Was There More to Christ's Sufferings?

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, you're right, the words "to be" are not in the original. But the word "make" sure is . . . If you read the verse and take out "to be" it still says Jesus was made sin. See for yourself

literal Greek

When you click the link, you can see the verse broken down, and click the Strong's numbers to see the definitions of the words, or groups of words

Nowhere in the literal Greek, does it have the word "treated" in any of the definitions . . . Again . . .the link above shows the literal break down of the verse in Greek . . . Anyone is welcome to look at it so they see I'm not making anything up.

Careful when someone comes along and claims the original language says something that the Bible doesn't . . . . Many times they're hoping you will take their word for it . . . But it's as simple as researching it yourself to see if what they say is true or not . . .

I never said the "original Greek says." My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at. The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him. If Jesus became sinful, then He could have been a sin sacrifice, as it had to blameless. It was for our transgressions that He died. You need to read your Bible a little better. Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer. Your approach makes Christ a sinner is blasphemous in the highest regard.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

(Colossians 2:13-14)

It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross.

It is heretical ideas like yours that are the product of a sloppy and unskilled handling of God's Word. You obviously don't much about the Greek or you would not come to the false conclusions that you have. You are not teaching biblical Christianity. Rather it is a false teaching that should be rejected by every Christian reading this thread.

[Rukkus]

Rukkus...you are devising a WHOLE DOCTRINE that Jesus was SPIRITUALLY DEAD because of TWO SINGLE VERSES. That is very dangerous.

A whole doctrine? All I'm doing is believing that Jesus was forsaken by God because the Bible says so. If you want to call that a WHOLE DOCTRINE . . . That's fine . . . It's kinda weird . . . But it's fine.

The first verse you use is the one that says Jesus was forsaken by the Father. He was...but NOT SPIRITUALLY.

Well, I appreciate your input, but I'm going to stay with what the Bible says.

He was forsaken UNTO DEATH ON THE CROSS for our sins. Even Jesus said that His disciples would forsake Him but that the Father would not.

No He didn't. He said the disciples would leave Him and that He would not be alone because His Father was with Him. But on the cross, God forsook Him, just like it says.

You are reading your own interpretation onto that text I have shown you.

What part of the text am I reading my own interpretation? . . . I want to remind you, I came to this discussion board to get something done . . . That was to see if someone could biblically challenge what I've said. Now, if you're going to make a claim, you need to be specific so I know what you're talking about.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and He cannot change. A spiritual separation from the Father would make that void.

Hmmm. I agree that God cannot change, but at the same time we must take the whole counsel of God's Word, and God said that He forsook Jesus. Your point about Jesus not changing would still be a contradiction to your belief that God forsook Jesus bodily. Because someone could say "Jesus and God were always in the same body, and they cannot change, therefore, God could not have forsaken Jesus bodily." See what I mean? You could make the arguement about God never changing for a whole host of biblical doctrines. The very fact that Jesus became flesh could be said to be a contradiction to the fact that God never changes. Someone could say, "Jesus couldn't have been God, because God never changes, and God didn't have a physical body before, so if He's not going to change, then he won't take on flesh." And the list goes on and on . . . So if you're going to attempt to prove me wrong, you'll have to give me a different angle than the "God never changes" concept. That one could be used on dozens of scriptures. And it will leave you with a theological headache.

Jesus is God and cannot die. God is Spirit. Jesus is ETERNAL and separation from the Father would make this void.

Well . . . I almost agree with you. But at the Resurrection, things changed. And I'll talk more about that later.

Jesus was the SPOTLESS LAMB and if He was sin in SPIRIT He would not have been SPOTLESS. The list goes on and on.

Well God made Him sin so that we could be made the righteousness of God. Jesus was spotless, but again, we have to take the whole counsel of God's Word, that even though Jesus was spotless, on the cross was when He was made sin. Why? Why did Jesus have to be made sin? So that we could be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is what the Bible says.

The second verse you use is the one that says Jesus became sin. He did...in HIS BODY...by becoming a human being in the flesh. He bore our sins in His own BODY on the tree. Jesus became sin alright...no question about it...in BODY...but certainly NOT IN SPIRIT.

Period.

I'm going to be honest with you . . . Some of the things you say don't line up when you look at them under closer scrutiny . . . Let me show you one example . . .

You have gone to great lengths to show that it was Jesus flesh that was made the sacrifice for our sin. And the sacrifice was spotless and perfect. And that it was His body that died only, right? . . . . Yet right here in your above post you say that Jesus' body had always been sin from the moment he became human. Therefore, according to you, Jesus had a body of sin, and this body is what was supposed to be a perfect sacrifice for us? How's that supposed to work?

