He became sin...???

[senzi]

How did God come into Adam and Eve's presence immediately after they sinned then?

If you have an open-and not closed mind why not meditate on that, if the answer would interest you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If you have an open-and not closed mind why not meditate on that, if the answer would interest you.

We all should be open minded.

The answer of course would be grace.. How else can God be in the presence of a sinner.

 

[thebesttrees]

I don't see it as just a symbolic act..or that He only represented sin... I think "sin" was put upon Him...I believe that's what the scriptures teach.

Christ was considered a sinner by the ones who crucified Him. God made Him sin in the eyes of Caiaphas and his corroborators. By His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection we are saved.

The same God that made Jesus sin the eyes of the Jews also did this:

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]2 Cor 3:14
[/TD]
[TD]But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


To imply that Christ was a sinner, or that sin was instilled into Him, or anything along these lines is simply absurd. And so the explanation that I have given above is much closer to an understanding of the verse than anything else that I have come across.



[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Is]

Ok...? But that's not what the scriptures are saying here..its a true point but not the intention of the passage being discussed. "he became sin" who knew no sin...is saying more than He was a sin offering after the example of the law.

If it was saying He was a sin offering..the following point of Him knowing no sin, would not have been made...think about it.

We need to understand the types and anti-types in the Bible.

The imputation of sin to Jesus Christ was typified in the Old Testament sacrificial system, where the sins of the offerer were symbolically transferred to the animal victim.

If we take at face value what Paul said then Jesus found himself in the same position as anyone else born in sin. This makes Christ a sinner without being born in sin or ever sinning. How can a sinner take away sin? It's utter blasphemy!

Albert Barnes notes on 2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering,”

2 Cor. 5:21 “He made him who knew no sin (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word hamartia (NT:266) occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chaTa'ah (OT:2401) and chaTa'at (OT:2401) of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch.

2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and means that God treated him as if he were a sinner.

2 Cor. 5:21 Locke renders this: probably expressing the true sense, “For God hath made him subject to suffering and death, the punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin.”

Jesus would have been the Azazel from the Hebrew i.e."an entire removal" or "sending away) (Lev.16:8-10).

"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" Isaiah 53:6"

 

[thebesttrees]

We need to understand the types and anti-types in the Bible.

The imputation of sin to Jesus Christ was typified in the Old Testament sacrificial system, where the sins of the offerer were symbolically transferred to the animal victim.

If we take at face value what Paul said then Jesus found himself in the same position as anyone else born in sin. This makes Christ a sinner without being born in sin or ever sinning. How can a sinner take away sin? It's utter blasphemy!

Albert Barnes notes on 2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering,”

2 Cor. 5:21 “He made him who knew no sin (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word hamartia (NT:266) occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chaTa'ah (OT:2401) and chaTa'at (OT:2401) of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch.

2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and means that God treated him as if he were a sinner.

2 Cor. 5:21 Locke renders this: probably expressing the true sense, “For God hath made him subject to suffering and death, the punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin.”

Jesus would have been the Azazel from the Hebrew i.e."an entire removal" or "sending away) (Lev.16:8-10).

"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" Isaiah 53:6"

To attach the interpretation of "sin offering" is out of the context of the chapters 4 and 5 of 2 Corinthians. Why add things to the Word of God every time we stumble in our understanding?! The main topic of discussion in these two chapters is sacrifice, death and suffering at the hands of those who do not believe. And this is exactly what Christ accomplished by being considered as SIN by the masses of people. So the reading of the verse is indeed correct as Christ was made sin but in the eyes of the unbelievers who persecuted Him and finally crucified Him.

 

[Mitspa]

We need to understand the types and anti-types in the Bible.

The imputation of sin to Jesus Christ was typified in the Old Testament sacrificial system, where the sins of the offerer were symbolically transferred to the animal victim.

If we take at face value what Paul said then Jesus found himself in the same position as anyone else born in sin. This makes Christ a sinner without being born in sin or ever sinning. How can a sinner take away sin? It's utter blasphemy!

Albert Barnes notes on 2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering,”

2 Cor. 5:21 “He made him who knew no sin (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word hamartia (NT:266) occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chaTa'ah (OT:2401) and chaTa'at (OT:2401) of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch.

2 Cor. 5:21, If the declaration that he was made “sin” hamartian (NT:266) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and means that God treated him as if he were a sinner.

2 Cor. 5:21 Locke renders this: probably expressing the true sense, “For God hath made him subject to suffering and death, the punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin.”

Jesus would have been the Azazel from the Hebrew i.e."an entire removal" or "sending away) (Lev.16:8-10).

"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" Isaiah 53:6"

I guess there are some of you guys who just cant accept what the scriptures are really reading? Never heard of Albert Barnes, but he admits that one must read the scriptures in the abstract and not accept them for what they really say. Im not sure why anyone who believes in Gods power and the has some understanding of the mystery of the Cross, would have any issue with the evident reading of the passage? In fact, until folks stop trying to use mans wisdom to understand the mystery and power of God, they will never really understand the truth of Gods ways.

Having said that...I don't see this as an issue that would deny salvation, but it might hinder some from walking in the truth of what God did with our sin?

