Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Kerygmania: Did Jesus become sin? (2 Cor 5:21)

LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
edited December 2021 in Limbo
On the "Separated at death" thread, I've been challenged to give my interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (linking here to verses 16–21 to give context):

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Since this is a different Bible verse than that of the original thread, I started a different one, if the Hosts are OK with that. I still don't have a lot of time, but I managed to read some commentaries and scholarly articles on the internet. I felt that I could mostly relate to what N.T. Wright and T.J. Harris (whom I don't know very well but whom I saw cited a number of times) have written about this verse.

Before I start, let me just say that — as others have discussed before on the Ship — I strongly dislike the English translation of the word δικαιοσύνη as "righteousness". So I'll either render it as "justice" (the Portuguese Bible I have in front of me says justiça) or I'll use the Greek word.

First, there is obviously some kind of reversal going on in this verse. Jesus who is without sin became sin. We (who are normally not very just) become justice.

But still it seems strange, this talk Jesus becoming sin, and us becoming justice. People becoming abstract nouns, how can that be? Many translations struggle with that. They talk about Jesus becoming "a sin offering" (some English translations offer this as a footnote) or "a bearer of sin", and/or about us becoming "righteous" (as an adjective).

Another aspect much discussed by theologians is that whenever Paul talks about δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans, justice clearly belongs to God, not to us. So, how can we become God's justice?

Wright's solution is to link verse 21 to verse 20. We become ambassadors of God's justice (which he interprets in terms of the Covenant). This has the advantage of linking verse 21 — which seemed a bit disjointed — better to the previous verses.

That's the second half of the verse, what about the first one? Harris interprets this as: Jesus identified with sinners. This relates to the beginning of Romans 8, where Paul is basically making the same argument. Interestingly, verse 3 says "[God was] sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh".

To my weird mind, this almost reads like a spy novel. An undercover operation where Jesus was sent into the fleshy sinful world, in order to destroy these things from the inside. It also is comforting to me: Jesus is on our side, He knows what it's like to live here. To me, it refers at least as much to the Incarnation as to the Cross.

At least to me, this also preserves the reversal present in this verse. This post has already been long enough, so I'll summarise my understanding of it as "Jesus identified with sinners, so that we could become ambassadors of God's justice."

I can live with that.
«1

Comments

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    There are three referents. A he, a him and an us.
    This states:
    He, God, made him, Christ, sin, so we, humans could be justified, made righteous, before him, God.
    I.e.

    What happened to Christ on the cross changed the status of humanity before God.

    However, the context of the verse contains a caveat in v17. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. This is the condition for the change of status.

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    @MPaul: your post doesn't really address the question what "God made Christ (to be) sin" means.

    MPaul wrote: »
    If any man be in Christ he is a new creation.
    Interestingly, the text doesn't say that it the person who is in Christ who is a new creation. It says there is a new creation, and everything has become new. These words don't necessarily refer to this person. Some scholars have remarked that if Paul wanted the word to refer the person, he could have used "creature" instead of "creation".

    So, if you are in Christ, everything becomes new. That's strange, surely the newness or not of God's creation doesn't depend on one person being in Christ. I tend towards interpreting this as "If you're in Christ, you look at the world with new eyes."
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    @LeRoc: this is one of the verses of Scripture I find most impactful, although I don't sweat the details. You're pretty close to how I feel about it.
    LeRoc wrote: »
    To my weird mind, this almost reads like a spy novel. An undercover operation where Jesus was sent into the fleshy sinful world, in order to destroy these things from the inside.
    The very essence of counter-culture :sunglasses:


  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    (Deleted. I accidentally posted before finishing my post.)
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The very essence of counter-culture :sunglasses:
    Yes. (I'm reminded about your Purg thread about this.)


    If I'm allowed to continue, I believe this fragment is about more than individual forgiveness on the condition that we become "in Christ". The text talks a lot about reconciliation. But where verse 18 still talks about "God, who reconciled us [ἡμᾶς; plural] to himself through Christ", verse 19 says: "God was reconciling the world [κόσμον] to himself."

    The world / cosmos is much bigger than in individual person, bigger than the set of all believers, bigger even than humanity. So, what I got so far is:

    God prepared a new world for us. Some characteristics of this new world are that our trespasses are forgiven (v. 19) and that there is justice (v. 21). Fuck righteousness, I'm talking about justice for the poor, widows, orphans … the whole prophetic broohah. If we're in Christ — if we're with Him on this one — then to us, it becomes a new creation. We can see that old things are of the past, and that new things are here.

