Was Jesus Sinful? Luther & Sproul

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

~~[u]~~~~[b]~~Let's not turn this into a Calvinist vs. Arminian Debate please!!!!![/b][/u]

Luther and Sproul taught that Jesus became a sinner!!

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

“But if it is not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say that he was accursed, and of all sinners, the greatest.” Luther

“God, our most merciful Father, sent His only Son into the world, and laid upon him all the sins of all people, saying, be thou Peter, that denier; Paul, that persecutor, blasphemer, and cruel oppressor; David, that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the fruit in Paradise; that thief who hung upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person who has committed the sins of all people; see, therefore, that thou pay and satisfy for them” – Luther on the Galatians, Gal_3:13

“The Incarnate Christ who enjoyed intimate personal fellowship with the Father, such as no man had ever enjoyed, was suddenly and completely cut off. Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son” R. C. Sproul

Jesus was not sinful during the crucifixion according to:

Lev. 22:20 – blemished offering not acceptable
Ex. 12:5 – the lamb must be without blemish
1 Pet. 1:19 – Lamb without blemish or spot
Heb. 9:14 – offered without spot to God
1 Pet. 3:18 – Christ suffered the just for the unjust
Heb. 13:8 – Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever
Lk. 23:41 – thief on cross admits Jesus did nothing wrong to deserve it
1 Pet. 2:22-23 – Jesus was not sinning when on the cross

“Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy” Albert Barnes

1. Was Jesus sinful or did He become a sinner?

2. Is it heretical to say yes?

~~[u]~~~~[b]~~Let's stay on topic this time![/b][/u]

H

hmmhmm Oct 1, 2009

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God - esv

I dont add to that, and i dont remove anything, he never sinned, he showed man how we should live by a perfect example, then he also became sin.... anyone who says different are wrong?

It does not matter much brother, you can try bend your mind in theological somersault as many have before, but if we just stick with scripture all theological arguments are either true or not, scripture is always true no matter what theology says.

He never sinned, and he was made sin for us. No need go further on that issue. rejoice :) he showed us how to live our life, then he became all that is sin and filth and killed it on a cross on our behalf.

i think to many are wrestling with the issue how it all works out, and never go beyond that, when they should be wrestling with the issue now that it is done when Christ has become sin for me, and died for me and lived a perfect life as an example, how should ~~[b]~~I[/b] walk?

God bless

L

Logic Oct 1, 2009

hmmhmm wrote:
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God - esv
I dont add to that, and i dont remove anything, he never sinned, he showed man how we should live by a perfect example, then he also became sin.... anyone who says different are wrong?

"~~[b]~~made him to be sin"
(1)[/b] It cannot be that he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative.
~~[b]~~(2)[/b] Can not mean that “he was made a sinner sin who knew no sin”, for it is said in immediate connection that he "knew no sin," and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled.
~~[b]~~(3)[/b] Can not mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.
But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is "prima facie" a false view, and should be at once abandoned.
Just read Barnes Commentary for this verse.

scripture is always true no matter what theology says.

It must be correctly interpreted!

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

Adam Clarke's Commentary is also very good:
2Co 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us - Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a ~~[u]~~sin-offering for us[/u]. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one’s self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word ~~[u]~~not sin, but an offering for sin[/u]. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of ~~[u]~~a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own[/u]. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul - his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.

But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, I shall set down the places from the Septuagint where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where our translators have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly. In Exodus, Exo_29:14, Exo_29:36 : Leviticus, Lev_4:3, Lev_4:8, Lev_4:20, Lev_4:21, Lev_4:24, Lev_4:25, Lev_4:29, Lev_4:32-34; Lev_5:6, Lev_5:7, Lev_5:8, Lev_5:9, Lev_5:11, Lev_5:12; Lev_6:17, Lev_6:25, Lev_6:30; Lev_7:7, Lev_7:37; Lev_8:2, Lev_8:14; Lev_9:2, Lev_9:3, Lev_9:7, Lev_9:8, Lev_9:10, Lev_9:15, Lev_9:22; Lev_10:16, Lev_10:17, Lev_10:19; Lev_12:6, Lev_12:8; Lev_14:13, Lev_14:19, Lev_14:22, Lev_14:31; Lev_15:15, Lev_15:30; Lev_16:3, Lev_16:5, Lev_16:6, Lev_16:9, Lev_16:11, Lev_16:15, Lev_16:25, Lev_16:27; Lev_23:19 : Numbers, Num_6:11, Num_6:14, Num_6:16; Num_7:16, Num_7:22, Num_7:28, Num_7:34, Num_7:40, Num_7:46, Num_7:52, Num_7:58, Num_7:70, Num_7:76, Num_7:82, Num_7:87; Num_8:8, Num_8:12; Num_15:24, Num_15:25, Num_15:27; Num_18:9; Num_28:15, Num_28:22; Num_29:5, Num_29:11, Num_29:16, Num_29:22, Num_29:25, Num_29:28, Num_29:31, Num_29:34, Num_29:38.

