> General Discussions

Jesus cursed?

<< < (2/2)

aqrinc:

It is still necessary to read in context where applicable; one cannot take one sentence and make doctrine out of it. That is exactly what those who can read but have no understanding do. It would do anyone well to read this entire chapter several times and Pray for understanding. (Galatians 3:1-29)

Here is a hopefully a better context from which to understand this passage of Scripture.

Gal 3:6-17 (TCNT Twentieth Century NT)
6 It is just as it was with Abraham--'He had faith in God, and his faith was regarded by God as righteousness.'
7 You see, then, that those whose lives are based on faith are the Sons of Abraham.

8 And Scripture, foreseeing that God would pronounce the Gentiles righteous as the result of faith, foretold the Good News to Abraham in the words--'Through thee all the Gentiles shall be blessed.'

9 And, therefore, those whose lives are based on faith share the blessings bestowed upon the faith of Abraham.

10 All who rely upon obedience to Law are under a curse, for Scripture says--'Cursed is every one who does not abide by all that is written in the Book of the Law, and do it.'

11 Again, it is evident that no one is pronounced righteous before God through Law, for we read--'Through faith the righteous man shall find Life.'

12 But the Law is not based on faith; no, its words are--'Those who practice these precepts (Law) will find Life through them.'

13 Christ ransomed us from the curse pronounced in the Law, by taking the curse on himself for us, for Scripture says--'Cursed is any one who is hanged on a tree.'

--- Quote ---2 Cor 5:21  For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him [CLV]

--- End quote ---
14 And this he did that the blessing given to Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through their union with Jesus Christ; that so, through our faith, we also might receive the promised gift of the Spirit.

15 To take an illustration, Brothers, from daily life--No one sets aside even an agreement between two men, when once it has been confirmed, nor does he add conditions to it.

16 Now it was to Abraham that the promises were made, 'and to his offspring.' It was not said 'to his offsprings,' as if many persons were meant, but the words were 'to thy offspring,' showing that one person was meant--and that was Christ.

17 My point is this--An agreement already confirmed by God cannot be canceled by the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, so as to cause the promise to be set aside.

george. :)

chav:
Hi
thanks for all your answers and for making things clearer.


--- Quote ---1Cor 12:3: Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

--- End quote ---

The above scripture nails it for me ,there is absolutely no way that the father could have cursed his own son otherwise we have a very major contradiction here.

Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight. Prov 26:2

Christ was the sinless spotless lamb of God nothing he said or did warranted a curse from God

Cursed of men yes ,absolutely

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3

Thanks for your input.I think much of this idea,that the church promotes stating that 'God cursed his son' ,is largely due to this mis-translated verse in Corinthians that states 'Christ became sin'

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

which should read

2 Cor 5:21  For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him [CLV]

cheers
Dave

Kat:

Was looking for a Scriptural explanation/witness for this verse in Galatians 3.

Gal 3:13  Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...

Gal 4:4  But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
v. 5  to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Gal 3:13 ...having become a curse for us...

1Peter 2:21  For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
v. 22  "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
v. 23  who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;
v. 4  who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.

Jesus was treated the same as if He was the vilest of criminals and He was put to a most cruel and painful death in the same shameful way as if He Himself had been guilty of the violation of the Law and wasn't this the curse that He had to bear?  He was an offering for sin, a "sin offering," He did not become sin.  So it does not mean that Jesus was guilty and being punished by God, this was most definitely not the wrath of God on Him.  God could not have loved Jesus more than when He gave Himself to be crucified on the cross as a sin offering.

2Co 5:21 For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him. (CLV)

Gal 3:13 ...(for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),

This comes from Deuteronomy.  

Deu 21:22  "If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,
v. 23  his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

The curse is against all sinners, that means all mankind, for all have sinned and are guilty before God, the one exception is of course Jesus Christ.  This phrase of being "accursed of God," show that He endured the full penalty of the law and bore the curse of the law, thus satisfied the law.  This only proves His love for us.  

Gal 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Rom 3:19  Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, so this redeemed us from all iniquity and by which we have justification, pardon, receive adoption, and life.