    Of course, most of the time it doesn't look much like it. This world still has every appearance of being ruled by flesh and sin. But Jesus understand this. He lived in this world, He identifies with how we struggle to live here (He was made sin), and ultimately on the Cross, He knows how dangerous it can be to live out this new world. That's why, even if we get it wrong sometimes, He allows us to become ambassadors of this new creation. To work on it, and to try to get others to join us.

    Hmm …
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    If Paul didn't exist, would it be necessary to invent him? If all we had were the gospels and acts, would we come up with Paul?

    It came to me that in 2 Cor. 5:21 Jesus' cross isn't the bridge over the unbridgable gulf between us and God, He's a mirror.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    @MPaul: your post doesn't really address the question what "God made Christ (to be) sin" means.

    MPaul wrote: »
    If any man be in Christ he is a new creation.
    Interestingly, the text doesn't say that it the person who is in Christ who is a new creation. It says there is a new creation, and everything has become new. These words don't necessarily refer to this person. Some scholars have remarked that if Paul wanted the word to refer the person, he could have used "creature" instead of "creation".

    So, if you are in Christ, everything becomes new. That's strange, surely the newness or not of God's creation doesn't depend on one person being in Christ. I tend towards interpreting this as "If you're in Christ, you look at the world with new eyes."

    In the sense that one can define the usage of sin elsewhere, there is no mystery about what sin is. It is the aspect of man’s nature that God cannot live with. In terms of what we can know, the statement that Christ’s death enabled a transaction is sufficient knowledge. Regarding the new person, there is a clear inference that it must be both universal and personal.

    You interpretation is only part of the meaning. One Looks at the world with new eyes if one is personally transformed
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    One Looks at the world with new eyes if one is personally transformed
    This part I agree with.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Oh to be so.
  • wordkeeperwordkeeper Shipmate Posts: 32
    LeRoc wrote: »
    On the "Separated at death" thread, I've been challenged to give my interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (linking here to verses 16–21 to give context):

    "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

    Since this is a different Bible verse than that of the original thread, I started a different one, if the Hosts are OK with that. I still don't have a lot of time, but I managed to read some commentaries and scholarly articles on the internet. I felt that I could mostly relate to what N.T. Wright and T.J. Harris (whom I don't know very well but whom I saw cited a number of times) have written about this verse.

    Before I start, let me just say that — as others have discussed before on the Ship — I strongly dislike the English translation of the word δικαιοσύνη as "righteousness". So I'll either render it as "justice" (the Portuguese Bible I have in front of me says justiça) or I'll use the Greek word.

    First, there is obviously some kind of reversal going on in this verse. Jesus who is without sin became sin. We (who are normally not very just) become justice.

    But still it seems strange, this talk Jesus becoming sin, and us becoming justice. People becoming abstract nouns, how can that be? Many translations struggle with that. They talk about Jesus becoming "a sin offering" (some English translations offer this as a footnote) or "a bearer of sin", and/or about us becoming "righteous" (as an adjective).

    Another aspect much discussed by theologians is that whenever Paul talks about δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans, justice clearly belongs to God, not to us. So, how can we become God's justice?

    Wright's solution is to link verse 21 to verse 20. We become ambassadors of God's justice (which he interprets in terms of the Covenant). This has the advantage of linking verse 21 — which seemed a bit disjointed — better to the previous verses.

    That's the second half of the verse, what about the first one? Harris interprets this as: Jesus identified with sinners. This relates to the beginning of Romans 8, where Paul is basically making the same argument. Interestingly, verse 3 says "[God was] sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh".

    To my weird mind, this almost reads like a spy novel. An undercover operation where Jesus was sent into the fleshy sinful world, in order to destroy these things from the inside. It also is comforting to me: Jesus is on our side, He knows what it's like to live here. To me, it refers at least as much to the Incarnation as to the Cross.

    At least to me, this also preserves the reversal present in this verse. This post has already been long enough, so I'll summarise my understanding of it as "Jesus identified with sinners, so that we could become ambassadors of God's justice."

    I can live with that.

    Just saw this while googling 2 Cor 5.

    Wright says "sin" is a hebraism for sin offering. In both OT and NT, sin is often used for representing the sin offering.

    Dikaiosune theou is not the Faith of God, but God's covenantal faithfulness. Again Wright. In other words, God promised to solve the problem of the Fall, unconditionally. His sense of justice obliged Him to keep His word.

    Wright says ALL Christians aren't considered to be ambassadors, but only those IN Christ, in this case, specifically, the Apostles, him, Paul. His appeal to the Corinthians is for them to be reconciled to God. That which marks him out to be an ambassador, IN Christ, the injuries he has suffered, are also the means by which God solves the aforementioned problems.

