65; 9:34). To the Jews, He was despised as one who had wished to usurp authority and to destroy the law given to Moses. To the Romans, He was a cause of disorder. To the world, the apostles were 'the smell of death' (2 Cor.2:16, NIV), but to God 'the aroma of Christ'
(2 Cor.2:15, NIV).

On the cross, 'Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God' (Eph.5:2, NIV). Jesus did this for us. This was how Christ presented Himself to God, but this was not how He appeared to the world.

We must not take a verse of scripture out of context. This verse: 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor.5:21), is a verse which must be viewed in the context of the passage, the whole letter, and Paul's related comments in his first letter to the Corinthians and other letters. When we do this, we will not take a worldly view of the cross. In the One whom the world judged as sin we have become the righteousness of God.

Amongst the Corinthians were those who were judging Paul by outward appearance: 'You are looking only on the surface of things' (2 Cor.10:7, NIV). Some people were saying that in person he was 'unimpressive’, that his speaking 'amounted to nothing' (2 Cor.10:10, NIV) and demanded proof that he was speaking for Christ: 'You are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me' (2 Cor.13:3, NIV). As a way of confirming his calling, Paul chose not so much to speak of the signs of an apostle, which he had wrought amongst them: 'miracles, signs and wonders' (2 Cor.12:12), but of his sufferings in the likeness of Christ (2 Cor.6:4-10; 10:23-29). Paul's concern was not for himself: 'What we are is plain to God' (2 Cor.5:11, NIV), but was for those who were forming worldly and divisive judgmental attitudes. Therefore, just as it is wrong to judge Christ by surface appearance, as He was judged by those without faith, so we must not judge each other.

Man had esteemed Christ as one accursed of God (Gal.3:13),
smitten and afflicted by Him—but that was only the outward appearance, the view of the world. The Scriptures agree: Christ, 'through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God' (Heb.9:14, NIV). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, told his accusers that they had murdered the 'Righteous One', predicted by the prophets (Acts 7:52). The One murdered was righteous. God's vindication of His Son was the resurrection.

'God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things ... by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross' (Col.1:19-20, NKJ). Paul said: 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (2 Cor.5:19, NKJ). How were we reconciled to God?... 'We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son' (Rom.5:10, NKJ). Therefore, we can conclude, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through the death of His Son—who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. This is biblical and reveals that there was no spiritual separation of the Father and the Son at the time of the atonement.

In reality, far from being the embodiment of sin upon the cross, the Scriptures declare that He died righteous, unblemished by sin and at one with God.

 

[IamAdopted]

Corinthians 5:21 presents an antithesis: God made Jesus 'sin' that we might become 'the righteousness of God' in Him. Doesn't this show that the 'sin' of mankind became imputed to Christ at the cross?

There is an antithesis in this verse, but one that can easily be misinterpreted if we do not take into account the statement made in that same passage at 2 Corinthians 5:16 and similar antitheses to that expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:21 presented elsewhere by Paul, especially in his letters to the Corinthians. It is the antithesis between truth and error, reality and falsehood, the perspective of God and the view of the world, or 'flesh'. Let us examine this passage again:



‘So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer' (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). How the world sees us and judges us is different to the way God sees us and judges us. There is a worldly point of view, and there is a godly point of view. In the eyes of God, as true believers, we are righteous because Christ is our righteousness. The world looks upon us differently.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: 'For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of a procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe ...' (1 Cor.4:9, NIV). Who did this? ... God. According to Paul, God had made the apostles to be viewed as foolish and weak: 'the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world' (1 Cor.4:9-13, NIV). There is an outward appearance and an inner reality. God allowed the apostles to go hungry and thirsty; to be in rags and brutally treated; to be homeless, cursed, persecuted and slandered. In the eyes of the world, the apostles were worthless scum. Paul said that they had once regarded Christ in this way—from a worldly point of view (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). Jesus was treated like a common criminal, spat upon, slandered, verbally and physically abused, mocked, scourged, nailed to a cross and left to die. In the eyes of the world, Jesus was sin. The mob had shouted for His death. He was regarded as one who had blasphemed God and who had worked miracles by the power of Satan (Mat.26:65; 9:34). To the Jews, He was despised as one who had wished to usurp authority and to destroy the law given to Moses. To the Romans, He was a cause of disorder. To the world, the apostles were 'the smell of death' (2 Cor.2:16, NIV), but to God 'the aroma of Christ'
(2 Cor.2:15, NIV).

