2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
In church recently, Matt has been emphasizing that Jesus did not just take on our sin, He became sin. What is the distinction? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
In church recently, Matt has been emphasizing that Jesus did not just take on our sin, He became sin. What is the distinction? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
posted by hoose at 10:26 PM
8 Comments:
I don't know. I'm really interested in this question as well.
the greek word for sin means sin or sin offering. That might be helpful. Check out the Message and the NLT for alternative translations. I'm still curious to hear from people who find Matt's point to be crucial theologically.
interesting about the greek. the "sin offering" translation seems to make sense. i am curious to hear as well
it uses the same greek word for sin in both places, so if he meant sin offering it would say he made him to be a sin offering who knew no sin offering... that would be strange, though I'm no greek scholar.
interesting... so do we have any cross references for Jesus actually becoming sin?
Here is my working explanation:
Sin is basically that which is diametrically opposed to God. Basically it is everything that God isn't. So by taking on all that is opposite or opposed to God, Jesus became that which is opposed to God.
does that make sense?
your logic for having to translate that word the same way is flawed. if amartia means both "sin" and "sin offering", then we don't have to necessarily translate it the same way into English, even in the same sentence. we don't have a word that connotes both ideas, so it is possible to render it differently because it represents something that we have two different ways of expressing in English. if this is what is happening, then Paul is almost certainly playing with language here.
I'm not saying that it is definitely so, but I would like a more convincing argument to determine that it definitely isn't.
good point, the language isn't convincing enough. i'll stand by my interpretation though
Piper's book, "The Imputation of Christ's righteousness..." (http://www.campusi.com/bookFind/asp/bookFindPriceLst.asp?prodId=1581344473) has an extended very academic discussion of this. there's no way I can recount the argument exactly from memory, but it is worth checking out.
Post a Comment
<< Home