    You can download the PDF "On becoming the righteousness of God", by Wright, for the article in glorious prose.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    wordkeeper wrote: »
    Dikaiosune theou is not the Faith of God, but God's covenantal faithfulness. Again Wright. In other words, God promised to solve the problem of the Fall, unconditionally. His sense of justice obliged Him to keep His word.
    That makes perfect sense to me, linking God's justice with Him keeping the covenant.

    wordkeeper wrote: »
    You can download the PDF "On becoming the righteousness of God", by Wright, for the article in glorious prose.
    I found it here. Thank you, I'll read through it.
  • wordkeeperwordkeeper Shipmate Posts: 32
    LeRoc wrote: »
    But still it seems strange, this talk Jesus becoming sin, and us becoming justice. People becoming abstract nouns, how can that be? Many translations struggle with that. They talk about Jesus becoming "a sin offering" (some English translations offer this as a footnote) or "a bearer of sin", and/or about us becoming "righteous" (as an adjective).
    In the article, Jesus became a sin offering because He was unblemished. That's how the Bible describes atonement: we sin (break something) an innocent substitute (not sin) fixes things.

    This is God's covenantal faithfulness, how He keeps His promise, unconditionally, with no input or response required from us. We haven't even started to try and fix things. But IN Christ, we become part of God's response.

    We often forget that the Gospel isn't going to heaven, it's being fulfilled. Which is what it should be, should have some connection to the promise given to Abraham, that His Seed would be blessings to the world.


  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    [Wordkeeper] Wright says ALL Christians aren't considered to be ambassadors, but only those IN Christ, in this case, specifically, the Apostles, him, Paul. His appeal to the Corinthians is for them to be reconciled to God. That which marks him out to be an ambassador, IN Christ, the injuries he has suffered, are also the means by which God solves the aforementioned problems.

    You may have hit upon a fresh perspective here.

    Paul may be referring to himself and fellow Apostles when he says 'we' but perhaps he is referring to ANYONE who has experienced the expanded awareness that he now has, the 'Different view of God's character', that God's Grace has enabled them to perceive. i.e. "Everything has been made new, nothing can ever be the same", Nothing can be ever viewed in the way they did BEFORE the revelation to them of God's unwarranted compassion for the world, The "Old, human way of seeing things", i.e. (your debts are never forgiven by God until YOU or someone else has paid them for you), is now a thing of the past, simply because they now know "God no longer holds their sins against them", ESPECIALLY the SIN of crucifying Him, 'in Christ'.

    Paul appeals though to Corinthian Christians, who he probably considers are 'still of the world'. Corinthian leaders and many of their followers clearly had not experienced "Everything having been made new". They were actually causing considerable conflict and accusing Paul of not being an Apostle at all, denigrating his rhetorical skills and demonstrating open opposition to him and anyone dear to him. No wonder then that Paul considers them 'worldly' enough to need to be 'reconciled' to God. THEY are still stuck in the 'old ways of seeing things'. Still thinking in 'old ways', NOTHING was being seen by them as 'a new creation', i.e. 'a different understanding of the nature of God, in Christ'.

    Paul's point seems to be that only those who have experienced the 'new way of seeing the nature of God in Christ' are CAPABLE of being Ambassadors of that new vision. It is their incapacity to perceive the new creation brought about by God's Reconciliation overtures, through Christ's death on the cross, that prevents them from 'seeing all things anew'.

    Us being 'in Christ' is like God being 'in Christ'. 'In Christ', we now see things as Christ sees things. 'In Christ', God now sees things as Christ sees things, (As a human being). God now knows exactly what it is like to fear death, to feel pain, to die, to suffer the penalty of sin, which is death.

    God has been there, done it, got the tea shirt, worn it, used it to clean the motorbike and thrown it in the bin.

    God has been SIN. There is nothing God does not know about it anymore. Until God was crucified in Christ, God could know nothing of sin, or how it feels to be punished for it. He has actually been there IN CHRIST, even though HE never deserved it, he suffered the additional injustice of being falsely accused, scapegoated by religious types, betrayed by a friend, let down by man's justice and hung naked to die derided and abandoned by 'the righteousness of men'.

    And what do we learn from this, or not, as the case may be? That "God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to US. The world, or at least entrusting the message to those of us that are willing to see and appreciate what God has done for us, (i.e. the world), in Christ.