On the cross, 'Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God' (Eph.5:2, NIV). Jesus did this for us. This was how Christ presented Himself to God, but this was not how He appeared to the world.

We must not take a verse of scripture out of context. This verse: 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor.5:21), is a verse which must be viewed in the context of the passage, the whole letter, and Paul's related comments in his first letter to the Corinthians and other letters. When we do this, we will not take a worldly view of the cross. In the One whom the world judged as sin we have become the righteousness of God.

Amongst the Corinthians were those who were judging Paul by outward appearance: 'You are looking only on the surface of things' (2 Cor.10:7, NIV). Some people were saying that in person he was 'unimpressive’, that his speaking 'amounted to nothing' (2 Cor.10:10, NIV) and demanded proof that he was speaking for Christ: 'You are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me' (2 Cor.13:3, NIV). As a way of confirming his calling, Paul chose not so much to speak of the signs of an apostle, which he had wrought amongst them: 'miracles, signs and wonders' (2 Cor.12:12), but of his sufferings in the likeness of Christ (2 Cor.6:4-10; 10:23-29). Paul's concern was not for himself: 'What we are is plain to God' (2 Cor.5:11, NIV), but was for those who were forming worldly and divisive judgmental attitudes. Therefore, just as it is wrong to judge Christ by surface appearance, as He was judged by those without faith, so we must not judge each other.

Man had esteemed Christ as one accursed of God (Gal.3:13),
smitten and afflicted by Him—but that was only the outward appearance, the view of the world. The Scriptures agree: Christ, 'through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God' (Heb.9:14, NIV). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, told his accusers that they had murdered the 'Righteous One', predicted by the prophets (Acts 7:52). The One murdered was righteous. God's vindication of His Son was the resurrection.

'God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things ... by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross' (Col.1:19-20, NKJ). Paul said: 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (2 Cor.5:19, NKJ). How were we reconciled to God?... 'We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son' (Rom.5:10, NKJ). Therefore, we can conclude, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through the death of His Son—who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. This is biblical and reveals that there was no spiritual separation of the Father and the Son at the time of the atonement.

In reality, far from being the embodiment of sin upon the cross, the Scriptures declare that He died righteous, unblemished by sin and at one with God.

Amen and amen..

 

[jerusalem]

Thank you for the 'Amen'!

An alternative reading of 2 Cor.5:21 renders the word for sin, Gk.: hamartian, as sin-offering (given as a marginal reference in modern translations).This dual interpretation is made possible due to the fact that there is ample precedent for such usage in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (notably: Lev.4:32; 5:6, 7, 8, 9) and in the Hebrew, e.g. Hosea 4:8, 'They eat up the sin of My people,' where a single word is used for sin, Hb.: chatta'ah, which can be translated sin-offering. The Greek expression hamartias, meaning sins or sin-offerings, is used in the book of Hebrews in a direct quotation from the Septuagint of Psalm 40:6: 'In burnt offerings and sacrificesfor sin you had no pleasure,' Heb.10:6, NKJ. The word 'sacrifices' has been added for clarity of meaning by translators, but it does not occur in the Greek of either the passage from the psalm or from the letter to the Hebrews. There is no doubt, therefore, that the term was understood to have this application during New Testament times. A modern translation by David Stern renders 2 Cor. 5:21 as: "God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness" (The Jewish New Testament).

The dual import of Paul's words in this passage can be understood from the biblical context. It was not the view or judgement of the world that God accepted concerning the sacrifice of His Son. As a sin-offering, Jesus presented Himself as the untainted, pure and perfect offering to God for our sakes, that we, in union with Him, by God's grace might share in His righteousness and thereby have our sins removed.

 

[nobdysfool]

In reality, far from being the embodiment of sin upon the cross, the Scriptures declare that He died righteous, unblemished by sin and at one with God.