 

[Mitspa]

Christ was considered a sinner by the ones who crucified Him. God made Him sin in the eyes of Caiaphas and his corroborators. By His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection we are saved.

The same God that made Jesus sin the eyes of the Jews also did this:

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]2 Cor 3:14 [/TD]
[TD]But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


To imply that Christ was a sinner, or that sin was instilled into Him, or anything along these lines is simply absurd. And so the explanation that I have given above is much closer to an understanding of the verse than anything else that I have come across.



[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

To imply that I suggested in any way that Christ was a "sinner" is just dishonest ...but the clear fact is that our sin was imputed to Him.....That's biblical fact

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

To attach the interpretation of "sin offering" is out of the context of the chapters 4 and 5 of 2 Corinthians. Why add things to the Word of God every time we stumble in our understanding?! The main topic of discussion in these two chapters is sacrifice, death and suffering at the hands of those who do not believe. And this is exactly what Christ accomplished by being considered as SIN by the masses of people. So the reading of the verse is indeed correct as Christ was made sin but in the eyes of the unbelievers who persecuted Him and finally crucified Him.

I would not call it adding or stumbling when the Hebrew OT writings use different words for sin and sin offering, and the Greek translations of those OT verses that use sin offering simply use the Greek word for sin, just as 2 Corinthians 5:17 does.

 

[Is]

I wonder if he really did become sin. Was sin infused or imparted to Him?

The Passover Lamb in the Old Testament provides insight on the concept of substitution. For example, the sacrificial lamb had to be “unblemished” (Exod. 12:5; Lev. 4:3, 23, 32). At the time of the sacrifice, a hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal to symbolize a transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33).

Notice that the sacrificial lamb did not thereby actually become sinful by nature; rather, sin was imputed to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Pet. 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute at His crucifixion. I don't think because our sin was imputed to Him means He changed in nature or actually became sinful.

It's like it was laid on His back and suffered instead of us.

To imply that I suggested in any way that Christ was a "sinner" is just dishonest ...but the clear fact is that our sin was imputed to Him.....That's biblical fact

The question has always been, was sin "infused" or "imparted" to Jesus. You're saying our sin was "imputed" to Jesus, yet you're speaking as if it was "infused". Look them up the two are as different as night and day.

I think the example of Isaac carrying the wood on his back for his sacrifice is a perfect example.

 

[Mitspa]

The question has always been, was sin "infused" or "imparted" to Jesus. You're saying our sin was "imputed" to Jesus, yet you're speaking as if it was "infused". Look them up the two are as different as night and day.

I think the example of Isaac carrying the wood on his back for his sacrifice is a perfect example.

You just seem to want to play games with words...if anyone claims they can explain exactly how He took our sin? I would probably think that person was full of hot air...what we can do is use the clear reading of the scriptures and biblical terms that the bible itself defines...not man

 

[phil36]

A spiritual being is an object and would be described as a noun...the devil is a spirit...God is a Spirit..we know they have action and effect ...

you have to deny the clear reading of the passage to believe as you do... I often agree with you...but your just wrong here

Ro 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

This is clearly a spiritual force called "sin" that is in the flesh..clearly its is being used as a noun..not a verb

Very interesting indeed.. Can you explain in a bit more detail what this spirit force is and how it operates in non chrisians aswell as christians ..

 

[Mitspa]

Very interesting indeed.. Can you explain in a bit more detail what this spirit force is and how it operates in non chrisians aswell as christians ..

Not sure how I could say much more than what Paul wrote here? "no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" is a truth that anyone who has tried to obey God, should be able to understand.

 

[phil36]

Not sure how I could say much more than what Paul wrote here? "no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" is a truth that anyone who has tried to obey God, should be able to understand.

Yes I understand what Paul is saying.. I would like for you to clarify what you are saying.

What is this spirit force thats called sin? how does it operater, what is it? how does it affect Christians and non christians alike?

 

[KJV1611]

This was just brought up on another thread but thought it would be interesting to discuss...

"He became sin" who did no sin...would that not suggest that "sin" is a spiritual force?

I don't think it's a spiritual force, I think it's human flesh. God who knew no sin was made sin when he took on human flesh.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I don't think it's a spiritual force, I think it's human flesh. God who knew no sin was made sin when he took on human flesh.

That seems like a rather gnostic idea, i.e. that flesh itself is inherently evil.

 

[KJV1611]

That seems like a rather gnostic idea, i.e. that flesh itself is inherently evil.

The flesh is inherently evil, that's why the flesh can't inherit the kingdom.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The flesh is inherently evil, that's why the flesh can't inherit the kingdom.

But scripture says that Christ was without sin.

 

[KJV1611]

But scripture says that Christ was without sin.

That's right but he faced the same lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life that all of us face but he overcame the temptations because he was God.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That's right but he faced the same lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life that all of us face but he overcame the temptations because he was God.

The longings of the flesh and eyes, and the vainglory of life are simply temptations of the flesh. Evil doesn't happen until we entertain them, and then sin enters. Christ never entertained the temptations to let sin enter his life. Therefore, there was no sin in his flesh.

 

[Kefa54]

bore-endure, refer to supporting the burden of something distressing,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Isaiah 53:12...Therefore I will give Him the many as a portion, and He will receive the mighty as spoil, because He submitted Himself to death, and was counted among the rebels; yet He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels."

Kefa