    It is, in my opinion, when we know that God is no longer wrathfully disposed toward his creation AND that 'all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags' compared to His form of righteousness, which is love and compassion, that we are in humility, FIT to be entrusted with "the message of reconciliation". Until then, (Like some of the Corinthian Christians), we are not fit to be entrusted with it.
    ____________________________________
    In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    We should not lose sight of the fact also that the reference to "God being in Christ reconciling the world to himself", does not specifically refer to Christ's death as the point at which that was happening.

    we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them.

    From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;


    Though Paul mentions Christ's death as a key event, evidencing that God in Christ was being reconciled with humanity, he also implies that "We once knew him from a human point of view". Paul never actually met Christ, and never knew Him, so there is more to this statement than meets the eye of the casual reader. Apparently "We no longer know Christ, from a human point of view"), Paul is perfectly aware that most of his readers never met Christ or "Knew Him" in any kind of way, so what "Different way are they to see Christ now"?

    The answer is: "As God". It is all about what God has done "In Christ", from incarnation to resurrection. God has now experienced personally, in the body of Christ, being born, being vulnerable, being hungry, being scared, being rejected, being hated, being loved, being comforted, being a brother, being a son, being fed up with stupid disciples, being tired, being depressed, being lonely, being tempted, being thirsty, being homeless, being happy in the company of friends, in fact just BEING HUMAN.

    How could anything remain the same between God and us, after an experience like that?

    No wonder "Everything has become NEW" and "ALL this is from GOD".

    There is no need to believe that some kind of sacrificial "magic" happened at the crucifixion, when we murdered God, which took all our sins away. The only way the consequences of our sins can be removed is FOR THEM TO BE NO LONGER HELD AGAINST US by God.

    And no amount of anything WE can do can bring that happy state about, because GOD has already done all that is necessary to enable it to be so. "Not held them against us". All we have to do is believe it and behave thereafter in ways that evidence the fact that we actually DO believe it.

  • wordkeeperwordkeeper Shipmate Posts: 32
    edited May 2018
    "Hamartia" meaning "sin" is often used to mean the whole word "sin offering" in the NT, a carry over from the convention followed in the Septuagint:
    http://www.bibleviews.com/2cor521.html


    Quote
    In the author's opinion, the second interpretation of II Corinthians 5:21 mentioned in the preceding section [see the book], that Jesus was made "to be a sin-offering for us," is correct. Sin-offering is an alternate meaning of hamartia found in the Greek Old Testament. Since the apostles and the church at Corinth mainly used the Septuagint, they undoubtedly understood that hamartia could mean a sin-offering. This was not an ambiguous, obscure, or hard to understand passage for those Greek Christians who received this letter, or other early Christians who read it later.

    Clarke supports the view that hamartia should be translated "sin-offering" here. He wrote that this "answers to the chattach and chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew by hamartia in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin" (see his comments in loc.). This translation is supported by the Isaiah 53 prophecy: "he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin" (v. 10).


    Places are very important elements in Scripture. Especially, the Garden, Canaan and Jerusalem. Israel needed to be in Jerusalem to make acceptable sacrifices.

    Now do a very important exercise. Replace the Garden with the Old Man in Adam and Jerusalem the Holy City with the New Man in Christ. Now you know how we can become part of God's work:

    Zechariah 3
    9'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

    http://www.covenantoflove.net/theology/wrights-explanation-of-2-corinthians-521/

    Quote
    N.T. Wright believes (as he says very clearly in both What Saint Paul Really Said? and in Justification) that this passage is so contextualized that we must read it as Paul talking about his own Apostolic Ministry and not about believers everywhere being imputed God’s righteousness.

    Keep in mind that God’s righteousness is a reference to his faithfulness to his covenant, a faithfulness which came to fruition in the “faithful obedience of Jesus Christ on the cross” (Galatians 2:16, Philippians 2:5-11). So if the message of the Gospel – the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) is the message of God’s covenant faithfulness then, says Wright, when Paul and the Apostles preached that message they actually embodied that message. In that sense they literally became “the righteousness of God”. This, says Wright, is the whole context of 5:11-20 and even going back to chapter 3 and 4.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    In what way does Wright think it can be understood then that "God no longer holds their sins against them", (referring to the world, presumably meaning all that are or have ever been in it)?

    Does he think that Paul is implying that only he and his fellow apostles no longer have their sins held against them by God? Surely not.

    So Paul must be referring to others than just himself and other apostles. He uses "We" when writing about "knowing Christ from a human point of view" but Paul never knew Christ from a human point of view, if it means actually meeting Christ in the flesh as the other Apostles actually had. Paul only ever met the risen Christ. Hardly possible for Paul to know him from a human point of view under such circumstances is it?