Besides the above places, it occurs in the same signification, and is properly translated in our version, in the following places: -
2 Chronicles, 2Ch_29:21, 2Ch_29:23, 2Ch_29:24 : Ezra, Ezr_6:17; Ezr_8:35 : Nehemiah, Neh_10:33 : Job, Job_1:5 : Ezekiel, Eze_43:19, Eze_43:22, Eze_43:25; Eze_44:27, Eze_44:29; Eze_45:17, Eze_45:19, Eze_45:22, Eze_45:23, Eze_45:25. In all, one hundred and eight places, which, in the course of my own reading in the Septuagint, I have marked.

T

TaylorOtwell Oct 1, 2009

I guess main question I would have for Clarke is why did Paul use the same Greek word for sin (Hamartia) in both instances of "sin" in 2nd Corinthians 5:21?

If you apply his logic that it really means sin-offering in this case, the verse wouldn't make sense: "For he hath made him to be sin-offering for us, ~~[b]~~who knew no sin-offering (?)[/b]; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Paul used the same Greek word, separated by only 4 other words, and it really means two completely different things?

With care in Christ...

R

roaringlamb Oct 1, 2009

I copied this from Robertson's Word Pictures-
~~[i]~~2Co 5:21
Him who knew no sin (ton mē gnonta hamartian). Definite claim by Paul that Jesus did not commit sin, had no personal acquaintance (mē gnonta, second aorist active participle of ginōskō) with it. Jesus made this claim for himself (Joh_8:46). This statement occurs also in 1Pe_2:22; Heb_4:15; Heb_7:26; 1Jo_3:5. Christ was and is “a moral miracle” (Bernard) and so more than mere man.
He made to be sin (hamartian epoiēsen). The words “to be” are not in the Greek. “Sin” here is the substantive, not the verb. God “treated as sin” the one “who knew no sin.” But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Heb_12:3). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: “My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?” (Mat_27:46).[/i]

I wonder if because we have differing views on imputation if that is why the passage looks so entirely different?

R

roaringlamb Oct 1, 2009

And since Clarke and Barnes are brought to bear on this(as they are more Wesleyan in thought), I thought it would be fair to bring Calvin in as well. Here is what he has to say,

~~[i]~~2Co 5:21
21.Him who knew no sin. Do you observe, that, according to Paul, there is no return to favor with God, except what is founded on the sacrifice of Christ alone? Let us learn, therefore, to turn our views in that direction, whenever we desire to be absolved from guilt. He now teaches more clearly, what we adverted to above — that God is propitious to us, when he acknowledges us as righteous. For these two things are equivalent — that we are acceptable to God, and that we are regarded by him as righteous.
To know no sin is to be free from sin. He says, then, that Christ, while he was entirely exempt from sin, was made sin for us. It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latin’s term it, piaculum (566) Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offense or crime. (567) But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa_53:5.)[/i]

M

MaryJane Oct 1, 2009

Greetings

I talked the is over with my children a while ago during one of our Bible studies. I spent a good while explaining to them how Jesus died because of our sin and what that meant to us. My youngest son had a kind of strange look on his face so I asked him if he understood what I was saying about Jesus. He said, "Yes mom. Its like when I lied and got into the cookies before dinner and said I didn't. That was my sin against God cause I told the lie, but Jesus got the punishment for that from God instead of me."
Granted he was a little boy at the time and his understanding was limited but he still knew that it was his sin that Jesus was paying a price for, not Jesus sinning himself or Jesus being turned into his sin.

Sometimes I think as adults we make things way to complicated.

