"He made Him...to be sin."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chipper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chipper

Guest
I am having a lot of trouble understanding this statement from Corinthians.

2Cor.5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It seems to me that sin is evil. So how could Jesus be turned into evil?? I don’t think that is possible. So what does this passage mean?

Also:
Genesis 4:7
" If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

This passage above also seems to imply that sin is evil, and also a creature, since a creature would be croutching at your door. Once again, it seems evil to me? How can Jesus become sin?

I suspect there is something very profound going on here, I just can’t see it as yet. Anyone out there have a good understanding of what’s going on?
 
Jesus took on our sins, to receive the punishments for our sins, in order that we could be released from the curses of the Mosaic Covenant, which was death.
 
Genesis 4:7
" If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

This passage above also seems to imply that sin is evil, and also a creature, since a creature would be croutching at your door. Once again, it seems evil to me? How can Jesus become sin?

I suspect there is something very profound going on here, I just can’t see it as yet. Anyone out there have a good understanding of what’s going on?
This scene is alluding to Satan, who is ready for you to push God out of your heart, so that he can come in. Satan cannot reside where God already is.

Sin is the willing rejection of God and His Laws. Sin is not an essence. Its an act. In the above quote, I think God is using a metaphor to illustrate what happens when we reject Him.
 
Jesus took on our sins, to receive the punishments for our sins, in order that we could be released from the curses of the Mosaic Covenant, which was death.
St. Paul doesn’t say he took on our sins, he says Jesus became sin.

At any rate, rather it be taking on our sins or becoming sin, I am still left with the dilemna that he either became evil or he assumed evil. That is if “sin” itself is evil.

So maybe that’s the question, is sin itself evil? Possibly not?
 
This scene is alluding to Satan, who is ready for you to push God out of your heart, so that he can come in. Satan cannot reside where God already is.
.
You seem to be implying that sin is satan.
Sin is the willing rejection of God and His Laws. Sin is not an essence. Its an act. In the above quote, I think God is using a metaphor to illustrate what happens when we reject Him.
If sin is rejection of God, and Jesus became sin, then this would mean that Jesus rejected God.

If it is an act, then it cannot crouch at the door. Act’s don’t crouch. A metaphor should be closer to the substance of the idea then to change meanings altogether.
 
Several different acceptable interpretations of this verse (2 Cor 5:21) are offered in the Haydock commentary, here.
 
St. Paul doesn’t say he took on our sins, he says Jesus became sin.

At any rate, rather it be taking on our sins or becoming sin, I am still left with the dilemna that he either became evil or he assumed evil. That is if “sin” itself is evil.

So maybe that’s the question, is sin itself evil? Possibly not?
No, he took on the curses of sin. St. Paul specifically says, “He who did not know sin…”. Jesus didn’t sin, he took on the punishment of our sins.
 
You seem to be implying that sin is satan.
I’m implying that Satan temps us to sin, but sin is our rejection of God and His Love.
If sin is rejection of God, and Jesus became sin, then this would mean that Jesus rejected God.
No, Jesus took on the punishments that our sin had accrued. Read Deuteronomy, during the Mosaic Covenant, I believe its chapter 28 or 31. You’ll find the punishments that Israel’s sin would accrue. Sickness, exile… all of which Israel had suffered, except death. Jesus died so that Israel wouldn’t have to.
If it is an act, then it cannot crouch at the door. Act’s don’t crouch. A metaphor should be closer to the substance of the idea then to change meanings altogether.
like “I am the vine…?” Sin is an act, not a being.
 
I am having a lot of trouble understanding this statement from Corinthians.

2Cor.5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It seems to me that sin is evil. So how could Jesus be turned into evil?? I don’t think that is possible. So what does this passage mean?

Also:
Genesis 4:7
" If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

This passage above also seems to imply that sin is evil, and also a creature, since a creature would be croutching at your door. Once again, it seems evil to me? How can Jesus become sin?

I suspect there is something very profound going on here, I just can’t see it as yet. Anyone out there have a good understanding of what’s going on?

Here is something that was posted in a blog online:​

I’m a big fan of the exegetical principle: Interpret ‘difficult’ texts in light of more ‘clear’ texts.

Given that, I consider 2 Cor 5:21 to be one of the most abused passages due to it’s overemphasis and over use by Protestants. It’s amazing how often this verse comes up, it’s literally one of the top 3 passages that comes up in a justification discussion with a Protestant.

