Was There More to Christ's Sufferings?

[Rukkus]

Attention Everyone

Just want to say, before anyone gets the idea that I feel like I'm being ganged up on, I don't. I don't mind this at all. This is exactly why I came and I'm glad so many are participating . . .

Now, Shilo Said . . .

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.

Well, let me stop you there . . .I don't always use a literal meaning of text. If you want to see more specifically how I read my bible, you can log onto our site and read our book "An End To All Strife" So I did want to correct you there. I don't believe in a purely literal interpretation . . . I believe the Bible itself . . . And there is a difference.

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.

Again, I appreciate your input, but if you're going to use context as an excuse to add whatever you want into the scriptures, that's between you and God. I just want to stay with what God's Word says alone. This way I know I'll be justified in my sayings and I'll overcome when I'm judged (Rom 3:4)

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.

I agree. A sin offering can't be sinful. Jesus was offered as a lamb without spot or blemish (1Pt 1:19). But the Bible goes onto say He was made sin, and He was filled with our sins (1Pt 2:24, 2Cor 5:21). Jesus had to become abhored by God. He had to have evil pronounced upon Him by the Father, in order to redeem us (Gal 3:13)

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.

This isn't what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible almost says the exact opposite of what you just said. It says that it was because Jesus was made sin, that we could be made the righteousness of God in Christ (2Cor 5:21). That verse shows both sides of what we're talking about. It says Jesus knew no sin. That's what you keep saying, isn't it? That Jesus knew no sin. So I agree . . . Jesus knew no sin. But we must keep reading . . . He was made sin for us. And that's what I'm talking about.

The problem is that you don' even know what the verses you are quoting actually say.

I know exactly what they say . . . It's plainly written. Jesus was made sin.

You don't know how to exegete Scripture,

What's that mean?

and you are ignoring other parts of the Bible that add further illumination to the issue.

What other parts am I ignoring? Because I definitley want further illumination.

You want to only focus on a few pet verses, and and you lack the skill to handle those properly.

Well again, you're only making a statement. I want to be shown specifically . . . Otherwise how will I know what skill I'm lacking?

You are attempting a face value interpretative approach which is one of the most unreliable methods of biblical interpretation.

Well . . . I'm just going to stay with the Bible. . . .You can make comments like that all day, but I'm interested in what the Bible says. You need to be specific about where exactly I'm wrong, then support that with scripture. Not make general statements about methods of study.

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.

Well, this is another subject which we can talk about later. Or, better yet, go to our site and our guys will be glad to address you on the matter. We are very open to any correction. We only ask one thing . . . That you support what you say with God's Word.

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.

Well, I mentioned earlier that a commentary is a commentary. Someone who knows Greek could offer their own personal opinion just as much as someone who doesn't . . . But if you could reference some of them, and where they make these statements so I could read them for myself, I'd love to see it. Although, let me ask you something. . . . If the Greek seems to imply a sin offering, why do most of our translations, even the newer ones, not show this? In fact, do you know of any translation into english that does read the way you claim?

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.

Well, again, the first part of your comments are just slinging mud. As far as not wanting to learn words . . . I'm all for that. What word(s) do you think I should learn?

[quote]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.

What part of Col 2:14 demonstrate what sense Jesus 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.

Well, how does Col 2:14 demonstrate that Jesus did not become sinful? And how could it do that since we have a scripture that plainly says He did? (1Pt 2:24)

This is further demonstrated in Hebrews 10.

How?

[Rukkus]

Yashaw said

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

Well, you have the word "if" in whether or not Jesus was made sin, yet the Bible clearly says He was (2Cor 5:21) I don't know how much more clear God could have said it. But your objections are noted. As I've been pointing out, as the Bible says, Jesus was righteous, holy and without spot. But God made Him sin. Look at 2Cor 5:21 closely. It openly declares that Jesus had known no sin, and then it says God made Him sin. So both statements are correct. And I believe both.

Thank you for your input.

[Rukkus]

HalifaxChristian said . . .

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.

Well, I'm not sure if this is true or not you don't give any scripture . . .