    So Paul is almost certainly not referring to himself. The context implies that Paul is referring to everyone who has had "Their sins no longer held against them by God". The question then remains, at what point in time did or does that happen, for the world?

    Paul does not seem to be suggesting that God, (regarding the world), is still holding their sins against them until they repent and sin no more. If that were the case Paul and all the rest of us, would be in a terrible state indeed, since by his own admission he still carried on sinning even after his conversion. He "longed to be released from this body of death". Rom.7:24.

    How is, "God no longer holding our sins against us", differently after the crucifixion event, than before it, if it requires both sacrifice and repentence in exactly the same way as under the terms of the original Covenant? i.e. Without confession, repentance and sacrifice = Your sins were still held against you?

    What is different then, in the way God deals with the 'sins' of the world, in the New and better Covenant?

    Something apparently must be different, but for those who cannot believe God can ever withhold judgment from the unrepentant, what can that possibly be?
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    I think that it is likely that ἁμαρτία (hamartía, ‘sin’) is used here to mean ‘sin offering.’ But that’s not novel. We see the exact same thing in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Septuagint (or the different versions of the Septuagint). I think N.T. Wright is correct, as @wordkeeper notes, when he says that this is a hebraism. The Hebrew khatta’at means ‘sin offering’ but etymologically it just means ‘sin’ or ‘for sin’ (hatta’at). Sometimes it is also accompanied with korban, meaning ‘offering,’ but not always. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_offering.

    See, for instance these verses: Exodus 29:14, 36; 30:10; Leviticus 4:3, 8,21, 24, 25. In these verses ἁμαρτία functions, in the Septuagint, like khatta’at functions in the Masoretic text. So it seems to me that this is exactly what St. Paul means.
  • wordkeeperwordkeeper Shipmate Posts: 32
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    In what way does Wright think it can be understood then that "God no longer holds their sins against them", (referring to the world, presumably meaning all that are or have ever been in it)?

    Does he think that Paul is implying that only he and his fellow apostles no longer have their sins held against them by God? Surely not.

    I believe that the text means that God, when He gave Christ as a sin offering, no longer held the sins of the world against it. To reiterate, the injured party, when he dropped charges, showed he no longer held the crime of the defendants against them.
    So Paul must be referring to others than just himself and other apostles. He uses "We" when writing about "knowing Christ from a human point of view" but Paul never knew Christ from a human point of view, if it means actually meeting Christ in the flesh as the other Apostles actually had. Paul only ever met the risen Christ. Hardly possible for Paul to know him from a human point of view under such circumstances is it?

    So Paul is almost certainly not referring to himself. The context implies that Paul is referring to everyone who has had "Their sins no longer held against them by God". The question then remains, at what point in time did or does that happen, for the world?

    I think that when Wright says “when Paul and the Apostles preached that message they actually embodied that message”, he means that the Corinthians should look at Paul’s scars (the result of picking up his cross daily) and see Christ. As for “not knowing Christ from a human point of view any more”, he means that he did not look at Christ like ordinary people did: how He looked, how much wealth He possessed, how much influence He had, but rather as the way God solved the problem of believers being alienated in the Old Man.

    2 Corinthians 5
    1For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

    Hebrews 11
    13All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
    Paul does not seem to be suggesting that God, (regarding the world), is still holding their sins against them until they repent and sin no more. If that were the case Paul and all the rest of us, would be in a terrible state indeed, since by his own admission he still carried on sinning even after his conversion. He "longed to be released from this body of death". Rom.7:24.

    How is, "God no longer holding our sins against us", differently after the crucifixion event, than before it, if it requires both sacrifice and repentance in exactly the same way as under the terms of the original Covenant? i.e. Without confession, repentance and sacrifice = Your sins were still held against you?

    What is different than, in the way God deals with the 'sins' of the world, in the New and better Covenant?

    Something apparently must be different, but for those who cannot believe God can ever withhold judgment from the unrepentant, what can that possibly be?

    The question can be solved if we understand that salvation is not going to heaven, but being fulfilled, made complete, in order to be a blessing to the world. Else, the promise to Abraham is reduced to a nullity. I mean, how can going to heaven be a blessing for the world?

    Holding sin against a person would manifest itself in God depriving them of being empowered to bless the world, meaning blocking entrance into Christ, which He has not done. When Christ was crucified, humanity was cleansed in a single day. All we have to do is to enter Rest, be IN the Body of Christ, the New Man. If people refuse to enter Rest, it means they love the darkness, the satisfying of bodily needs, needs that can never be satiated, requiring repetitious feeding with bread that never fills eternally, permanently. However, it doesn't mean that God still penalises them. They just don't believe enough to enter Rest.