The problem is that a lot is read INTO the text by Protestants, and this has gone on for so long that people have been trained to see what is not actually there. For example, the term “double imputation” is almost always attached here, but the fact is the term “impute” doesn’t appear here, nor does the Bible ever use “impute” in regards to our guilt going to Christ. Paul was well aware of the term “impute,” but he did not divide up salvation into categories of imputation.

Protestants take it for granted that “made sin” means “imputed with our guilt and took the punishment.” But really that is taking liberties with the text.

There are 3 general possibilities I see for interpreting 2 Cor 5:21, though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
  1. In Hebrew the word for “sin” and “sin offering” was often the same word. Early Church Fathers (eg Augustine) made this argument that 5:21 is “sin offering.” In the KJV, the same Hebrew word is translated as “sin” about 100 times and “sin offering” about 100 times. One place I often point to is that there are examples in the OT where the Hebrew word can mean “sin” and “sin offering” in the same sentence, Lev 4:28f is an example of this. This would fit “knew no sin was made sin,” where the first “sin” is actual sins while the second “sin” is sacrifice.
  2. Romans 8:3 says Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” which puts the “made sin” more on the concept of Incarnation itself than any sort of imputed guilt and from there was a sacrifice for sin.
  3. I see a clear parallel of 5:21 with 2 Cor 8:9=
    “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”
This to me is a clear parallel, and clearly the “made rich” and “made poor” are not literal (any more than “made sin” is literal). I read this as Christ “humbled himself” (cf Phil 2:5) and lived a life of obedience (His Sacrifice) so that we could in turn be exalted. Clearly the “rich” and “poor” for Jesus is not identical to our own “rich” and “poor.”

People often read 2 Cor 5:21 as a parallel of 21a to 21b, saying just as Jesus was made sin (by imputation) so must we be “made righteous” (by imputation), but that’s not strictly necessary. The term impute nowhere appears here, and I regularly call people out on that. It simply means 21a caused 21b to happen, not demanding a 1 to 1 parallel. The term “made the righteousness of God IN HIM” to me corresponds to v17 where it says “anyone IN CHRIST is a New Creation,” which has nothing imputational about it.
 

Here is something that was posted in a blog online:​

  1. In Hebrew the word for “sin” and “sin offering” was often the same word. Early Church Fathers (eg Augustine) made this argument that 5:21 is “sin offering.” .
Thanks a million. This is the best explanation I have seen so far. Sin and Sin offering being interchangeable in some instances. This would render Corinthians as saying “he bacame sacrifice”, which makes total sense.

Although I will have to study this matter more, to be sure, you have given me a fantastic explanation.

👍👍👍
 
Compare this verse with Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin . . .”

It seems to me that when St. Paul says “He made Him to be sin” it means “He made Him to be a sin offering.”
 
2 Corinthians 5:21 is very profound – probably as deep as theology gets without being “ineffable,” beyond human grasp. So, it is comprehensible.

2 Corinthians 5:21 encapsulates the concept of “the Economy of Salvation.” Why did Christ suffer and die? In what sense was that suffering and death “for us”?

God is “extremely” everything that God is. That is “Concept #1.” So, God is “extremely loving.” He is “extremely sovereign.” He is “extremely just.”

“Extremely loving” God, overflowing with love, desired to create creatures with whom God could have a love relationship, in which He gives love and is loved in return.

But God, being “extremely sovereign,” will not and can not create equals. Therefore, what we, the creatures created for the love relationship, are is less than what God is in all respects. We resemble God – we were made “in His image and likeness,” but we are less.

Though we are less, a love relationship with God is impossible unless we have an intellect and a free will. But this intellect and free will co-exists alongside contingency – dependence on God – which we apprehend with our free will.

This awareness of our contingency suffuses every thought. So, we feel thoroughly insecure, and we seek security. This results in concupisence – an inclination to curing the lack of security by our own means, and therefore an inclination to selfish self-aggrandizement – sin.

That means that we are “sin machines” more than we are lovers of God. We are despicable.

So, a love relationship with God is impossible without one more ingredient: Grace, a participation in the strength of God.

But, grace is a “stairway to Heaven,” to “shaking hands with God.” Here, God’s extreme justice “kicks in.” God’s extreme justice, in response to the need for grace, says, in a sense, “NO!!! NO WAY, JOSE`!!! NO ONE GETS ‘SOMETHING FOR NOTHING’!!! NO FREEBIES!!! THERE ARE NO ‘PENNIES FROM HEAVEN’!!! SOMEONE HAS GOT TO PAY FOR THIS GRACE, BY SUFFERING THE SUFFERING AND DEATH WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE SIN CURED BY THE GRACE!!!”