God Bless
mj

L

Logic Oct 1, 2009

roaringlamb wrote:
Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
I guess main question I would have for Clarke is why did Paul use the same Greek word for sin (Hamartia) in both instances of "sin" in 2nd Corinthians 5:21?
If you apply his logic that it really means sin-offering in this case, the verse wouldn't make sense: "For he hath made him to be sin-offering for us, ~~[b]~~who knew no sin-offering (?)[/b]; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
Paul used the same Greek word, separated by only 4 other words, and it really means two completely different things?

Okay, then Jesus was either was literally sin
or He was guilty.
If ~~[b]~~Jesus became actaully guilty[/b], then He deserved to die, and His death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if He was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.
This is truely rediculous to say that Jesus became guilty!

If Jesus became actaully sin its self. Then Jesus became a ~~[b]~~verb[/b], a transgression of the law (1John 3:4).
Jesus became a literal lack of faith (Romans 14:23).
Jesus became All unrighteousness (1John 5:17)

For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all.

R

roaringlamb Oct 1, 2009

For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all.

But that is what the text says.

"God made Him sin who knew no sin..."

It is the same as the lambs and goats of the Old Covenant being made sin for the sinner. That is why the offerer had to place their hand on the head of the animal and identify with the offering.

The animal was not sinful, but was made that person's sin and by that offering propitiation happened.

I don't think anyone is saying Jesus became guilty of sinning at all, we are simply saying what the verse says. And the word for sin in that passage is not a verb, it is a noun so it's not saying He sinned, but He was made sin.

How I don't know, but that is the mystery of imputation and I would rather marvel more at how I could be made righteous by His righteousness being imputed to me!

But that(imputation) seems to be the issue that divides us, so I don't know what to say.

L

Leo_Grace Oct 1, 2009

MaryJane wrote:
Greetings
I talked the is over with my children a while ago during one of our Bible studies. I spent a good while explaining to them how Jesus died because of our sin and what that meant to us. My youngest son had a kind of strange look on his face so I asked him if he understood what I was saying about Jesus. He said, "Yes mom. Its like when I lied and got into the cookies before dinner and said I didn't. That was my sin against God cause I told the lie, but Jesus got the punishment for that from God instead of me."
Granted he was a little boy at the time and his understanding was limited but he still knew that it was his sin that Jesus was paying a price for, not Jesus sinning himself or Jesus being turned into his sin.
Sometimes I think as adults we make things way to complicated.
God Bless
mj

This is the best post in this thread. Thank you, MaryJane. Too many wise men spoil the thread ;-)

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

"If Jesus became actaully guilty, then He deserved to die, and His death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if He was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.
This is truely rediculous to say that Jesus became guilty!

If Jesus became actaully sin its self. Then Jesus became a verb, a transgression of the law (1John 3:4).
Jesus became a literal lack of faith (Romans 14:23).
Jesus became All unrighteousness (1John 5:17)

For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all." logic

I don't see this being said at all logic. Who is saying that Jesus was literally sinful and literally guilty?

Can those who have posted here clarify if Logic is correct in speaking for you? Whoever is saying that Jesus is literally sinful (as in He commited all kinds of sin) and literally guilty (just like we would be) of that sin please speak up.

A spotless lamb was sacrificed for the remission of sin in the OT. Whatever was sacrificed, it was something WITHOUT SPOT OR BLEMISH. This was a type and shadow. God foreknew that His lamb would come and fulfill the law in perfection. Otherwise it's not a type or a shadow. In the NT Jesus was called 'the Lamb of God' meaning the sacrificial lamb for the remission of sins. In order for Him to be spotless, He had to be in perfect obedience and innocent of the sin of humanity just as the OT sacrificial lamb had nothing to do with guilt, as a lamb cannot sin. Something innocent died for the guilty. This is the cross.

The perfect sacrifice that took away the 'sins of the world' was the FINAL SACRIFICE. The cross called for a sacrifice without blemish just as God did in the OT. Therefore the obedience of Christ was not just for Himself, it was a requirement for the innocent lamb, who knew no sin, to be made a sin offering just like the sin offering in the OT. Did the OT lamb know sin when it was sacrificed? These things are indeed relative to the mystery of the cross. If Jesus sins, He is no longer spotless. And if Jesus sins, what blood would cleanse Him of His crime? For 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin'. What blood would be good enough to cleanse Christ of a sin that He chose if His blood was foretold to be the blood that atoned for all of us? That's what wouldn't make sense. His obedience wasn't just for His own sake, He knew what was at stake.

