He became sin...???

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well I am very able in the Greek..in fact have started a book on basic biblical Greek (which one day I plan to finish) my point being I have spent many years in study of the Greek...That's why I can say with a certain confidence "that the passage reads as it clearly reads" to add a word to scripture where it is clearly not intended is something others might do...but I will not

How about Hebrew? Apparently the word sin in Hebrew is complex in meaning. Perhaps (and most likely) Greek doesn't have a word that matches the lexical nuances in Hebrew. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament devotes almost 50 pages of very technical analysis to just this one word.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well I am very able in the Greek..in fact have started a book on basic biblical Greek (which one day I plan to finish) my point being I have spent many years in study of the Greek...That's why I can say with a certain confidence "that the passage reads as it clearly reads" to add a word to scripture where it is clearly not intended is something others might do...but I will not

What is your analysis then of why the translators of the Septuagint translated sin-offering in the OT as harmatia?

 

[Mitspa]

How about Hebrew? Apparently the word sin in Hebrew is complex in meaning. Perhaps (and most likely) Greek doesn't have a word that matches the lexical nuances in Hebrew. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament devotes almost 50 pages of very technical analysis to just this one word.

Ok I can agree with that..but what we have here in this passage reads very clearly and no reason to change it, because some struggle to understand the mystery of the Cross. It clearly reads "he became sin" and then took effort to qualify that statement with a short explanation ...if you can find in any of Pauls epistles or in the New Testament for that matter, where "sin" is translated as "sin offering" you would add to your point? If not I think you should yield to the evident reading of the passage.

 

[Mitspa]

What is your analysis then of why the translators of the Septuagint translated sin-offering in the OT as harmatia?

I think ,as was the Jewish practice' that they tried to make a word for word translation... In Hebrew it could have been perfectly normal to translate "sin" unto sin offering ...especially when speaking about offerings that related to the temple? What I know is this is not something done in the New Testament Greek and there is no reason to make this translation in this passage and in fact very evident reasons to translate it as it is written.

 

[phil36]

I think some when reading scripture ignore the forest while inspecting the tree's...

what was the sin offering.... what reality did it point to?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Ok I can agree with that..but what we have here in this passage reads very clearly and no reason to change it, because some struggle to understand the mystery of the Cross. It clearly reads "he became sin" and then took effort to qualify that statement with a short explanation ...if you can find in any of Pauls epistles or in the New Testament for that matter, where "sin" is translated as "sin offering" you would add to your point? If not I think you should yield to the evident reading of the passage.

But why would Paul have deviated from the way sin-offering is translated in the LXX?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I think some when reading scripture ignore the forest while inspecting the tree's...

what was the sin offering.... what reality did it point to?

The guilt of our sins laid on Christ.

 

[Mitspa]

But why would Paul have deviated from the way sin-offering is translated in the LXX?

Well how many times did Paul use the term sin to mean "sin" sometimes a verb and sometimes a noun...but always "sin"..so I don't know the way Paul used the LXX ...im sure it had some influence upon him..and you assume the one you are referring to is the same as the copy he would have used? Who knows? But what we do know is that what He did write and the clear reading of the passage and clear context ....

 

[Mitspa]

The guilt of our sins laid on Christ.

Is that guilt real ? in Gods realm? or just symbolic ? Its real spiritual guilt

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well how many times did Paul use the term sin to mean "sin" sometimes a verb and sometimes a noun...but always "sin"..so I don't know the way Paul used the LXX ...im sure it had some influence upon him..and you assume the one you are referring to is the same as the copy he would have used? Who knows? But what we do know is that what He did write and the clear reading of the passage and clear context ....

IMO sin can only be a noun when it is referring to a sin-offering (as in the LXX), or a spiritual being (ie satan). Obviously, sin is not an object or substance. Any perceived spiritual force called sin in ourselves is simply our old Adamic nature made in satan's image.

 

[notuptome]

Sin is real to God. Death is real to man.