2Co 5:19  to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses,

Titus 2:14  who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.


mercy, peace and love
Kat

Brett:

--- Quote from: Dave UK on December 01, 2009, 09:21:54 AM ---
Thanks for your input.I think much of this idea,that the church promotes stating that 'God cursed his son' ,is largely due to this mis-translated verse in Corinthians that states 'Christ became sin'

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

which should read

2 Cor 5:21  For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him [CLV]


--- End quote ---


Hello,

I know I have not much write in posts for long time but I only to read posts. Now I'm here. :D

In 2 Corinthians 5:21 "Offering" is not found in Greek word. In Romans 6:23 said 'ration of Sin is death' and 1 Cor. 15:56 said "the sting of Death is sin", therefore Jesus was brought death once. If there is no sin, then there would be no death.

Brett

mharrell08:

--- Quote from: Brett on December 01, 2009, 08:29:25 PM ---Hello,

I know I have not much write in posts for long time but I only to read posts. Now I'm here. :D

In 2 Corinthians 5:21 "Offering" is not found in Greek word. In Romans 6:23 said 'ration of Sin is death' and 1 Cor. 15:56 said "the sting of Death is sin", therefore Jesus was brought death once. If there is no sin, then there would be no death.

Brett
--- End quote ---


Hello Brett,

Christ is our Passover [1 Cor 5:7] and therefore a sin offering. Christ did not die because He sinned but laid down His life as a sin offering.

Excerpt from 'Was Christ Made Sin?' (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.0.html):

OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORITY

Do they have any authority to translate that word “sin”  into “sin offering” ?  Coy Brock says no, he doesn’t see it anywhere in the New Testament. 

There was no New Testament and the way you learned about these Hebrew things was through the Hebrew Scriptures.  Have we now come to the place where we can’t understand something in the New Testament unless it tells us in the New Testament what it means?  Are we no longer at liberty to go to the Old Testament for a double witness or a triple witness or for an explanation of a Scripture that appears in the New Testament?  Are we no longer allowed to do that? 

Fifty-four (54) times in the book of Leviticus alone… one book, we see the words ‘sin’ all by itself s-i-n, sin translated sin offering.  Guess what?  The word offering is never found in italics in those places, because it is a part of the translation, it means ‘sin offering.’  The word offering is understood.  In all fifty-four the King James got it right, but in the New Testament they apparently or conveniently forgot that Christ, who was indeed “our PASSOVER,” was therefore also our “sin OFFERING.” 

1 Cor. 5:7  Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

Christ is our Passover.  The Passover lamb was an offering, it was a sacrifice, it was not ‘the’ sin of Israel.  Do you follow?   It was a offering - a sacrifice.  Jesus Christ is that sacrifice, He is that Passover, it says so.  Now was that Passover lamb ‘the’ sin or was it just a sacrifice ‘for’ sin?  Well we know the answer to that. 

Lev 4:20  And he shall do6213 with the bullock6499 as834 he did6213 with the bullock6499 for a  sin offering,2403 so3651 shall he do6213 with this: and the priest3548 shall make an atonement3722 for5921 them, and it shall be forgiven5545 them.

I left the numbers right in there, you can see the Hebrew word # 2403 you’ve got two words “sin offerings” for the one word.  If you look up that #2403 it will give you the definition of sin, not the definition of offering.  How come they translate it sin offering?  Because all Hebrews knew that that’s what it meant. 
If Hebrews don’t understand their own language, how are we going to translate anything?  By whose authority are we going to translate Hebrew Scripture if the Hebrews don’t understand their own language?  Can we see how they did it?  What justification is there for saying Christ is made sin, period?  He was made a ‘sin offering’ and the Scripture proves it, fifty-four times in the book of Leviticus  alone.

Lev 4:24  And he shall lay5564 his hand3027 upon5921 the head7218 of the goat,8163 and kill7819 it in the place4725 where834 they kill7819 (853) the burnt offering5930 before6440 the LORD:3068 it1931 is a sin offering.2403

Did you notice “burnt offering,” there is one Hebrew word next to it.  Do you think that word defines the word offering?  No… burnt, what does burnt mean?  It means a burnt offering, that’s what the word means. 