Right there, what I just said, is “the great problem” addressed by the “Economy of Salvation.”

God’s internal response to this problem posed by God’s Own “extreme justice” – by “God’s Own God-ness,” if you will – was this: In response to the challenge of God’s extreme justice to the effect that “someone had to pay for grace,” God the loving Son of God the loving Father raises His hand and says, "I WILL!!! I’LL PAY THE PRICE FOR GRACE EXACTED BY OUR OWN EXTREME JUSTICE!!!:

And God the loving Father responds, “I LOVINGLY ACCEPT YOUR OFFER, AND SO I LOVINGLY OFFER YOU TO SUFFER THE NECESSARY SUFFERING AND DEATH, SO THAT YOU WILL END UP BEING TREATED AS THOUGH YOU WERE SIN, ITSELF!!!”

In the sense that Jesus ended-up being treated as though He were sin, itself, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Okay?
 
The Genesis 4:7 statement is important, but it is not as profound as 2 Corinthians 5:21.

In Genesis 4:7, the Hebrew terminology in question, as a transliteration into our English language alphabet, rendered left-to-right, reads, “…uam la thitib lphthch chtath rbtz…” which, rendered in literal English with implicit thoughts, reads, “…and if not you do good, at door sin [is a] croucher…”

A “Croucher” was a particular kind of demon in Hebrew demonology. You can see glorified versions of the “Croucher” guarding doors throughout Middle Eastern archaeology. They have their equivalent in modern day demonology. Did you ever live in a house where you walk into a room with two doorways, and just as you walk in one door you see some kind of short “thing” bolting out the other door, out of the corner of your eye? Well, that’s not an illusion. Your home had a “rabitzu,” or “Croucher.” They tend to hang around doors.

Why?

Probably because earthly expressions of demonological phenomenon are very ironic in their structure vis-a-vis God – they make fun of God by mimicking God. The door is a symbol, or type, of Christ in the Bible. So, a “Croucher” is a demon, competing for your soul, mimicking Christ the Door by hanging around doors.
 
snip…People often read 2 Cor 5:21 as a parallel of 21a to 21b, saying just as Jesus was made sin (by imputation) so must we be “made righteous” (by imputation), but that’s not strictly necessary. The term impute nowhere appears here, and I regularly call people out on that. It simply means 21a caused 21b to happen, not demanding a 1 to 1 parallel. The term “made the righteousness of God IN HIM” to me corresponds to v17 where it says “anyone IN CHRIST is a New Creation,” which has nothing imputational about it.
Just curious… Is this where many Protestants get the idea that, because (in thier interpretation) Jesus became sin, that God the Father had to turn his back on him at the moment of death?
 
I am having a lot of trouble understanding this statement from Corinthians.

2Cor.5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It seems to me that sin is evil. So how could Jesus be turned into evil?? I don’t think that is possible. So what does this passage mean?

As the Bible clearly states all sin is wrong, [clearly an “evil”] and some sin can wound our relationship with God **“Mortally”, **which is to say **“fatally.” **1 John 5: ***16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. ***
I suspect there is something very profound going on here, I just can’t see it as yet. Anyone out there have a good understanding of what’s going on?
 
Just curious… Is this where many Protestants get the idea that, because (in thier interpretation) Jesus became sin, that God the Father had to turn his back on him at the moment of death?
Yes, this verse and others is what Protestants use to “conclude” that Jesus underwent the equivalent of damnation by His Father: See this blog link I found for more.
 
As a protestant myself I would like to answer here too.

The notion of imputation is not concocted out of air. It comes from the OT. The priest would lay his hand on the sacrifice being given by the person for a sin offering and ‘impute’ the sins of the man, family to the animal. Had the animal sinned? No of course not, in fact being an animal it could not sin. It was impossible for an animal to sin. But, God accepted the faith of the one giving the offering for actual righteousness, and laid the actual sins of that one on the animal and thereby the sins themselves were slain on the alter before the Lord.

And the notion of God accepting faith in lieu of actual righteousness is found in Abraham, “(he) believed God and it (his belief in God’s promise) was counted to him for righteousness”. The economy of salvation has never changed. And even if you interpret this verse by Paul (Romans) or James it is still the same because Abraham displayed his faith in believing God would give him a son and in believing that God would not take that son away in the sacrifice. Either way it is still faith.

So Christ on the cross, when darkness descends (and remember the presence of the Lord is repeatedly shown by darkness throughout Scripture), God lays his hand on the Son imputes to Him who had no sin, who in fact could not sin, the guilt of our sins so that He will pay fully for them.

