Ship of Fools: Made Him to be sin

Thread: Made Him to be sin Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028293

Posted by anglocatholic (# 13804) on :

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" 2 Cor 5:21 NRSV.
What did Paul mean by, 'he made him to be sin'?
In what sense was Jesus made sin?
Was he made a sinner?
Your views.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Is it simply a way of describing how Jesus was fully human as well as divine? Of how he identified with us? I certainly don't think Paul was saying that Jesus sinned. I think the passage has the same sense of Athanasius' statement that "he became like us so that we might become like him."

I have often wondered if Paul was making some kind of play on words that defies translation. Actually The Message -- hardly authoritative, I know -- sort of plays with the text thusly: "God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God."

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I've always thought of it as saying that when Jesus was nailed to the cross so was sin. But then I'm a simple thinker.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Curiously, we recently touched on this on the Numbers Non-Stop Second Thoughts thread. In the Non-Stop, we had just covered the story from Numbers of the curse of the snakes (Numbers 21:4-8), resolved by putting an image of a snake up on a stick and all who looked on it in faith became cured. I expressed some bafflement over this event as it seemed to verge awfully close to idolatry.

It was pointed out to me that the scene was later seen as a foreshadowing of Jesus being crucified. I objected that the parallel was not exact because the snake was the curse itself, which means that Jesus would have to be seen as being the curse. To which, Lamb Chopped wisely responded:

quote:
"God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor 15 I believe. Also "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us--as it is written, 'cursed is anyone who is hanged upon a tree" (Galatians 3:13).

So, to your question of what Paul was getting at, he may very well have been linking Jesus crucified to the healing image of the snake in the Numbers story. The point is that Jesus, through his crucifixion, is a healing presence drawing the curse from us if we believe.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" 2 Cor 5:21 NRSV.
What did Paul mean by, 'he made him to be sin'?
In what sense was Jesus made sin?
Was he made a sinner?
Your views.

We had Dr Paula Gooder (New Testament theologian extraordinaire) here recently and she raised this line.

Her question: how can you make something to be sin?

It doesn't make any sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I think the passage has the same sense of Athanasius' statement that "he became like us so that we might become like him."

Could be. But the mechanism of theosis is never explained either. How?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Evensong:

The Holy Spirit!

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

First thought without doing any real study except reading the paragraph the verse is in: on the cross, God let Christ be treated as sin is to be treated. That is, destroyed. If we dwell in this willingness to suffer for us, we become righteous before God.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
First thought without doing any real study except reading the paragraph the verse is in: on the cross, God let Christ be treated as sin is to be treated. That is, destroyed. If we dwell in this willingness to suffer for us, we become righteous before God.

Thank you. I had a sense of that but couldn't put it into words! Of course your words are usually a whole lot better than mine. [Biased]

. It seems (also without doing any studying) consistent with other things Paul said about Christ, specifically Christ crucified -- being a stumbling block, a scandal, etc.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Evensong:

The Holy Spirit!

Sanctification is by the HS - yes. But why did God need to become man for that?

If Jesus became sin (whatever or however that works) - how does that make us suddenly righteous?

Posted by inki12 (# 17807) on :

I understand sin to have an actual spiritual presence, much like the Holy Spirit, and therefore in this context when Jesus was made sin and crucified sin itself was crucified. This bringing an end to sin for all who would believe and are in Christ Jesus.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Welcome, inki12. There's a general Welcome Thread over on the All Saints board if you feel inclined to introduce yourself to the Ship at large. In any case, welcome aboard, and enjoy your stay with us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Evensong:

The Holy Spirit!
Sanctification is by the HS - yes. But why did God need to become man for that?

Maybe God didn't necessarily need to so much as see it as the best way. I think the answer to "why" depends on what you think John 7:39 means:

quote:
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus became sin (whatever or however that works) - how does that make us suddenly righteous?

According to the passage quoted in the OP, it doesn't make us righteous (let alone "suddenly"), it allows us to become righteous. The answer to "how" probably depends on what you think he accomplished and declared "finished" on the cross.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by inki12:
I understand sin to have an actual spiritual presence, much like the Holy Spirit, and therefore in this context when Jesus was made sin and crucified sin itself was crucified. This bringing an end to sin for all who would believe and are in Christ Jesus.

Welcome to the ship inki.

While the above is a nice idea, unfortunately it does not play out in reality. Sin still exists. It was not crucified on the cross. The world is still subject to sin, Christians included.

So that is not a theology that I can accept.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
According to the passage quoted in the OP, it doesn't make us righteous (let alone "suddenly"), it allows us to become righteous. The answer to "how" probably depends on what you think he accomplished and declared "finished" on the cross.

I'm afraid I still don't see the connection between the "God becoming man so man could become God" and the necessary sending of the Holy Spirit for our sanctification.

The John passage sets it out that way ( the HS comes after the resurrection in John) but that's merely a timing issue - not necessarily tied to incarnation and deification.