Here's another example of something you said that is confusing . . .

When I said that Jesus became a sinner because the Bible says His body was filled with our sins and the definition of a sinner is someone who has sin, you came back and said, "No, that verse says it was His body that became filled with our sins" And you're right, the Bible does say more specifically that it was Jesus' body (1Pt 2:24) And you tried to correct me for saying that part of Jesus is His body so that if His body was filled with sin, you could say He was. Remember that? If not I can cut and paste it. So I was following you so far . . . Then all of a sudden you come out with what you're saying now . . . That even though the Bible says Jesus was forsaken, it was actually HIs body. So you're doing the very same thing you said was wrong . . . You took the verse that said Jesus had been forsaken, and you evidently think it's alright now to believe that when the Bible talks about Jesus, it's actually talking about His body. Then when I tried saying Jesus was filled with sin, you said "No, it says it was His body." See what I'm saying? In other words, one moment you said it was wrong to say that Jesus is flesh. Now, you're taking a verse that says Jesus was forsaken, and saying it was talking about his flesh. What's going on here?

[Rukkus]

I never said the "original Greek says."

Well let's look at what you said . . .

[COLOR=purple]The phrase "made to be sin" is hamartian epoiēsen in Greek and the words "to be" do not appear in the original text. The way it should more properly be understood from the Greek text is, "He was treated as sin, who knew no sin." To claim that Christ actually became sin is not supported by any properly exegeted biblical passage, but relies a tragic mishandling of the word of God.

This sure sounds like you're trying to make a claim about the original Greek if you ask me . . . But if I was wrong for assuming that, I accept it, and apologize.

My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at.

It indicates what? What do you mean when you say "word usage"?

The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him.

Well . . . I don't know if you read my original post or not . . . But I was looking for someone to show me I was wrong from the Bible only. As far as how you feel the passage should be read or understood is between you and the Lord. I believe Jesus was made sin because this is what it says. And I want to stay with what the Bible says . . .

If Jesus became sinful, then He could have been a sin sacrifice, as it had to blameless.

Well, as I told halifax, Jesus was sinless . . . The Bible says He knew no sin. But at the same time, at some point God actually made Jesus sin. This is what the Bible says. Now, he didn't stay sin, in fact the Bible says when Jesus appears the second time, it will be without sin (Heb 9:28) So I'm going to stay with the whole counsel of God's Word.

It was for our transgressions that He died. You need to read your Bible a little better.

A nice stab at my character

Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer.

Hmmm. Interesting . . . But 2Cor 5:21 doesn't have the word "sacrifice" in it, so how will looking up that word clarify anything in this verse? Unless you're saying that I should assume it's talking about sacrifice in that verse.

[COLOR=blue]Your approach makes Christ a sinner is blasphemous in the highest regard.[/COLOR]

. . . Well . . . You can call it what you want. It means nothing to me until you can prove it biblically.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

(Colossians 2:13-14)

It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross.

Hmmm . . . Interesting comment. But it still says He was made sin.

It is heretical ideas like yours that are the product of a sloppy and unskilled handling of God's Word. You obviously don't much about the Greek or you would not come to the false conclusions that you have. You are not teaching biblical Christianity. Rather it is a false teaching that should be rejected by every Christian reading this thread.

Well . . . All you have to do now is prove what you just said from a biblical stand point and I might believe it . . .

Look guys . . . You're wasting your time if you want to attack me personally. I'm just the messenger that happens to believe the message. I'm unmoved by any remarks. Let's stay on task here . . . I know, it's tempting to tear people down that don't believe the way you do . . . But that's not what this discussion is for.

[larryt]

Hi Rukkus,

Just read you thread and I have some comments.

And it doesn

[Guest shiloh357]

My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at.

It indicates what? What do you mean when you say "word usage"?

The line of thought, the context tells us how a word is being used. For example, how do you know if you only go by EXACTLY what you read that when Jesus said, "if your right hand offends you cut it off?" If some used YOUR way of interpreting Scripture and only went by the literal meaning of the Greek text, there would be no room for understanding what he truly meant. You are making the same grievous error in your treatment of this issue.

You cannot ignore context. When Paul said that Jesus was made sin, he was thinking and writing like a Jew who was familiar with the sin offerings. It was Jesus as a sin offering that Paul had in mind. He was claiming that Jesus became sinful. That Jesus was a sin offering, is upheld by the entire book of Hebrews, especially chapter 10. A sin offering cannot be sinful. It cannot be like the ones upon whose behalf it is being offered. The only way it is can a sin offering is to be blameless, without blemish itself. If Jesus were literally made "sin" on the cross, and not simply a sin offering then there would have been no way to save us.