This does not mean that Christ sinned or became evil, it means that He carried the guilt of sin as the sacrificial lamb had done in the OT even though the lamb had not sinned or become evil either.

As far as God forsaking Christ, I really do not understand that fully and therefore I accept it by faith that God did, somehow, forsake the Son but did no violence to His own nature (omnipresence), so perhaps it is that God removed His love from the Son and exposed Him to the full measure of His wrath. It is, I think, and explanation with a lot of problems so on this one I try to remember that God’s thoughts are higher than mine and when I do not understand I say “Amen”.

God Bless,

Ray.
 
As a protestant myself I would like to answer here too.

snip…
As far as God forsaking Christ, I really do not understand that fully and therefore I accept it by faith that God did, somehow, forsake the Son but did no violence to His own nature (omnipresence), so perhaps it is that God removed His love from the Son and exposed Him to the full measure of His wrath. It is, I think, and explanation with a lot of problems so on this one I try to remember that God’s thoughts are higher than mine and when I do not understand I say “Amen”.

God Bless,

Ray.
God the Father could never stop loving his Son. I think it is clear that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 as an indication of its fulfillment via his crucifiction.
 
The first word: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing” Lk: 23: 24

And just who did Jesus means by “them”? Caiphas, the high priest and his kangaroo court of unjust-judges, Pilate, the politically astute, gutless wonder, the disappointed, deprived of magic, Herod, the Roman executioners? Or, how about the Apostles, especially Peter, who deserted Him, the mob who profaned, hit, spit at and mocked him, or you and me?

A God does not die, does not suffer and die, for a limited, carefully selected few. No, all, each and every human person, man, woman and child, would have to be included in the possibility of salvation, and even then, the price paid seems too high. Christ was too kind, too gentle; we knew what we were doing. “Father forgive them,” was a shared directive, not a request. God’s heart must love and God’s heart must forgive;

The second word: “Jesus, remember me when you come to your throne” Lk: 23: 42

Some folks “are born lucky,” the really fortunate ones, die lucky. A dying man without hope asked a dying man who had no need of hope for the gift of eternal life and it was granted. Bishop Sheen commented that, “like a thief, he stole Paradise.” Many of us know of someone, who repented, converted, and was saved in the final hours of life. Many more of us know of many more that were not.

The request, “remember me when you return to Paradise” acknowledges Kingship, begs forgiveness, and is a plea to be loved. Love speaks to the thief, as He will speak to us, if we too ask Love with repentant hearts to take us with Him to Paradise. “And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’” Lk: 23: 43

The third word: “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’” Jn: 19-26-27

Jesus gave us two mothers, His Mother Mary and His bride, His Church. We are to learn from, listen to and obey both. Moments before he granted the request of a repentant sinner, and now He specifically, almost by name, includes you and me in His forgiveness, while still hanging from what appears to be His Cross, but what really is His Royal Throne. A King without a single earthly possession gives what He has, a mother’s love and a mother’s care and concern for the well - being of her children.“Take the love of My mother for yourself.”

***The fourth word: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Mt: .27: 46 ***

The despair was total, abject and complete in every way; in a word, “perfect.” Was Christ in despair for Himself? He was fully, completely human being, but a divine person, retaining only His divine will and intellect that would not interfere with the perfection of this sacrifice.

Christ, for an instant, felt separated from all love, divine and human. But then, as now, our minds and our bodies seem to play tricks on us.Jesus was never without the love of God. The pain was the realization that He did not have our love. You and I didn’t love Him enough to accept His total complete gift of love.

With God, time does not exist, and then is now, future is present, and everything is known. But it is not too late; only death separates us from the possibility of forgiveness and perfect Love. More amazing is that God neither needs or benefits from our love; we cannot exist without His! “abandon Me” No! “Forsake Me” YES! Why? Father must I endure this, is the question.BUT not my will, but thy will be done!

The fifth word: “I Thirst” Jn: 19: 28

Was this a strange request? Jesus had neither food or drink from the time of the Passover Supper where he fore went the final cup of the Seder Traditional Meal. No doubt, He was, and had been, for what must have seemed like eternity, dying of thirst. One can thirst for many things; a drink of liquid, to squelch a parched throat, one can thirst for knowledge, for adventure, for love, and even for death itself. It is clear that what Jesus sought was more than a simple; much needed and desired taste of wine.

