Transferred Wrath

[DialecticSkeptic]

Gee, now you're sounding like my wife!

I doubt she said it with humor.

 

[Eleanor]

2 Cor. 5:21 (Darby) Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him.

I understand that to mean sin offering in consistency with Ro 8:3, 1 Co 15:3, on whom the sin was laid as its own sin.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Why does it not offend God's justice to punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty?

A.) The willingness and desire to take the punishment deserved by others so that God's sense of Justice is never offended.

As much as we see Jesus as God's son, He's not a child like our children, He is God, wrapped in flesh. Not a man wrapped in God (not as we are wrapped in the Holy Spirit).

God condescended to place Himself in subjection to His own laws in the form of a man, as the second person of the Trinity, and because the evil of man was so great, took the punishment for our sin and died in our stead as the sinless lamb of God in order that we may be reconciled to Him.

It's different than a domineering display of parental abuse; it's an equal saying, let not Your justice go unsatisfied, nor Your Mercy not be displayed - all things to the Glory of God alone.

We would perhaps do the similar for someone we loved, we might love the law and understand that justice must be served, and so confess to a crime we didn't commit in order that someone else go free and have a chance in life.

The only difference is that Jesus didn't have to make a false confession, he just had to offer His Life for the sheep and have that offer accepted within the context of the law.

It's telling the arresting officers the truth about your retarded son, and having them accept your arrest instead of the arrest of the one who really didn't understand what he did wrong so that justice and mercy were both satisfied.

 

[David1701]

I understand that to mean sin offering in consistency with Ro 8:3, 1 Co 15:3, on whom the sin was laid as its own sin.

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

Actually, the sin offering had to be without blemish, a perfect animal.

Sin was laid on the animal, the perfect animal was a sin-bearer.

 

[David1701]

Actually, the sin offering had to be without blemish, a perfect animal.

Yes, I know that. That does not contradict what I posted.

Sin was laid on the animal, the perfect animal was a sin-bearer.

The sin was, symbolically, transferred to the perfect animal; however, such an offering could never take away sins (it only covered them).

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without defect, while the sin was laid on it.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

 

[makesends]

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without sin.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

Aw, c'mon! You trying to make us THINK???

 

[Eleanor]

Aw, c'mon! You trying to make us THINK???

Just bein' true to the OT types which were the precise, non-deviating pattern.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, I know that. That does not contradict what I posted.


The sin was, symbolically, transferred to the perfect animal; however, such an offering could never take away sins (it only covered them).

Yes, the OT sacrificial system was merely a pattern/type for the NT atonement.

 

[David1701]

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without defect, while the sin was laid on it.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

 

[Eleanor]

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

You're right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

 

[David1701]

You'e right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

No problem; I'm glad that's been cleared up!

This is one of the difficulties in communicating by typed posts only, especially when we don't know each other's culture or way of speaking. It's very easy to make assumptions that turn out to be false (I know I've done that occasionally).

 

[David1701]

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

@makesends please let me know what you're unsure about in my post, and I'll try to clarify it.

 

[Carbon]

You're right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

Your right though, that makes a big difference

 

[makesends]

@makesends please let me know what you're unsure about in my post, and I'll try to clarify it.

Lol, no, I'm just wondering whether there's anything there that disagrees with my speculations about the nature of sin, anything that would preclude him "being made sin" as an English fact, and not a Greek figure of speech. I wonder about passages that speak of sin as if it had actual existence or even, by some commentaries, personhood. (eg, "Sin crouches at the door. It desires to have you, but you must master it.")

After all, if something you say precludes my speculations, obviously you must be wrong!