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.

What? I don't understand this statement.

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.

He wasn't sinless though. He commited no sin, but He bore in Him, the sins of us all. He became sin. The Bible says so . . .

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 He did become sin, because the Bible says so. Jesus was offered a spotless lamb, but God Him sin on the cross.

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.

Well, I've got to stay loyal to what the scriptures say.

[Rukkus]

Halifax said . . .

And I agree with Shiloh...I have a feeling that you have an agenda...

Well, I do have an agenda . . . I want to know if what I believe is biblically accurate.

and you feel you have too much at stake to change what you already believe...

I'll be honest with you, I have felt that way before. A fear that I may be wrong about what I believe. But then I stop and think about it and ask, "Well, all that can come from being corrected is becoming more right. So why fear? If I'm wrong, I want to know so that I can change." But enough about me . . .

goodness knows that you went to all those lengths to make a whole book about Jesus' sinfulness.

No I didn't . . . There's alot more to the book than this . . . In fact I'll release some more of it . . . I do think it's time to move on anyway.

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

The Truths of God's Word of course.

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

I certainly will when someone can show me how it's wrong biblically. But most all I've seen so far is people clinging to the first part of 2Cor 5:21, and trying to change the second part. The first part, "Him who knew no sin" and everyone in here is crying out, "Jesus had no sin! He was sinless! It's blasphemous to say otherwise!" then, instead of accepting the latter part as they did the first, they want to change the latter and say, "no, He didn't become sin . . . He became . . . " and then it becomes a game of fill in the blank. Who wants to insert what they think Jesus became . . . Sin offering? Sin in body? and the guesses keep rolling in . . . But I'll believe the whole verse. Jesus who knew no sin was made to be sin for me . . . hallelujah!

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.

Well, I respect that . . . But I'm just looking for scripture on this matter, not commentary.

[Rukkus]

Let's talk about the next chapter . . .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dominion of Death

So you may be wondering what was going on for those three days and three nights that Jesus spent in the earth. For whatever reason, the Bible does not speak too specifically on this. But I can tell you one thing I found about it. . .

One day I was reading through Romans 6 and happened to read verse 9

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him.

And it was like someone turned the lights on. I saw the last part of that verse, death has no more dominion over Him. The Amplified says

Edited September 6, 2005 by Rukkus

[gypc]

Oh Boy

[larryt]

Hi Rukkus,

(In the LXX the sin offering is translated to the same usage of the word for sin in 1Cor. 15) 

 

What's LXX? And what do you mean it is translated to the same usage of the word? If sin offering were translated to the same usage as the word sin in 2Cor 5, then you're saying that when the BIble talks about a sin offering, it's talking about sin itself? I don't think I understand what you mean here.

LXX is refers to the Septuagint - the Jew's own translation of the hebrew to the greek. This the official Jewish rendering of the hebrew to the greek. This is how we know that Paul was referring to the SIN OFFERING and not as just being made sin. And how is it that you didn't recognize the LXX as the abbreviation for the Septuagint?

You observed that I referred to the type of Christ being the Levitical Sin Offering and how it was deemed MOST HOLY by God Himself before, during and after the offering.

MY Question: How does Christ fulfill the type being MOST HOLY and still be sin? Sin cannot be holy in any way, shape or form.

LT

[larryt]

Let's talk about the next chapter . . .                             

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            The Dominion of Death

 

        So you may be wondering what was going on for those three days and three nights that Jesus spent in the earth. For whatever reason, the Bible does not speak too specifically on this. But I can tell you one thing I found about it. . .

      One day I was reading through Romans 6 and happened to read verse 9

 

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him.

 

      And it was like someone turned the lights on. I saw the last part of that verse, death has no more dominion over Him. The Amplified says

[Rukkus]

Larry said . . .

[Rukkus]

Larry Said . . .

Most important to any discussion of death is a definition of death. PLEASE DEFINE "DEATH" AS SUCCINTLY AS YOU CAN SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.

LT

Well, I guess we can use the Strong's defintion given . . .

qavnato

Edited September 12, 2005 by Rukkus