    Its true that the New Covenant requires both sacrifice and repentance in exactly the same way as under the terms of the original Covenant, but the difference is that the sacrifice now comes from an unblemished offering. When a person is IN Christ, he becomes an unblemished offering.

    The sacrifices in the original covenant did not take away sin, whichever text you look at, but the reason Israel had to do it was because they were keepers of the oracle, the details about how God would save humanity. Of course, once the Temple was destroyed in 70AD they no longer could do even that. Not that they needed to, because it was already “finished”!

    The way a person is considered to be IN Christ is if His word remains IN THEM.

    John 15:5
    I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing.

    John 15:7
    If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

    Matthew 16:24
    Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.


  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    How can we injure God? Sin is always about abusing power over another. Forgiveness isn't worth a damn unless that's put right.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    wordkeeper wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    In what way does Wright think it can be understood then that "God no longer holds their sins against them", (referring to the world, presumably meaning all that are or have ever been in it)?

    Does he think that Paul is implying that only he and his fellow apostles no longer have their sins held against them by God? Surely not.

    I believe that the text means that God, when He gave Christ as a sin offering, no longer held the sins of the world against it. To reiterate, the injured party, when he dropped charges, showed he no longer held the crime of the defendants against them.

    I think that when Wright says “when Paul and the Apostles preached that message they actually embodied that message”, he means that the Corinthians should look at Paul’s scars (the result of picking up his cross daily) and see Christ. As for “not knowing Christ from a human point of view any more”, he means that he did not look at Christ like ordinary people did: how He looked, how much wealth He possessed, how much influence He had, but rather as the way God solved the problem of believers being alienated in the Old Man.

    2 Corinthians 5
    1For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

    Hebrews 11
    13All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
    Paul does not seem to be suggesting that God, (regarding the world), is still holding their sins against them until they repent and sin no more. If that were the case Paul and all the rest of us, would be in a terrible state indeed, since by his own admission he still carried on sinning even after his conversion. He "longed to be released from this body of death". Rom.7:24.

    How is, "God no longer holding our sins against us", differently after the crucifixion event, than before it, if it requires both sacrifice and repentance in exactly the same way as under the terms of the original Covenant? i.e. Without confession, repentance and sacrifice = Your sins were still held against you?

    What is different than, in the way God deals with the 'sins' of the world, in the New and better Covenant?

    Something apparently must be different, but for those who cannot believe God can ever withhold judgment from the unrepentant, what can that possibly be?

    The question can be solved if we understand that salvation is not going to heaven, but being fulfilled, made complete, in order to be a blessing to the world. Else, the promise to Abraham is reduced to a nullity. I mean, how can going to heaven be a blessing for the world?

    Holding sin against a person would manifest itself in God depriving them of being empowered to bless the world, meaning blocking entrance into Christ, which He has not done. When Christ was crucified, humanity was cleansed in a single day. All we have to do is to enter Rest, be IN the Body of Christ, the New Man. If people refuse to enter Rest, it means they love the darkness, the satisfying of bodily needs, needs that can never be satiated, requiring repetitious feeding with bread that never fills eternally, permanently. However, it doesn't mean that God still penalises them. They just don't believe enough to enter Rest.

    Its true that the New Covenant requires both sacrifice and repentance in exactly the same way as under the terms of the original Covenant, but the difference is that the sacrifice now comes from an unblemished offering. When a person is IN Christ, he becomes an unblemished offering.

    The sacrifices in the original covenant did not take away sin, whichever text you look at, but the reason Israel had to do it was because they were keepers of the oracle, the details about how God would save humanity. Of course, once the Temple was destroyed in 70AD they no longer could do even that. Not that they needed to, because it was already “finished”!

    The way a person is considered to be IN Christ is if His word remains IN THEM.

    John 15:5
    I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing.

    John 15:7
    If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

    Matthew 16:24
    Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.


    I think we are very close to agreeing on this thread issue Wordkeeper. It seems not widely understood that the sacrificial aspects of the cross are complicated by the divinity of Christ. On the one hand, as a human being Christ went to the cross reluctantly. He sweated drops of blood and would have avoided it if He possibly could, just as any truly human being would. On the other as the second person of the Trinity, God incarnate, Christ offered Himself as a propitiation for the sins of 'the world' so that 'the world' is not judged, but 'saved'.

    And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jn.12:47-48.