Nice straw man you've constructed. No one here has said that Jesus became the "embodiment of sin" on the Cross. No one. The Penal Substitutionary nature of the Atonement does not teach that either. Quit playing games and attributing positions to others that were never articulated or promoted. Can you do that?

Let's take it up a notch. What was the meaning of Jesus crying out "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" on the cross? I agree that Jesus remained Righteous throughout the ordeal. In fact He had to, or we are not saved. So what was the meaning of His outburst on the Cross?

I don't understand why you avoid dealing with the obvious facts that Jesus bore our sins and experienced the wrath of God for sin on Himself, in order to redeem His People, those whom The Father had given Him, as His Bride? He did not become a sinner, but as Isaiah states:

Surely He has borne our sicknesses, and He carried our pain; yet we esteemed Him plagued, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His wounds we ourselves are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have each one turned to his own way; and Jehovah made meet in Him the iniquity of all of us. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, but He did not open His mouth. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a ewe before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from justice; and who shall consider His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living; from the transgression of My people, the stroke was to Him. And He appointed Him His grave with the wicked, but He was with a rich man in His death; though He had done no violence, and deceit was not in His mouth. But Jehovah pleased to crush Him, to make Him sick, so that If He should put His soul as a guilt offering, He shall see His seed; He shall prolong His days; and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the fruit of the travail of His soul; He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge the righteous One, My Servant, shall justify for many, and He shall bear their iniquities. Because of this I will divide to Him with the great, and with the strong He shall divide the spoil; because He poured out His soul to death; and He was counted with those transgressing; and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for those transgressing. (Isa 53:4-12) LITV

This is a clear description of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Christ is the one being spoken of here. Of that there is no doubt.

What say you to these things?

 

[jerusalem]

'Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you ...' (Mat.5:44).

Blessings!!!

 

[nobdysfool]

I take it then that you really can't respond. I've replied to several posts of yours, across a couple of threads, and you have yet to respond to them with anything substantive.

I've shown that your position ignores scripture which specifically indicates that the Atonement was a Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I've also shown the poor logic of believing that the key to understanding scripture is by means of our own flawed, partial, darkened sense of right and wrong, and that God's Word is illumined to the mind by God's Spirit, not by our own sense of morality. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of Death."

Will you respond? Or will you continue to avoid?

And, just for the record, I am not your enemy, I am not cursing you and never have, I do not hate you, nor am I guilty of spitefully using you or persecuting you. You quoted a great verse, but it is out of place, since you obviously are trying to give the impression that I am guilty of those things against you. All I have done is ask for clarification where there is none, and attempt to engage you in a respectful and thoughtful exchange in examination of these issues.

Your evident non-response (whether because you refuse to respond, cannot respond, or don't want to admit to being wrong) speaks volumes. I am glad that Jesus gave His Life so that I would have Life in Him, and that by faith I participate in His Death, Burial, and Resurrection, which purchased my redemption, fulfilled the Law, secured forgiveness of my sins, and allows me to Grow in Grace in Christ, being sanctified by His Blood, and made righteous by His Righteousness. All to Him I owe, I deserved none of it. Anything I am or have is because of Christ, and Him alone.

 

[billwald]

I am angry at my neighbor so I belt The Wife and now I feel better - makes as much sense as various theories of the atonement.

 

[heymikey80]

Er, what?

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin ..." Who is this first "he" in this verse? Who did anything to Christ Jesus "for our sake"?

Could it be ... God?

And as it's from His perspective, in what way can we conclude it's not from His perspective?

 

[jerusalem]

Er, what?

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin ..." Who is this first "he" in this verse? Who did anything to Christ Jesus "for our sake"?

Could it be ... God?

And as it's from His perspective, in what way can we conclude it's not from His perspective?

Firstly, thank you for your comment. I appreciate the fact that you have kept your objection strictly to the Scripture.