As to the coming of the Holy Spirit and Jesus making us righteous so as to allow us to become righteous: that defies the majority of the Old Testament witness that speaks of righteous people before the coming of Christ.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Evensong has asked a good question. Why was it 'necessary' for God to become man?

Part (not all) of my understanding is that the 'work of Christ' is revelatory and not just redemptive. Actually that is questionable since the two cannot be separated and the revelation can be redemptive. ( see the Moral Influence theory of the Cross).

But it is one thing to use mere words to tell / exhort what it means to be truly human. It is another thing to embody those words and reveal in a human life what is possible. Else we are left with exhortation which most people would regard as ideal but impossible.

Thus God in Christ becomes a 'prototype' or 'template' for what humanity is called to be. Paul said we are " called to mature manhood; to the fulness of the stature of Christ".

Jesus was the "Spirit-filled man". Thats the connection I was trying to make.

[ 24. October 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
According to the passage quoted in the OP, it doesn't make us righteous (let alone "suddenly"), it allows us to become righteous. The answer to "how" probably depends on what you think he accomplished and declared "finished" on the cross.
I'm afraid I still don't see the connection between the "God becoming man so man could become God" and the necessary sending of the Holy Spirit for our sanctification.

The John passage sets it out that way ( the HS comes after the resurrection in John) but that's merely a timing issue - not necessarily tied to incarnation and deification.

It looks to me like the OP passage describes it as a cause and effect relationship.

quote:
As to the coming of the Holy Spirit and Jesus making us righteous so as to allow us to become righteous: that defies the majority of the Old Testament witness that speaks of righteous people before the coming of Christ.

Unless the Incarnation was to prevent it from becoming impossible to become righteous any more.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It looks to me like the OP passage describes it as a cause and effect relationship.

Sorry - I meant that it looks to me like the John 7 passage describes it as a cause and effect relationship.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Evensong has asked a good question. Why was it 'necessary' for God to become man?

Part (not all) of my understanding is that the 'work of Christ' is revelatory and not just redemptive. Actually that is questionable since the two cannot be separated and the revelation can be redemptive. ( see the Moral Influence theory of the Cross).

But it is one thing to use mere words to tell / exhort what it means to be truly human. It is another thing to embody those words and reveal in a human life what is possible. Else we are left with exhortation which most people would regard as ideal but impossible.

Thus God in Christ becomes a 'prototype' or 'template' for what humanity is called to be. Paul said we are " called to mature manhood; to the fulness of the stature of Christ".

Jesus was the "Spirit-filled man". Thats the connection I was trying to make.

Totally agree with that.

But that's much more "God became man so man could become man". [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
According to the passage quoted in the OP, it doesn't make us righteous (let alone "suddenly"), it allows us to become righteous. The answer to "how" probably depends on what you think he accomplished and declared "finished" on the cross.
I'm afraid I still don't see the connection between the "God becoming man so man could become God" and the necessary sending of the Holy Spirit for our sanctification.

The John passage sets it out that way ( the HS comes after the resurrection in John) but that's merely a timing issue - not necessarily tied to incarnation and deification.
It looks to me like the OP {john}passage describes it as a cause and effect relationship.

Yes. But the relationship is not explicit - just stated.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
As to the coming of the Holy Spirit and Jesus making us righteous so as to allow us to become righteous: that defies the majority of the Old Testament witness that speaks of righteous people before the coming of Christ.
Unless the Incarnation was to prevent it from becoming impossible to become righteous any more.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
What did Paul mean by, 'he made him to be sin'?
In what sense was Jesus made sin?
Was he made a sinner?

The answer(s) may lie in seeing how Paul links to the Jewish scriptures throughout the passage from chapter 3 to 6:13.

Paul has invoked memory of the wilderness period of Israel's history with Moses. In chapter 3 he refers to the facial covering Moses had to wear, as an aid to understanding how followers of Jesus reflect God's glory openly (and thus all appear to be the same image of God). Then in chapter 4 he expands further on that Mosaic veil picture to begin his interpretation of God's message of reconciliation to the whole of humanity – the gospel. He makes the point that God's glory consists in continuing to proclaim that message, because it still needs to be accepted by the world. Many will not accept it and remain 'veiled.'

Why bother proclaiming this message, especially when it seems to risk persecution? Paul answers that question with a scriptural quote in 4:13 - “I believed, therefore I spoke...,” which echoes Psalm 116:10 (115:1 in LXX) - “I had faith when I said, 'I am severely oppressed'” - a psalm Paul uses here to trigger in his audience an understanding of gratefulness for having been delivered, even though there is a link to persecution. Paul 'speaks' (proclaims the gospel) because he is extremely grateful to God for being rescued from blindness (veiling). With this rhetoric he is expecting his audience to respond in like manner and endure any difficulties that may arise.