The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him.

Well . . . I don't know if you read my original post or not . . . But I was looking for someone to show me I was wrong from the Bible only. As far as how you feel the passage should be read or understood is between you and the Lord. I believe Jesus was made sin because this is what it says. And I want to stay with what the Bible says . . .

The problem is that you don' even know what the verses you are quoting actually say. You don't know how to exegete Scripture, and you are ignoring other parts of the Bible that add further illumination to the issue. You want to only focus on a few pet verses, and and you lack the skill to handle those properly. You are attempting a face value interpretative approach which is one of the most unreliable methods of biblical interpretation. If you really believe that your method is correct, then the next time you look at a woman innappropriately, you should cut your eye out of it's socket.

Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer.

Hmmm. Interesting . . . But 2Cor 5:21 doesn't have the word "sacrifice" in it, so how will looking up that word clarify anything in this verse? Unless you're saying that I should assume it's talking about sacrifice in that verse.

Well there are plenty of commentator and scholars who are advanced in Greek who seem to get the point that it was a sin offering that Paul was alluding to. You have some kind of agenda, and you prefer to ignore scholarship and prefer to force your preconceived notions on to the Scriptures, instead actually learning what words mean.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

(Colossians 2:13-14)

It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross.

Hmmm . . . Interesting comment. But it still says He was made sin.

Yes, it still says that, and Colossians 2:14 demonstrates in what sense he was made sin. It demonstrates that your understanding of what was meant in 2 Cor. 5:21 is faulty since it demonstrates that Jesus did not become sinful, but rather served as the sin bearer for mankind. This is further demonstrated in Hebrews 10.

[Yahsway]

If Yeshua was actually "made sin" instead of bearing "our sins" then He would not have been a holy, rightous offerring before God. It would have been a stench in Gods nostrils so to speak.

But Yeshua was a sweet savor before Yahweh God. He who knew no sin (was sinless) died for us who are sinners. You cannot make something or someone "sinful, full of sin" and offer it before the Lord. It would be rejected by Him. Is.53 says it all. Shalom

[halifaxchristian]

Well, you're right, the words "to be" are not in the original. But the word "make" sure is . . . If you read the verse and take out "to be" it still says Jesus was made sin. See for yourself

literal Greek

When you click the link, you can see the verse broken down, and click the Strong's numbers to see the definitions of the words, or groups of words

Nowhere in the literal Greek, does it have the word "treated" in any of the definitions . . . Again . . .the link above shows the literal break down of the verse in Greek . . . Anyone is welcome to look at it so they see I'm not making anything up.

Careful when someone comes along and claims the original language says something that the Bible doesn't . . . . Many times they're hoping you will take their word for it . . . But it's as simple as researching it yourself to see if what they say is true or not . . .

I never said the "original Greek says." My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at. The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him. If Jesus became sinful, then He could have been a sin sacrifice, as it had to blameless. It was for our transgressions that He died. You need to read your Bible a little better. Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer. Your approach makes Christ a sinner is blasphemous in the highest regard.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

(Colossians 2:13-14)

It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross.

It is heretical ideas like yours that are the product of a sloppy and unskilled handling of God's Word. You obviously don't much about the Greek or you would not come to the false conclusions that you have. You are not teaching biblical Christianity. Rather it is a false teaching that should be rejected by every Christian reading this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen again!!!!

[halifaxchristian]

Rukkus...you are devising a WHOLE DOCTRINE that Jesus was SPIRITUALLY DEAD because of TWO SINGLE VERSES.  That is very dangerous.

A whole doctrine? All I'm doing is believing that Jesus was forsaken by God because the Bible says so. If you want to call that a WHOLE DOCTRINE . . . That's fine . . . It's kinda weird . . . But it's fine.

The first verse you use is the one that says Jesus was forsaken by the Father.  He was...but NOT SPIRITUALLY.

Well, I appreciate your input, but I'm going to stay with what the Bible says.

He was forsaken UNTO DEATH ON THE CROSS for our sins.  Even Jesus said that His disciples would forsake Him but that the Father would not. 

No He didn't. He said the disciples would leave Him and that He would not be alone because His Father was with Him. But on the cross, God forsook Him, just like it says.

You are reading your own interpretation onto that text I have shown you. 

What part of the text am I reading my own interpretation?  . . . I want to remind you, I came to this discussion board to get something done . . . That was to see if someone could biblically challenge what I've said. Now, if you're going to make a claim, you need to be specific so I know what you're talking about.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and He cannot change.  A spiritual separation from the Father would make that void.