If you read my first post on this matter again, you may notice that I pointed out that in the context of Paul's letters, there is a perspective of the world and one that is of God. We need to ask ourselves, 'Was this how God made Jesus to be seen - as sin - by those having a worldly point of view?' Even if Paul had not mentioned the point of view 'of the flesh' (v16) and how we must no longer view Jesus in this way, we have similar comments elsewhere in his letters to the Corinthians. When Paul wrote: 'We have been made a spectacle to the world ... We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things' (1 Cor.4:9-13, NKJ), we are told that the person responsible, in verse 9, was God. He made the apostles to be viewed in this way. Now, are we going to say because God made the apostles the filth of the world, that this was also His view? - His perspective? No. This was the view of the world - to the one, the apostles were the 'smell of death', but to God 'the aroma of Christ' (2 Cor.2:15-16). At the cross, Jesus was accepted by the Father as a 'sweet-smelling aroma' (Eph.5:2) - not as sin!

He was a sin-offering, yes - but not 'sin', except in the eyes of the world.

Thanks again.

 

[heymikey80]

Again, the word of God says "made to be", not "made to appear". It's God, from God's perspective, "making" the Son to be.

Why would Paul -- much less God -- invite people to look at how they "see Him thus no longer"? There's no counterpoint in how we should see Christ being made by God.

To me the conclusion is that Christ is the sin offering (as the sacrifice for sin was referred-to in this way). Now what you've said about Christ actually becoming sin is really not embraced by any theology I'm aware of. But for Christ to take on the sacrifice for sin (here and 1 Pt 2:24) -- to die for our sins (cf 1 Cor 15:3) -- seems a smaller stretch than its denial.

 

[nobdysfool]

Christ was made the sin-offering. Those who say He became sin are mistaken. And Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not teach that He became sin.

Your continued refusal to answer my previous posts have not gone unnoticed by other readers here. Apparently you don't like to be challenged, and think it more "spiritual" to ignore the challenge, rather than answer it. Sorry if I offended you, but you made unscriptural statements, and misrepresented the view I hold, believing it to be scriptural. I can defend my view, and have. You have stated your view, but it has not been defended, but rather it has been refuted.

 

[heymikey80]

Christ was made the sin-offering. Those who say He became sin are mistaken. And Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not teach that He became sin.

Yes.

I get the impression from some that God's justice is pitted against His grace, as in the wife-beating posting. As we may remember from Paul (or maybe from Jesus' parables), grace-justice -- or favor-justice -- isn't opposed to works-justice. It's a radically different way, the Way of Redemption. In it God's favor supplies what works-justice denies.

 

[jerusalem]

Again, the word of God says "made to be", not "made to appear". It's God, from God's perspective, "making" the Son to be.

Why would Paul -- much less God -- invite people to look at how they "see Him thus no longer"? There's no counterpoint in how we should see Christ being made by God.

To me the conclusion is that Christ is the sin offering (as the sacrifice for sin was referred-to in this way). Now what you've said about Christ actually becoming sin is really not embraced by any theology I'm aware of. But for Christ to take on the sacrifice for sin (here and 1 Pt 2:24) -- to die for our sins (cf 1 Cor 15:3) -- seems a smaller stretch than its denial.

Actually, you may notice the words 'to be' are in italics in this verse - given as an addition by translators for 'clarity' of meaning. Charles Finney, the famous evangelical of the 19th century, had this to say:

'The language of the apostle here is very striking. God hath made Him sin, not "to be sin," as in our translation, but better according to the original, "made Him sin for us, who knew no sin." The obvious meaning is that Christ was treated as a sinner. This was for governmental purposes, and as a governmental transaction. He stood in the place of sinners, and God dealt with Him accordingly. He consented freely to take this position, and of course was treated as if He were Himself the embodiment of all the sins of our world.'


Notice, also, he stated 'as if He were'. To Finney - and I think most will agree - the words of Paul were not to be taken literally. 'God made Him sin' - yes, but in what sense? This was the reality, I would infer, as He appeared to the world.

Your own view that the verse is more easily understood to mean that Jesus was made a 'sin-offering' aslo I believe has merit, as I have said in my second post.

Paul, in his letters to the Corinthians, made it clear that what appears to be the case on the surface is not always the true reality in the judgement of God.

