How would you answer? Christ made sin....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Can you help me with someone who asked this question?





I was sent an article today that stated that Christ not only was imputed with our sin, but He actually became sin. It states:

"Traditionally, it is said that Christ was made sin by imputation. I have said that myself; but that is not really true. The Word of God never says that. Our Lord Jesus was not made sin by imputation. The Scriptures forbid the possibility of that (Proverbs 17:15). Our sins were imputed to him because he was made sin. There is no place in this Book of God where a legal (forensic) term is used with reference to Christ being made sin. It is certainly true that our sin was imputed to our Savior. Had it not been imputed to him, he could never have suffered the wrath of God for our sin. But he was not made sin by imputation.

Our sins were justly imputed to him because he was made sin for us! The Book of God does not say our sins were pasted on him in a legal, ceremonial way. The Book says, “He hath made him sin for us!” The Scriptures do not say he was treated as though he were sin. The Book says, “He hath made him sin for us!” The Word of God does not say he was accounted a transgressor. The Book says, “He hath made him sin for us!” And the Holy Spirit does not here say that he was made a sin-offering. The Book of God says, “He hath made him sin for us!”"

I was wondering your thought on this!
 
It seems to me that for Christ to become sin, or to be made sin without it being on the basis of imputation would be abominable to the Father. For Christ did not ontologically change into being sinful. So if it is not imputation as IS. 53:6 seems to explain, then I don’t know what it could be.

Is. 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

You surmise that Jesus did not “become” sin by imputation because of your reading of Prov. 17:15. I believe your reading of Prov. 17:15 to be incorrect. I believe the passage to be clear, as clear as the travesty of Pilate releasing Barabbas and condemning Jesus. That’s what the passage is about, not about whether or not God could impute guilt to Christ.

John Gil said about Prov. 17:15 – “From this passage we learn, that the word "justify" is used in a forensic sense, for pronouncing persons just in a court of judicature; and in which sense it is used in the article of a sinner's justification before God: by which act, though it is an ungodly person that is justified, yet it is through the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and is quite agreeable to law and the justice of God; and not at all inconsistent with this passage, which represents the justification of a wicked man as an abomination: it is so where there is no righteousness, but not where there is; agreeably to which is the saying of an Heathen {r} poet,

"it is not righteous, neither rashly to condemn bad men good, nor good men bad.''

{r} Sophoclis Oedipus Tyrann. v. 622, 623.

Matthew Henry when referring to Prov. 17:15 said, “This shows what an offence it is to God, 1. When those that are entrusted with the administration of public justice, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, counsel, do either acquit the guilty or condemn those that are not guilty, or in the least contribute to either; this defeats the end of government, which is to protect the good and punish the bad, Rom. xiii. 3, 4. It is equally provoking to God to justify the wicked, though it be in pity and in favorem vitæ—to safe life, as to condemn the just. 2. When any private persons plead for sin and sinners, palliate and excuse wickedness, or argue against virtue and piety, and so pervert the right ways of the Lord and confound the eternal distinctions between good and evil.”

-----Added 12/21/2009 at 09:31:13 EST-----

For clarification, when I said "you" I meant to say the article/quote you gave...sorry for the misspeak.
 
I would say that the person needs to have a broader Biblical Theological understanding of sacrifice. You cannot simply insert your own dictionary understanding of "made sin" and conclude everything therefrom. The notion of imputation and atonement and sacrifice is rich in the OT and NT and you need to put them all together (especially in light of Hebrews 9-10) to understand what it meant that Christ became Sin.
 
The Passover lamb wasn't made a pig, and if someone caught the scape goat they could still eat it. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture is the way to do things. Imputing sin to them didn't change the fact that they were still clean. It didn't change their natures.

On a related note, most Reformed hymnals that have Wesley's song And Can It Be

He left his father's throne above,
So free, so infinite his grace,
Emptied himself of all but love,
and bled for Adam’s helpless race.

change the emptied Himself part, since He is eternally God. At no point did He stop being God, and morph into something less.
 
With what we understand of sacrifice, particularly the passover lamb which was a shadow of the true sacrifice of Christ, one cannot reasonably come another conclusion than what we recognize as the legal effect of imputation. In order to follow the described argument, you have to throw out our understanding of sacrifices within the context of God's law. The passover lamb did not "become sin", it was sacrificed in place of the person, taking the person's punishment for them with their sins on it-imputation.

The interpretation also doesn't make sense in the broader scheme of justice. If God was breaking Christ on the cross as sin, then He would not be affecting punishment on a person for rebellion, but rather on the rebellion against Him itself as embodied in Christ. If this is true, then we are still dead in our sins and have no hope. No one has taken the punishment for us and our sins are still on our own head. We must account for them because Christ didn't, as He didn't take them on Himself.

I can't fathom how the Atonement functions judicially without imputation. I find it so odd that someone would deny this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top