Christ made a vicarious atonement for our sin. Just as the lamb was slain and his blood made a covering for our sin so Christ is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

God imputed our sin to Christ and then imputed Christ's righteousness to us.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[BradC]

But why would Paul have deviated from the way sin-offering is translated in the LXX?

The wages of sin is death and in order for Christ to die, all sin (including the sin of Adam) had to be laid upon him (becoming a body of sin). When that happened Christ felt the rejection of the Father (my God why has thou forsaken me). Christ became not only the sin bearer but his body literally became sin so that sin could be crucified and buried that He might be raised from the dead without sin, so that we could be justified by faith.

 

[shotgunner]

Sin is real to God. Death is real to man.

Christ made a vicarious atonement for our sin. Just as the lamb was slain and his blood made a covering for our sin so Christ is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

God imputed our sin to Christ and then imputed Christ's righteousness to us.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I would only differ in that Christ's blood is not for a covering of sin(atonement) as is the blood of animals for in those offerings there is a continual remembrance of sin.

The Blood of Christ is redemption blood which completely removes sin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Is that guilt real ? in Gods realm? or just symbolic ? Its real spiritual guilt

Its real in my realm, Gods realm. The angels realm. In any realm.

we know it is real in our realm, because they earth is dieing as it has since the first sin was commited..

SIn not only caused our spiritual and physical death, but the death of creation

 

[Mitspa]

IMO sin can only be a noun when it is referring to a sin-offering (as in the LXX), or a spiritual being (ie satan). Obviously, sin is not an object or substance. Any perceived spiritual force called sin in ourselves is simply our old Adamic nature made in satan's image.

I have already proven to you that its clearly used as a noun by Paul in his epistles... There is no debate about it...its evident

And you can try to get around what the bible describes as "sin" being a noun...by trying to play games with terms ...but its very clear ..Its sin..and its a spiritual force

 

[Mitspa]

Sin is real to God. Death is real to man.

Christ made a vicarious atonement for our sin. Just as the lamb was slain and his blood made a covering for our sin so Christ is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

God imputed our sin to Christ and then imputed Christ's righteousness to us.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Sin is real to man as well..if he knows and walks in the truth?

Ro 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

[dcontroversal]

Did it not say that he came in the form of sinful flesh....

 

[shotgunner]

Did it not say that he came in the form of sinful flesh....

Yes, but I've always taken that to mean that he looked like us, in the form, shape image of sinful flesh.

I wouldn't say that Jesus had flesh that was full of sin.(sinful flesh) Jesus had to be without sin right up until he was made sin, or if we say sin was placed upon him. The sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blimish.

Just think about it this way. Jesus suffered physically just as he suffered spiritually. He paid the full price both physical and spiritual. In order to pay that price for us, he had to not owe it for himself. In other words, if his flesh was sinful then it would have paid it's own price for sin and couldn't pay the price of ours.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, but I've always taken that to mean that he looked like us, in the form, shape image of sinful flesh.

I wouldn't say that Jesus had flesh that was full of sin.(sinful flesh) Jesus had to be without sin right up until he was made sin, or if we say sin was placed upon him. The sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blimish.

Just think about it this way. Jesus suffered physically just as he suffered spiritually. He paid the full price both physical and spiritual. In order to pay that price for us, he had to not owe it for himself. In other words, if his flesh was sinful then it would have paid it's own price for sin and couldn't pay the price of ours.

I don't think sinful flesh means that the flesh is full of sin, I believe it's called sinful flesh because that's what the flesh wants to do and that's what it will do unless Jesus is the one who inhabits that flesh.

 

[KJV1611]

No ..it does not mean He was made of sinful flesh! "likeness" means that it was a body like that of sinful flesh. (they was no sin in Him, He took our sin) That was the serpent that was judged ...Our sin...

I would assume that you agree that serpent lifted up on the pole was a foreshadow of the crucifixion of Jesus. If so then what does the foreshadow teach? The people looked upon the serpent and lived. We look upon Jesus and live eternally. The serpent is some how a picture of Christ and not sin. We don't look upon our sin and live.

My opinion is that the serpent represents the sinful (not full of sin but the sin nature) human flesh of Jesus.