That Psalm includes a line that prompts Paul to his next point. Ps. 116:15 (115:6 in LXX) reads:

quote:
Of extreme importance ['heavy' / 'weighty' / 'valuable'] to Yahweh is the matter of the death of anyone loyal to him.

In other words, God takes seriously the lives of his faithful followers. That principle is a springboard for Paul's answer to the next question: But what happens if we are killed when we reflect God's glory? Paul deals with this question by referring back again to the world of the wilderness. He has his audience remember that the Israelites worshipped in a tent, though were looking forward to a solid and fixed temple. In the same way, God's faithful followers are simply camping out right now, but have the promise of a fixed and eternal home awaiting them (2 Cor. 5:1). This principle is used by Paul to further encourage his audience to continue messaging the gospel of reconciliation to those who are still veiled and in danger of God's judgemental destruction.

Then Paul switches back to another principle: that of creation. He had already brought creation up in 4:6 (“...Let light shine out of darkness.”). Now in 5:14 he reminds his audience of a conclusion he reached and explained to them elsewhere, that the creation account of Adam can lead to only one interpretation regarding Jesus' death – that it was for everyone and reverses a death for everyone caused by Adam (v.14: “...we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died.”). The outcome of this is that Christ now controls (or 'claims') us as a renewed creation.

This harking to creation is, I think, the key here. When Paul goes on in 5:21 to talk about making Christ sin, he is still evoking the creation accounts. God 'made' (the creation verb in LXX Gen 1:1ff – epoiesen = ἐποίησεν) Jesus to function like Adam, initially not knowing rebellion (the definition of 'sin') from God, but having to understand (stand under) rebellion so that Adam's outcome could be undone and a path to reconciliation and renewed loyalty be opened.

Paul then moves on chapter 6 to open up another world based on a text from the Jewish scriptures, further developing the theme of persistence with loyal proclamation in the face of persecution.

In other words, what Paul is doing in 2 Corinthians 5, so very succinctly, is reminding his audience of principles he has explained to them much more fully on previous occasions. It's the Adam / Christ thing.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Nigel

With all due respect (sincerely meant) I simply cannot fathom what you are getting at.

Your detailed exegesis is impressive.

But that it boils down to defeats me entirely.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Yes, sorry about that – in retrospect it's pretty impenetrable.

I think it boils down to this: in 2 Cor. 5:21 Paul meant to say nothing more than the argument he made elsewhere concerning Adam and Christ.

That argument was that Christ undid the effect of Adam's rebellion. God commissioned Jesus to do this, Paul sees, by demonstrating his loyalty all the way through to a death. Paul doesn't bother setting out his argument again in 2 Corinthians, but we get the gist of what he must have said or wrote earlier in other letters where he extrapolates on the creation theme more. For example in Romans 5:1-21 (NET Bible):

quote:
Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.

This bit reflects Paul's reconciliation theme in 2 Corinthians. Then...

quote:
Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

That covers the persistence through persecution theme, leading to...

quote:
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. … But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.

Back to reconciliation and saving from destruction, which Paul next explains as being something he sees in the creation accounts...

quote:
So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification. For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous. Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is a bit long-winded here, but I guess that is a result of his writing to a church that he had not launched and discipled.

Essentially, though, I think Paul is saying that God commissioned (created with a purpose – a function) Adam to be a ruler. Adam failed in his duty and death was the result. Now God has commissioned Jesus (I avoided using the word 'created' in the last post, but it could be used if understood in a functional sense) to be the ruler. Jesus succeeded where Adam had failed and life was the result.

If this was what Paul had in mind when writing 2 Corinthians 5, then to say “God 'made' Jesus sin” is not to make an ontological statement (Jesus was not sin in essence), but it is using the verb 'made' in the same sense it is used in the creation account: Jesus was commissioned / created with a purpose to take the consequence of sin while remaining loyal to God. God then responded loyally by raising and vindicating Jesus – that was God's righteousness, which Christian's share if they are loyal to Jesus (the “in him” of 5:21).

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
As to the coming of the Holy Spirit and Jesus making us righteous so as to allow us to become righteous: that defies the majority of the Old Testament witness that speaks of righteous people before the coming of Christ.
Unless the Incarnation was to prevent it from becoming impossible to become righteous any more.
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here.

Sorry - that's probably because I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that what I pointed out (about "making" vs. "allowing") defies the Old Testament witness about righteous people before Christ? If so, how?

To try to elaborate on my response, I was just suggesting one possible way to look at this so that Old Testament references to righteous people line up easily with the idea that the Incarnation was necessary. If God's purpose behind the Incarnation was to stop the downward spiral in humanity after the Fall and prevent it from culimnating in a situation where no one could receive righteousness any more, then pre-Incarnation righteousness makes perfect sense. But at the same time, it doesn't take away from the fact that the Incarnation was necessary and that it is what makes it possible for us to be able to receive righteousness today.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0