Tyndale: marginal note in Romans 8

sermonindex Sep 3, 2006

I am wondering if anyone can shed light on this.... not the meaning of the note, but the question which arises from it.

'For what the law could not do inasmuch it was weak because of the flesh; that performed God, and sent his son in the similitude of sinful flesh, and by sin* damned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness required of the law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.'

[color=000099]* Sin is taken here for a sin-offering after the use of the Hebrew tongue.[/color]

My question is, was Tyndale translating Romans from a copy in Hebrew, rather than Greek?

C

Christinyou Sep 3, 2006

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0translatorwilliamtyndale.htm

C

Christinyou Sep 3, 2006

""Printing of Tyndale's translation of the New Testament, based on Erasmus's Greek edition, was completed by the end of February, 1526. Tyndale revised his New testament in 1534 and 1535; the 1534 version became the definitive one. By 1530, Tyndale had published his translation of the first five books of the Old Testament; a year later he published an edition of Jonah. He also completed a translation of the Old Testament books from Joshua to Second Chronicles although it was not published until it was incorporated into "Matthew's Bible," in 1537. Many of Tyndale's readings found their way into the Authorized Version of 1611 (eventually known as the King James Version).""

In Christ: Phillip

P

philologos Sep 4, 2006

The OT word for 'sin'
2403. חַטָּאָה chatta’ah, khat-taw-aw´; or חַטָּאת chattaçth, khat-tawth´; from 2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering). is the same word as is translated 'sin-offering' in the OT.

Tyndale has concluded that Paul is using the Greek word for sin as a direct equivalent of the Hebrew word 'chattaah'. Consequently he has built this understanding into his interpretation of this verse.

He was not translating from the Hebrew but was interpreting from the Hebrew mind-set. Some modern translations have done this with 2 Cor 5:21. In fact, the KJV has it in the margin in some printings.21For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. The New Living Bible)

2 Corinthians 5:21 (Today's New International Version)
Today's New International Version (TNIV)

21 God made him who had no sin to be sin [a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Footnotes:

1. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering
Some evangelicals have been uncomfortable with the idea of Christ 'becoming sin'

sermonindex Sep 4, 2006

Thank you, Phillip and Ron.

He was not translating from the Hebrew but was interpreting from the Hebrew mind-set.

Ah! I think it makes a difference to the way he writes.... to the turn of phrases he chooses.

Some evangelicals have been uncomfortable with the idea of Christ 'becoming sin'

It is definitely easier to get one's head round Him becoming a sin-offering, and, of the Hebrew mindset, this ties in with

'the LORD hath ~~[u]~~laid on him[/u] the iniquity of us all.' (Isa 53:6, KJV)

P

philologos Sep 4, 2006

dorcas on 2006/9/4 12:56:48 posted:

It is definitely easier to get one's head round Him becoming a sin-offering, and, of the Hebrew mindset

It might be easier to understand but it we can't justify it on that basis. The NT found a way to express 'sin-offering' very clearly and without any ambiguity in...Heb. 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb. 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Personally, I think Tyndale (my all time hero) was wrong in this choice.

sermonindex Sep 4, 2006

It might be easier to understand but it ~~[b]~~we can't justify it on that basis[/b]. The NT found a way to express 'sin-offering' very clearly and without any ambiguity in...

philologos,

I read what you've quoted from Hebrews, but I'm not ~~[i]~~sure[/i] what you're getting at, precisely. Let me wrestle with this a little.

Jesus was THE sin-offering to end all offerings for sin, was He not? I, too, have 'struggled' with the statement that He 'became sin'.

1 Peter 2:24
who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, (NKJV)

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (KJV)

So, are you saying that there is a ~~[i]~~vital[/i] difference between our sins being laid 'on' Him, and our sin(s) being borne '~~[b]~~in[/b]' Him?

NKJV Hebrews 10
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"

17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

I do see very clearly from this, that sin(s) were not being ~~[i]~~forgiven[/i] under the Old Covenant system (notwithstanding David's testimony).

This takes me back to Tyndale's Romans 3 (21 - 31, which I'll quote for the joy of it,) and look forward to further elucidation on the point above, please.

[valour = value]

'Now verily is the righteousness that cometh of God, declared without the fulfilling of the law, having witness yet of the law and of the prophets. The righteousness no doubt which is good before God, cometh by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe.

There is no difference: for all have sinned, and lack the praise that is of valour before God: but are justifed freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath made a seat of mercy through faith in his blood, to shew the righteousness which before him is of valour, in that he forgiveth the sins that are passed, which God did suffer to show at this time, the righteousness that is allowed of him, that he might be counted just, and a justifier of him which believeth on Jesus.

Where is then thy rejoicing? It is excluded. By what law? By the law of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

For we suppose that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the gentiles? Yes, even of the gentiles also. For it is God only which justifieth circumcision which is of faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid. But we rather maintain* the law.

[color=0000CC]* Faith mantaineth the law, because thereby we obtain power to love it and to keep it.[/color]

EDIT: I'm not trying to rush this, actually. When you said

Personally, I think Tyndale (my all time hero) was wrong in this choice.

Tyndale ~~[i]~~didn't[/i] use 'sin-offering' in his text, though. He merely pointed to the Old Covenant equivalent as a ~~[i]~~side-note[/i].

P

philologos Sep 4, 2006

dorcas on 2006/9/4 17:04:05 posted:

So, are you saying that there is a vital difference between our sins being laid 'on' Him, and our sin(s) being borne 'in' Him?