We may not be in whole agreement, but it is good to exchange thoughts with you on our understanding of this most important topic.

Best regards.

 

[nobdysfool]

Are you a Finney-ite? That would explain a lot.....

 

[heymikey80]

Well, "made to be" / "made" is a distinction without a difference. "made to be" is equivalent to "made", that's why translators really don't care whether it's in there or not. Even in Greek when something is "made", that it exists ("to be") as it was made. These are not the words that would mean "made to appear" or "seem".

Paul would've said something else involving "blepo" or "dokeo".

I doubt I'd appeal to Finney as an expert on what's actually being said in Greek. His understanding generally developed from his theology and not vice versa; and his understanding of Greek admittedly developed, it wasn't taught to him. It's not that Finney can't acquire this through his own intense study -- it's just that I've run awry of plenty of expert pastors and theologians who ... leap.

In fact it's one of the reasons why I dump stuff out here, too. I want to hear what other people are seeing, because NT Greek is definitely not my first language! I miss things other people catch. I catch things some people miss.

 

[jerusalem]

Are you a Finney-ite? That would explain a lot.....

No...

Also, in the light of your past accusations, etc., I am wondering if I should include this notice with all my threads:

'This thread addresses what I believe to be a common misconception and I do not infer that any of the views that I criticise are held by anyone at this forum.'

Peace!

 

[nobdysfool]

No...

Also, in the light of your past accusations, etc., I am wondering if I should include this notice with all my threads:

'This thread addresses what I believe to be a common misconception and I do not infer that any of the views that I criticise are held by anyone at this forum.'

Peace!

What accusations? I have asked some pointed questions, I admit, but they were for the purpose of causing people to think. I still remain baffled as to why you have not answered. If I am wrong, show me. If I have misread your posted comments, correct my misinterpretation. To remain silent is more of an indication that you either cannot answer, or do not know how to answer, because I wasn't clear enough in my questions. But to act as though I have offended you or accused you falsely is not right, if you don't give an opportunity to address it.

 

[jerusalem]

Well, "made to be" / "made" is a distinction without a difference. "made to be" is equivalent to "made", that's why translators really don't care whether it's in there or not. Even in Greek when something is "made", that it exists ("to be") as it was made. These are not the words that would mean "made to appear" or "seem".

Paul would've said something else involving "blepo" or "dokeo". ...

Sorry not to get back to you sooner – life gets very busy, sometimes.

I don’t want to split hairs, also, but linguists could argue that the words ‘to be’ are necessary in English to avoid the suggestion that Jesus was made a sinner – ‘made Him sin’ - although no one would argue that this was intended in the Greek. The point made by Finney, although I don’t agree with his theology, is the idea of personification – Jesus being made to personify sin. This is an interpretation we cannot avoid – as also the view that ‘sin’ here means ‘sin-offering’ or ‘sacrifice for sin’.

Paul, of course, knew that his readers and those listening would have understood his words both ways. This, I believe, is what he intended. Speaking in metaphor was a typically Jewish mode of expressing ideas. If Paul had used another word, as you suggest, to mean ‘seem to be’ or ‘to be regarded like’ then not only would the strength of the metaphor be lost, but also the other meaning in reference to our Lord’s sin offering. Instead of metaphor, we might have simile – which is also weaker.

There is another point to be considered. Paul used two different words in Greek that are translated ‘made’ in English; these are: ‘poieo’ and ‘ginomai’. ‘Poieo’ correctly corresponds to the English word ‘made’ in this passage, but ‘ginomai’, although meaning ‘made’ carries the idea ‘to be generated’ – ‘to come into existence’ – ‘to receive being’. In Galatians 4:4, the word is twice used to convey the meaning ‘born’: ‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law’ (NKJ). The association with child birth should not be overlooked. We, as Christians, are brought into existence through the suffering that Jesus was made to endure. Our Lord was made to suffer the birth pangs of the crucifixion as ‘sin’ in order that we might be born again in the righteousness of God. The false impression that people had of Him was part of the suffering that He had to endure.

Jesus was made ‘sin’ – this was how He was viewed by those who were against Him. It is a powerful metaphor, but not one to be taken literally.