Hmmm. I agree that God cannot change, but at the same time we must take the whole counsel of God's Word, and God said that He forsook Jesus. Your point about Jesus not changing would still be a contradiction to your belief that God forsook Jesus bodily. Because someone could say "Jesus and God were always in the same body, and they cannot change, therefore, God could not have forsaken Jesus bodily." See what I mean?  You could make the arguement about God never changing for a whole host of biblical doctrines. The very fact that Jesus became flesh could be said to be a contradiction to the fact that God never changes. Someone could say, "Jesus couldn't have been God, because God never changes, and God didn't have a physical body before, so if He's not going to change, then he won't take on flesh." And the list goes on and on . . . So if you're going to attempt to prove me wrong, you'll have to give me a different angle than the "God never changes" concept. That one could be used on dozens of scriptures. And it will leave you with a theological headache.

Jesus is God and cannot die.  God is Spirit.  Jesus is ETERNAL and separation from the Father would make this void.

Well . . . I almost agree with you. But at the Resurrection, things changed. And I'll talk more about that later.

Jesus was the SPOTLESS LAMB and if He was sin in SPIRIT He would not have been SPOTLESS.  The list goes on and on.

Well God made Him sin so that we could be made the righteousness of God. Jesus was spotless, but again, we have to take the whole counsel of God's Word, that even though Jesus was spotless, on the cross was when He was made sin. Why? Why did Jesus have to be made sin? So that we could be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is what the Bible says.

The second verse you use is the one that says Jesus became sin.  He did...in HIS BODY...by becoming a human being in the flesh.  He bore our sins in His own BODY on the tree.  Jesus became sin alright...no question about it...in BODY...but certainly NOT IN SPIRIT.

Period.

I'm going to be honest with you . . . Some of the things you say don't line up when you look at them under closer scrutiny . . . Let me show you one example . . .

You have gone to great lengths to show that it was Jesus flesh that was made the sacrifice for our sin. And the sacrifice was spotless and perfect. And that it was His body that died only, right? . . . . Yet right here in your above post you say that Jesus' body had always been sin from the moment he became human. Therefore, according to you, Jesus had a body of sin, and this body is what was supposed to be a perfect sacrifice for us? How's that supposed to work?

Here's another example of something you said that is confusing . . .

When I said that Jesus became a sinner because the Bible says His body was filled with our sins and the definition of a sinner is someone who has sin, you came back and said, "No, that verse says it was His body that became filled with our sins" And you're right, the Bible does say more specifically that it was Jesus' body (1Pt 2:24) And you tried to correct me for saying that part of Jesus is His body so that if His body was filled with sin, you could say He was. Remember that? If not I can cut and paste it. So I was following you so far . . . Then all of a sudden you come out with what you're saying now . . . That even though the Bible says Jesus was forsaken, it was actually HIs body. So you're doing the very same thing you said was wrong . . . You took the verse that said Jesus had been forsaken, and you evidently think it's alright now to believe that when the Bible talks about Jesus, it's actually talking about His body. Then when I tried saying Jesus was filled with sin, you said "No, it says it was His body." See what I'm saying? In other words, one moment you said it was wrong to say that Jesus is flesh. Now, you're taking a verse that says Jesus was forsaken, and saying it was talking about his flesh. What's going on here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rukkus...what you don't understand is that the flesh profits NOTHING. The flesh is not what constitutes us sinners or separated from God. The flesh is merely a RESULT of this spiritual condition. God, Who is perfect, became sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. God did not become a sinner by becoming sin in the flesh...because that isn't what makes us sinners in the first place...it is the RESULT of sin. God bore the penalty that we all deserve...death...and bore that death for us on the cross...even though He remained sinless, and perfect...and did not deserve it. That is why He is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. If Jesus became sin in Spirit...and was constituted an actual sinful entity...that sacrifice meant didilly squat...honestly. What would that sacrifice have meant??? NOTHING.

But praise God we have a sufficient, never-changing Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the RIGHTEOUS....not Jesus Christ the once-upon-a-time-sinner.

[halifaxchristian]

And I agree with Shiloh...I have a feeling that you have an agenda...and you feel you have too much at stake to change what you already believe...goodness knows that you went to all those lengths to make a whole book about Jesus' sinfulness.

Which comes first...your own labours...or the truths of God's Word????

God didn't send you here as a fluke...you need to repent of this wrong theology and know the true Saviour.

I am NOT here to judge you...and sorry if that's what this appears to be. I am merely trying to do my job as a believer...proclaiming the Gospel.

The WORD OF GOD judges us...not man.

If I stand on my own righteousness here and not on the Word...God shall be my judge.

[Rukkus]

larry said . .

Hi Rukkus,

Just read you thread and I have some comments.

And it doesn