Christ spoke of his death as a baptism. Into what was he baptized? As a 'sin offering' He certainly bore in his body our sins. This is the figure of the scapegoat. Lev 14

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized. “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,”
(Rom 6:5 NKJV) This 'uniting with' in the consequence of the 'baptism into death' of verse 3.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it. Once and for all. He was baptized into 'our death' and we must be baptized into His. He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

He became Sin and the judgement that was wreaked upon Him was wreaked upon Sin. Not 'sins'; they had to be forgiven but Sin cannot be forgiven it must be executed.

sermonindex Sep 5, 2006

philologos,

Since I read your last post I am very touched - fragile - teary. I still need to find some space to process it properly, (by which I mean ~~[i]~~have a good cry[/i]) but I am just reeling with the impact of how what you said, reached my spirit. Because of this medium, I feel I have to say this (what follows) because we cannot see each other and we are not in 'church'.... The gift God has given you; thank you for exercising it and being exercised by it. It is in action for me here, and I am just ~~[i]~~~~[b]~~very[/i][/b] grateful for the economy of words and simplicity which has unseated my confusion. I now find myself with questions about forgiveness, but, I think I need to leave them for another post (if I don't 'get' it on my own).

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized.

I don't know why this form of words should have communicated as powerfully as it did, but I never saw this so clearly before, and how it links to

He was baptized into what we had become.

He was baptized into 'our death' and we must be baptized into His.

He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

He became Sin and the judgement that was wreaked upon Him was wreaked upon Sin. Not 'sins'; they had to be forgiven but Sin cannot be forgiven it must be executed.

I do have more to say, (I think) but I need to stay speechless for a while yet.

Thank you.

C

Christinyou Sep 5, 2006

When Jesus was in the garden praying and He new the cup was there, and in the cup was the sin of the whole world, He was overwhelmed by the seeing in the Cup and even knowing His Fathers will, He still ask to be released from what He would have to drink into His Perfect Body, that is: all the sin of the World, past, present and future. The bodies of spotless lambs could only, by their blood shed on the altar, take away the sin of those that participated in the sacrifices for a time until another sacrifice was needed to do it again and continually.

The perfect Lamb of God was the only sacrifice
vehicle that could contain the death of sin itself. He needed only once to inter the Holy of Holies which is in Heaven and that sacrifice is still and always will be the last sacrifice never again needing Blood to be shed for sin.

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.

In that we liveth in Christ, we liveth unto God also.

Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

This is our justification before God. In that Christ was made our sanctification.

Hbr 10:10 By the which will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

By the Will of God are we made righteous in Christ Jesus and everything else pertaining to our salvation and Godliness.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

In Christ: Phillip

S

Spitfire Sep 6, 2006

In reading through this thread today, I had a thought which was sparked by this:

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized.
“For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,”
(Rom 6:5 NKJV)
This 'uniting with' in the consequence of the 'baptism into death' of verse 3.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it. Once and for all. He was baptized into 'our death' and we must be baptized into His. He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

I began to take personal communion regularly about a year ago. I take it during my morning devotional time. As I began to really pause everyday to check my own heart, I thought of something Jesus said to his disciples: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." As I began to meditate on this, I realized that, in eating his flesh and drinking his blood, I was agreeing to entering into all that his death, burial, and resurrection accomplished. It is the only way that I can escape the death of sin. This is believing, really believing. Gotta go. Dian.

sermonindex Sep 7, 2006

philologos said

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized.

Slowly, now. This 'uplifted snake' phrase, seems to be packing a punch.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it.

Well, after I posted last time, I had that good cry on the way home, and what came to me is, (while I knew the snake had been ~~[i]~~in me[/i]), I had never seen that ~~[i]~~I was in the snake[/i]. :-(

Then, I'd become acquainted with this verse, from Neil's last compilation (Kingdom of Priests, which I admit I don't fully understand), and it has been coming to me here.

Deuteronomy 21:22
And if a man have committed a sin ~~[u]~~worthy of death[/u], and he be to be put to death, ~~[u]~~and thou hang him on a tree[/u]:

I thought of the dead serpent, hanging on the tree, and something's beginning to make sense in that verse - though I still don't understand why one would hang anyone on a tree, after they were already dead.....?

sermonindex Sep 12, 2006

I still don't understand why one would hang anyone on a tree, after they were already dead.....?

Maybe there is a ~~[i]~~trophy[/i] and an ~~[i]~~example[/i] significance; also, that here you are, this really is DEAD!

I just want to testify further, that I went on to have waves of peace as I let the truth settle in my understanding. And I also realised that the whole business of 'dying' in Christ has been an unwelcome one, in that it rang fearful bells I could not define. I realised my life was threatened when I was very young, and I had a fear of dying urged on me, to procure my silence about the abuse in my preschool years. This is one reason it is only now (the last couple / few years) that I've become better at knowing what I'm thinking AND finding words for it. It has been a process of release, and of causing things to come into being by putting them into words. Once they are thus in view, they are able to be faced and dealt with appropriately.

I know this is a long way from Tyndale's allusion to 'sin-offering', but I'm very glad I followed the prompting to investigate it, as I've been moved on by the realisations which followed.

Dian said

As I began to meditate on this, I realized that, in eating his flesh and drinking his blood, I was agreeing to entering into all that his death, burial, and resurrection accomplished. It is the only way that I can escape the death of sin. This is believing, really believing.

Thank you for sharing this testimony, Dian.

I tried all kinds of way to think about my 'salvation', to try and make sure I was 'saved', but, the only thing which has made sense in practise, is not the believing it is all over and now I can ~~[i]~~relax[/i], but the believing it is all ~~[i]~~now[/i]; that as I interface with eternity through the Spirit (prayer and worship - simply ~~[i]~~being[/i] in Him), I am being saved. I can't get my head round any other way of thinking about it.