He made Him - Christ to be a sin offering.  Sin, what does it mean?  Well you say, ‘that’s the way you translate it.’  No it’s not.  I mean if this guy can see dozens, if not hundreds, of places where the Scripture are not properly translated in the New Testament, why can’t they see this?  Because they have an idle of the heart and they won’t give it up.  It’s a damnable idle and it’s blasphemous.  They will give account, trust me they will. 
Just in case you think, ‘well there is no word for offering, that’s why they had to stick it there.’  Oh there is, look at this verse.

Lev 4:29  And he shall lay5564 (853) his hand3027 upon5921 the head7218 of the sin offering,2403 and slay7819 (853) the sin offering2403 in the place4725 of the burnt offering.5930

Notice that in every case, “sin offering” is translated from only one word, not two and that one word [Heb. chattaah - stands for “sin” and not for offering].   Offering is understood.  Notice in the Scripture that the same is true for “burnt offering.”

I checked to see if there was anybody worth their weight as far as a scholar goes.  There are many, but I’ll give you just one to see that this is not just Ray Smith’s interpretation.  This is one authority on Hebrew and Greek who understands the meaning of the word hamartia (sin) #266 in the Greek according to Strong’s numbering, when used in these contexts:

“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 undoubted understood that hamartis [Gk: For ‘sin’] 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.” (Redemption Realized Through Christ By Leland M. Haines)

Did you see that “in the Greek Old Testament,” what a proof we have here.
Guess how they translated the Hebrew word for sin into the Greek?  Sin offering.  They had one Hebrew word for sin… now they are translated in the Hebrew Scripture into Greek, this is what we call the Septuagint.  It was seventy scholars which translated the Old Hebrew Scripture into the Greek two hundred years before Christ ever came.  They translated the single Hebrew word for sin - sin offering, two words. 
Of course this was not ambiguous or strange or difficult.  These people understood Hebrew, and Greek was now the main language of trade and so on.  Why?  Because Alexander conquered that whole part of the world.  They were speaking Greek in Egypt.  People forget that Egyptians use to speak Greek.  The Ptolemys were Greek.  Cleopatra Queen of Egypt was Greek. 

Lev 4:23  Or176 if his sin,2403 wherein834 he hath sinned,2398 come to his knowledge;3045, 413 he shall bring935 (853) his offering,7133 a kid8163 of the goats,5795 a male2145 without blemish:8549

Occasionally the word ‘offering’ is used by itself.  In this verse you see the word offering there and the word is #7133, it is not the word #2403.  There is a word for offering, but it is speaking about the sin and the burnt and the trespass ‘offering.’

The Hebrew for “offering” is ‘qorban qurban’ and is defined as “something brought near the altar.”  But these words for offering are missing from all of the fifty-four times “sin offering” is found in the book of Leviticus.  Only the word for sin is found, but it means and is properly translated fifty-four times as “sin offering.”

When it’s talking about Jesus was made sin, He was made a sin offering.  Coy just passes over this one phrase, like well that’s all there is to that, that takes care of that.  That takes care of nothing.  That’s scholarship on the level of sand pile or kindergarten at best. 
Now in Ezekiel 44, does anyone really believe that God was telling them that they should eat their “sin” and eat the “trespass”?  Rather than the sin and trespass “offering.”  Eat your sin? 
Now I’m showing that not only is it right and proper to translate it sin offering, burnt offering, trespass offering and so on.  Not only are we right and proper, but I want to show you that it is no other way possible that it is translated in some instances.  Here is one of them, in Ezekiel 44.

Eze. 44:29  They1992 shall eat398 the meat offering,4503 and the sin offering,2403 and the trespass offering;817 and every3605 dedicated thing2764 in Israel3478 shall be1961 theirs.

Now you could leave off  the word “offering” in the first one and say, “they shall eat the meat,” right, you could eat meat.  But how do you eat sin?  How do you eat trespass?  You can’t eat sin.  Here’s proof… do you notice that after sin offering there is only one word #2403, that’s why I left the numbers in there. After trespass only one word #817.  It was the offering that they were eating, an offering as a tangible piece of food, be it meat or cake or bread or whatever, it’s tangible food, you can eat it.  But you can’t eat sin.  Am I going to fast for anyone?


Hope this helps,

Marques

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page