L

Logic Oct 1, 2009

roaringlamb wrote:
For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sense at all.
But that is what the text says.
"God made Him sin who knew no sin..."
It is the same as the lambs and goats of the Old Covenant being made sin for the sinner. That is why the offerer had to place their hand on the head of the animal and identify with the offering.
The animal was not sinful, but was made that person's sin and by that offering propitiation happened.

Do you ever interpret the Bible according to reality?
Your making sin to be something which it is not.

Sin is not a substance for anything/anyone to become.
Sin is a verb; if it is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.

When Paul talks about sin in Romans 7, it is not a substance but a description of the unlawful desires which are in the flesh.

If sin is anything else, it can not be condemnable.
Sin must be repentable in order for it to be called sin.

L

Logic Oct 1, 2009

ccrider wrote:
"For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all." logic
I don't see this being said at all logic.

It is what roaringlamb is implying, taking the verse at first glance, "Jesus became sin"; literally sin.

Can those who have posted here clarify if Logic is correct in speaking for you? Whoever is saying that Jesus is literally sinful

Not "sinful", but sin.

R

roaringlamb Oct 1, 2009

Do you ever interpret the Bible according to reality?

I think I do, I mean looking at what the words actually mean and the forms of the words that are used. That's probably reality.

Sin is not a substance

I disagree. If I punch someone in the face, they bear the marks of sin(noun) because I sinned(verb). Sin has taken on substance.But that is not what we are talking about here.

Sin is a verb; if it is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.

Sorry that's the way the structure of the word is in Greek. It is "hamartian" which is a noun. Which means Christ was made something.

You can't get around it, there is noun there that has to be dealt with.

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

Who is saying that Jesus was literally sinful and literally guilty?

Luther said Jesus became a sinner:

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

Sproul said Jesus became sinful:

"Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father." Sproul

Calvin said Jesus became guilty:

"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

Luther said Jesus became a sinner:

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

Sproul said Jesus became sinful:

"Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father." Sproul

Calvin said Jesus became guilty:

"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin" truefaithdav

Uh huh. And are they on this thread?

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

Sin is not a substance

I disagree. If I punch someone in the face, they bear the marks of sin(noun) because I sinned(verb). Sin has taken on substance.

If you punch someone and give the a black eye, that doesn't mean that sin is now a substance. A black eye is not sin! You can get a black eye by accident without a punch. It is not the black eye that is a sin, it is the motive of a persons heart who punches you that is sinful!

Sin is a state of the will, a disobedient state. That will manifest into actions, but sin is never a substance or a quality of matter. That is Gnosticism.

Is sin a animal, vegetable, or mineral? Is sin a gas, solid, or liquid? Neither of these. Sin is a choice.

Sin is the violation of God's law. God's law does not tell us what type of substance to have! God's law tells us what type of choices we should make and what type of choices we shouldn't make. The moral quality of sinfulness can only be prescribed to choices, but it cannot be prescribed to substance or matter.

R

roaringlamb Oct 1, 2009

logic and truefaithsav,

Here is what I don't understand about your arguments.

Why would you want to rid the Gospel of its sweetest gift? Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and we should rejoice. All who are poor and weary can rejoice that Christ is their sacrifice and mediator.

But on the other hand it seems that those who would be just because of what they do or their moral record would be offended that a righteousness from outside of them should be given to them.

Again it is like the parable of the Prodigal, the "bad" son is met by the father and showered with affection in spite of his badness while the elder brother was pouting because he thought his moral record should be of value, "all this time I have served you..."

Notice how the one who receives rejoices, but the one who is offended by the receiving of something he didn't deserve is angered and ultimately never comes into the party.

sermonindex Oct 1, 2009

Luther said Jesus became a sinner:
…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther
Sproul said Jesus became sinful:
"Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father." Sproul
Calvin said Jesus became guilty:
"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin"

Uh huh. And are they on this thread

Did you even read the first post?

This thread is about those quotes!

Are those quotes true or false? Are they orthodoxy or heretical?