Christ is Savior, and was always aware of His role of Redeemer. King David in the Old Testament had foretold of the passion and thirst of the Savior, and every word of the prophecy was to be completed. Physical thirst was part of what the Christ desired, but as it dealt, albeit in a small way with His personal comfort, it was more necessary and important for the fulfillment of Holy Scripture, than satisfying His personal thirst. We gave our Creator and Savior, vinegar and gall, how could we be so generous? What Jesus was saying with a necessary economy of words, is that, even this close to death, He desired to do more for us, desired to love us more.

The sixth word: “It is finished” Jn: 19: 30

Jesus knew He had accomplished the mission. Jesus, literally gave all, gave everything, held nothing in reserve; made the most complete, the most perfect sacrifice possible, even for the God-man. A lesson taught with the personal example of extreme suffering, would now have to serve as sufficient incentive to countless souls desiring to get to heaven. The price of admission was both paid and set. Now the question is, will it be sufficient for you and for me? Are we willing to pay the price? “Take up thy cross and follow me.” Love beckons,

The seventh word: “Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last.” Lk: 23: 46

And not in a shy way, but nearly a shout of joy! Like kings before Him, Jesus was saying: “ I came, I saw and I conquered.” The difference was not in its truth, but in the promised permanence of its reality. “ I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Mt: 16: 18
 
As a protestant myself I would like to answer here too.

The notion of imputation is not concocted out of air. It comes from the OT.
The Protestant understanding actually was pulled out of thin air by Luther. The concept of imputation is taught in Scripture, but not in the way that Protestantism needs it to (Paul was well aware of the term and never used it as Sola Fide requires).
The priest would lay his hand on the sacrifice being given by the person for a sin offering and ‘impute’ the sins of the man, family to the animal. Had the animal sinned? No of course not, in fact being an animal it could not sin. It was impossible for an animal to sin. But, God accepted the faith of the one giving the offering for actual righteousness, and laid the actual sins of that one on the animal and thereby the sins themselves were slain on the alter before the Lord.
This is a popular but erroneous understanding. Sins were not imputed to the OT sacrifices, nor was God’s wrath dumped on the animal instead, that’s actually read into the passage by Protestants. Two points to consider: Sacrifices not dealing with sin had hands laid on the head of the animal, which is illogical if it signifies sin being imputed. Second, the sin offering allowed you to offer a bag of flour if you could not afford an animal, this likewise would be impossible if God was looking to punish something in place of the sinner.
See this debate (especially the essays marked * ) for more info:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
And the notion of God accepting faith in lieu of actual righteousness is found in Abraham, “(he) believed God and it (his belief in God’s promise) was counted to him for righteousness”. The economy of salvation has never changed. And even if you interpret this verse by Paul (Romans) or James it is still the same because Abraham displayed his faith in believing God would give him a son and in believing that God would not take that son away in the sacrifice. Either way it is still faith.
Faith was not accepted in lieu of actual righteousness, rather “faith reckoned as righteousness” means faith was a righteous act and acknowledged as such by God. The term for “credit/impute/reckon” is logizomai in Greek and it hardly ever means “count in lieu of actual status.”
Look at 3 examples of where the same Greek word as “faith credited as righteousness” appears:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Notice in these examples that “logizomai” means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul ‘reckons’ faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 6:11 the Christian is ‘reckoned’ dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul ‘reckons’ the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.

To use logizomai in the “alien status” way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn’t really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (3) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven’s glory.
This cannot be right.
So Christ on the cross, when darkness descends (and remember the presence of the Lord is repeatedly shown by darkness throughout Scripture), God lays his hand on the Son imputes to Him who had no sin, who in fact could not sin, the guilt of our sins so that He will pay fully for them.
This is a very popular understanding, but is in fact very foreign to Scripture. God the Father never imputed guilt to His Son nor did He dump His wrath on Jesus.
This does not mean that Christ sinned or became evil, it means that He carried the guilt of sin as the sacrificial lamb had done in the OT even though the lamb had not sinned or become evil either.
I totally understand what you’re saying, the fact is these claims are simply not found in Scripture, they are read into Scripture as part of Sola Fide.
As far as God forsaking Christ, I really do not understand that fully and therefore I accept it by faith that God did, somehow, forsake the Son but did no violence to His own nature (omnipresence), so perhaps it is that God removed His love from the Son and exposed Him to the full measure of His wrath. It is, I think, and explanation with a lot of problems so on this one I try to remember that God’s thoughts are higher than mine and when I do not understand I say “Amen”.
This concept is not found in Scripture and blasphemous. I’ve studied this issue more than most have, so I’m not just making stuff up here. In fact, Protestantism (Sola Fide) teaches God the Father virtually damned His Son Jesus to Hell while on the Cross (in our place). :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top