    This seems to imply that The Judgment does not hinge around each persons deeds committed while alive in the world, so much as on their response to the teaching of Jesus Christ, when they hear and understand it. There will be many, presumably, 'on the last day', that will not have heard Christ's words and therefore had never actually rejected them. Conversely however there will also be those who having heard His words, (through The Gospel, delivered to them in the power of The Spirit), despised and rejected them as an inconvenience to their cruel or selfish and hedonistic lifestyle choices, and therefore rejected Him as the embodiment of the Grace of God.

    We have yet to discover what conviction of that particular offense will entail or whether opportunity for repentance extends beyond the grave, but the best advice offered is always, "There is no time like the present to 'come to our senses' and 'return to our Father, saying I am no longer worthy' . . . etc." Ps.34:18.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    In what regard was Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity? And vice versa? And who accountably knows His teachings?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    In what regard was Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity? And vice versa? And who accountably knows His teachings?

    It's impossible to say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", quickly enough to suggest co-equality of persons. So "Son" comes after "Father", and "Holy Spirit" comes after "Son". That is the inconvenient thing about time. We just have to put up with that.

    I can't make any sense of the 'vice versa' in your sentence. There is either the sequential order Father, Son Holy Spirit, supported by scripture, or the notion of co-equality of persons supported also by scripture and the Athanasian Creed. We also have the Son doing the will of The Father and The Holy Spirit doing the will of Christ according to scripture, but also The Holy Spirit actually being The Spirit of Christ.

    As to who accountably knows His teachings:

    Listen to me, you who know righteousness,
    you people who have my teaching in your hearts;
    do not fear the reproach of others,
    and do not be dismayed when they revile you.
    For the moth will eat them up like a garment,
    and the worm will eat them like wool;
    but my deliverance will be forever,
    and my salvation to all generations.
    Isa.51:7-8.

    Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own. Jn.7:16-17.

    And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. Luk.12:11-12

    But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Jn.14:26.

    Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Jn.17:20-21.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2018
    How much of Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity and how much of the Second Person of the Trinity was Jesus?

    Who are all these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example? Shorn of meaningless piety and cold reading their own narrative?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How much of Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity and how much of the Second Person of the Trinity was Jesus?

    Who are all these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example? Shorn of meaningless piety and cold reading their own narrative?

    I suppose all of Jesus was the second person of The Trinity and all of the Second person of The Trinity was Jesus. At least that is what the church has taught for quite a long time.

    All these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff are His sheep:

    My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” Jn.10:27-30.

    I can't give examples or point the finger. I am just an unworthy servant. We are all reliant upon the Grace of God and our hope is entirely in what He has accomplished and has promised to those who serve Him. Denigrating the piety of others does not increase one's own.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I suppose all of Jesus was the second person of The Trinity and all of the Second person of The Trinity was Jesus. At least that is what the church has taught for quite a long time.
    They switch places from time to time, just for fun.

    C'mon, "second" is just a number.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I suppose all of Jesus was the second person of The Trinity and all of the Second person of The Trinity was Jesus. At least that is what the church has taught for quite a long time.
    They switch places from time to time, just for fun.

    C'mon, "second" is just a number.

    Of course. And I suppose it would do no harm to swap around Father, Son and Holy Spirit once in a while, just to emphasize their co-equalness as well. It's a divine cosmic juggling act, dance or symphony of perpetual three part harmony.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2018
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How much of Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity and how much of the Second Person of the Trinity was Jesus?

    Who are all these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example? Shorn of meaningless piety and cold reading their own narrative?

    I suppose all of Jesus was the second person of The Trinity and all of the Second person of The Trinity was Jesus. At least that is what the church has taught for quite a long time.

    All these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff are His sheep:

    My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” Jn.10:27-30.

    I can't give examples or point the finger. I am just an unworthy servant. We are all reliant upon the Grace of God and our hope is entirely in what He has accomplished and has promised to those who serve Him. Denigrating the piety of others does not increase one's own.

    So what about all the other trillions of saviours in our infinitesimal universe? That couldn't not overlap just in our dot?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How much of Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity and how much of the Second Person of the Trinity was Jesus?

    Who are all these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example? Shorn of meaningless piety and cold reading their own narrative?

    I suppose all of Jesus was the second person of The Trinity and all of the Second person of The Trinity was Jesus. At least that is what the church has taught for quite a long time.

    All these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff are His sheep:

    My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” Jn.10:27-30.

    I can't give examples or point the finger. I am just an unworthy servant. We are all reliant upon the Grace of God and our hope is entirely in what He has accomplished and has promised to those who serve Him. Denigrating the piety of others does not increase one's own.

