Where was Jesus?

[JohnS]

William,

Upon second reading, perhaps this agrees more with you than I thought. In any case, take a moment to read it. Spurgeon is so much more eloquent than I.

II. Let us pass on to notice the second and most important point; THE ACTUAL SUBSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE REAL IMPUTATION OF SIN TO HIM. "He made him to be sin for us."

Here be careful to observe who transferred the sin. God the Father laid on Jesus the iniquities of us all. Man could not make Christ sin. Man could not transfer his guilt to another. It is not for us to say whether Christ could or could not have made himself sin for us; that certain it is, he did not take this priesthood upon himself, but he was called of God, as was Aaron. The Redeemer's vicarious position is warranted, nay ordained by divine authority. "He hath made him to be sin for us." I must now beg you to notice how very explicit the term is. Some of our expositors will have it that the word here used must mean "sin-offering." "He made him to be a sin-offering for us." I thought it well to look to my Greek Testament to see whether it could be so. Of course we all know that the word here translated "sin," is very often translated "sin-offering," but it is always useful, when you have a disputed passage, to look it through, and see whether in this case the word would bear such a meaning. These commentators say it means a sin-offering,

[OneAccord]

Perfect post, JohnS! Thank you!!!!

He is risen \o/ :il:

[BlindSeeker]

William,

    Upon second reading, perhaps this agrees more with you than I thought. In any case, take a moment to read it. Spurgeon is so much more eloquent than I.

II. Let us pass on to notice the second and most important point; THE ACTUAL SUBSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE REAL IMPUTATION OF SIN TO HIM. "He made him to be sin for us."

Here be careful to observe who transferred the sin. God the Father laid on Jesus the iniquities of us all. Man could not make Christ sin. Man could not transfer his guilt to another. It is not for us to say whether Christ could or could not have made himself sin for us; that certain it is, he did not take this priesthood upon himself, but he was called of God, as was Aaron. The Redeemer's vicarious position is warranted, nay ordained by divine authority. "He hath made him to be sin for us." I must now beg you to notice how very explicit the term is. Some of our expositors will have it that the word here used must mean "sin-offering." "He made him to be a sin-offering for us." I thought it well to look to my Greek Testament to see whether it could be so. Of course we all know that the word here translated "sin," is very often translated "sin-offering," but it is always useful, when you have a disputed passage, to look it through, and see whether in this case the word would bear such a meaning. These commentators say it means a sin-offering,

[JohnS]

I am saying the all the commentators, who have and ever will live, their words must be placed up against the certainty of God's word as a whole and examined. For as you know, no part of prophecy is subject to isolated interpretation, but must find harmony with the overall Spirit of God's written word.

Absolutely!

I present to you two verses which contain the Hebrew words translated "sin" and "sin offering." Both of these verses were again translated in the Septuagint by Jewish scribes with the Greek word <hamartia>. Yet, Charles Hadden Spurgeon declared, "But they are precisely the same words; and if it be fair to translate it "sin-offering" in one place, it must, in all reason, be fair to translate it so in the other. The fact it, while in some passages it may be rendered "sin-offering," in this passage it cannot be so, because it would be to run counter to all honesty to translate the same word in the same sentence two different ways. "

There is one problem here. The New testament was originally penned in the Greek language, would Hebrew to Greek translation apply?

[BlindSeeker]

There is one problem here. The New testament was originally penned in the Greek language, would Hebrew to Greek translation apply?

Where's the problem?

They use the same Hebrew word to mean two separate things in the Hebrew. When they translated it to the Greek they used one Greek word to do the same thing, i.e. to mean two separate things.

Does it matter what language it is in? or translated to for Spurgeon's perspective to work?

All language is the communication of thought and intent. I truly fail to see the problem.

[JohnS]

I recently had a similar question regarding the Greek word doulos in passages such as Romans 1:1 and Philippians 2:7 (one of my favorites!). The Hebrew word 'ebed describing the Hebrew servant as in Exodus 21 seems to fit so much better, but am I free to take such liberties? I am leading a group of men at work through Romans and I would not like to present them with my slant on scripture, know what I mean? I am late...there just aren't enough hours in the day!

Grace and peace!