    So what about all the other trillions of saviours in our infinitesimal universe? That couldn't not overlap just in our dot?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Yeah, every starlit night. I can point ten thousand with binoculars alone, in the next arm. Out of ten to the twenty fourth power stars, as I rightly remembered, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; pick a ratio for stars with sapient life on the ten times as many planets and ten times again as many moons.

    10,000 in the Milky Way arm of 10,000,000,000 stars is good and conservative don't you think?

    Jesus was not a collapsar of the Second Person of the Trinity. Fact.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    If I can disentangle the convoluted logic of your argument, you are saying that the stellar masses you see through your binoculars in their trillions, are all 'saviors' in our infinitesimal universe, and Jesus is, as you see it, not?

    Is that right?

    I agree, he was and is not a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. He was a person. One of his Titles is Morning Star but that does not imply, except to a very few rabid fundamentalists, that he is a fusion supporting stellar mass or that fusion supporting stellar masses are 'saviors', except in the sense that they provide one of the very basic necessities for life when received in the correct proportions. Light and heat.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    How do you know?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    Perhaps He meant what you suggest, who knows?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Moo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    How do you know?
    Because I exist. How don't you?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    Perhaps He meant what you suggest, who knows?
    I suggest nothing. But I like what you say. That is divine understatement certainly. Jesus could not have known of what He spoke, despite His transcendent vision, could not have known that He was one of infinite Incarnations. Until the Resurrection obviously.
  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    Perhaps He meant what you suggest, who knows?

    That'll be the Gentiles then.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2018
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Then we don't.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Can you imagine Satan being content to just screw around with us on our little insignificant piece of space flotsam? If there are any other sentient beings out there, I guess they have got Satan's attention as well.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    Perhaps He meant what you suggest, who knows?

    That'll be the Gentiles then.

    Another possible meaning to what He said, yes. But not necessarily the only one.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Who are all these people who follow Jesus' beatitudes and stuff?

    Can you point to ... one? One incarnational example? Shorn of meaningless piety and cold reading their own narrative?

    I like Dallas Willard's take on the Beatitudes, which would suggest that they're not something we "follow" but rather something we just are. What Jesus is doing in the Beatitudes is announcing God's Big Welcome. He's going thru all sorts of categories of people that the world would assume are "cursed"-- i.e. outside of the Kingdom-- those who have suffered loss, those who are poor or powerless, even those who are "poor in spirit" (not spiritual giants). He's not saying these are things to aspire to, he's saying: those people who you assume are not part of the Kingdom? Guess what? They are.

    An thus they are "blessed".

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Can you imagine Satan being content to just screw around with us on our little insignificant piece of space flotsam? If there are any other sentient beings out there, I guess they have got Satan's attention as well.

    No, he's local.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Can you imagine Satan being content to just screw around with us on our little insignificant piece of space flotsam? If there are any other sentient beings out there, I guess they have got Satan's attention as well.

    No, he's local.

    Admittedly he was figuratively 'cast down' to earth, but that could merely mean his sphere of operations had been limited to the physical cosmos, no longer having any effect or authority in the heavenly realm.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    He was always local because he's finite. He changed. So he's finite. Local. Otherwise he'd be uncaused, timeless, uncreated. Demiurgical. He is not the devil of ten to the twenty sapient species in this infinitesimal universe in eternity for a start. That would be silly.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Which means he's a metaphor. Unless sapient evil is distributed. Immanent. Sufficient everywhere. Which smells dualistic.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    The only postmodern orthodox evidence for him is Jesus' bequeathed power of exorcism. Not even Jesus' temptation, which looks completely metaphoric and/or based in starvation delirium.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Luke 3:16, 22:31? Jesus seemed convinced Satan was only a metaphor. The metaphor is our medieval Hieronymus Bosch cartoon visualisations of the character.

    Are you suggesting then that there would be no temptation on The Moon or Mars, only on earth?
  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Then we don't.

    Why don't we?
    And can you suggest why many people believe that we do?



  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Luke 3:16, 22:31? Jesus seemed convinced Satan was only a metaphor. The metaphor is our medieval Hieronymus Bosch cartoon visualisations of the character.

    Are you suggesting then that there would be no temptation on The Moon or Mars, only on earth?
    Why would human nature not work there? What has temptation forty billion light years away got to do with Satan?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Mudfrog wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Convoluted? Those star systems have sapient species and therefore Incarnations.

    What if none of them need one?

    Then we don't.

    Why don't we?
    And can you suggest why many people believe that we do?
    Can you join the logical dots up in this argument please?

    If the other ten to the twentieth power of sapient species in the cosmos aren't 'fallen', why are we?
Sign In or Register to comment.