Hi M.G.
Christ was a 'sin offering' not made 'sin,' as sin is missing the mark or lawlessness. This is from the transcript "Was Christ made sin?' to explain this.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.0.html ----------
So if sin is lawlessness, when was Jesus Christ lawless? What laws did He break? If Christ was sin and sin is lawlessness, what laws did Christ break? If sin is missing the mark, falling short or whatever, when did Christ fall short? How did He fall short?
v
v
Jesus Christ was not ‘the sin’ of the world offered on the cross, He died on the cross FOR our sins. Can you not understand simple words? An offering was a sacrifice back in Israel ‘for’ the sin. That’s why it was not called sin, it was called a SIN OFFERING.
Here is 2 Cor. 5:21 translated;
“For Him who knew no Sin, He made a Sin-offering on our behalf, that we might become God’s Righteousness in Him” (Emphatic Diaglott).
“For the One not knowing sin, He makes [Gk. Aorist - not past tense] to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him” (Concordant N.T.).
This is the proper order too. It should not be “for He made Him sin,” the first phrase is “For Him who knew no Sin.”
----------------------------------------------
To understand about the sacrifies you have to realize that they are all pointing to the ultimate sacrifice Jesus Christ. Here is an excerpt from an email that Ray points this out.
http://bible-truths.com/email3.htm -------------
Just like with the whole Law of Moses, it foreshadowed SOMETHING BETTER (Heb. 10:1). Jesus Christ is not a shadow of ANYTHING---Jesus Christ is the REAL THING--THE REALITY of which all physical ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals were but a SHADOW. Stop looking to the "shadows" as though there were REAL POWER in the shadows. There is not. The only power is in the REALITY and the REALITY is JESUS CHRIST IN US. PERIOD.
--------------------------------------------------
There is a section of this same transcript from above 'Was Christ made sin?' that I believe is speaking to the same thing being discussed here. This is from chapter 4 of Leviticus about 2 offerings, but I believe it represents the same thing as the 'two goats' sacrifices.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.0.html ----------
SIN OFFERING - TRESPASS OFFERING
When he talks about the offerings, that there were two offerings, one for sin and one for trespass. He says that the sin offering was for the fact that Israel was sin and the trespass offering was for the actual commitment of sins. But like the rest of this lecture it is total heresy. Here are his words he‘s talking about the sin offerings, quote “That sin offering was made for what we are, not what we do, what we are, we have a sin offering for what we are. We have a trespass offering for what we do.” That’s nonsense, did you get that?
This is what that is saying, that in the Old Testament they have what is called a sin offering for what we are, sin, not sinners, sin. Then there was the trespass offering for what we do, commit sins. Two different offerings, because these two things exist. 1)We are sin, 2) we commit sins. Two different aspects of our relationship with sin, two different offerings for those two different relationships. He says we have the offerings to prove it.
Don’t these guys ever read there Bibles anymore. What unscriptural foolishness. Let’s look at it. So you get the picture right? He says, if you gave a sin offering, it was because you are sin. You didn’t do anything wrong, maybe you went all month and didn’t commit any sins, but because you were sin inside, you give a sin offering. But when you go out and if you hit someone over the head with a rock, you committed a sin and then you offer a trespass offering. Because you actually committed a sin. And he says this is Scriptural.
Lev 4:22 When a ruler has sinned (now this is not the fact, this is the act, he actually sinned), and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; v. 23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned (this is pretty clear), come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: v. 24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
What kind of offering, a trespass? Because this is a sin that he actually commented, it tells us four times in the verse, that he actually committed sin. But it is a SIN OFFERING. So much for that heresy.
Lev 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. V. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering...
What happed to the trespass offering? By what he says this is suppose to be a trespass offering, when you commit a sin, because the trespass offering is for the actual sin and the sin offering is for what you are. But no, we just read a sin offering is for committing the sin.
Lev 4:34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering… v. 35 …and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,
What happened to the ‘sin in fact?’ Where is this sin offering for the sin in fact, but not the sin in act?
This is a important study I have done and all of those dissidents are going to get this. They will get all of this stuff contradicting not just their premise, not just one paragraph, not just one page, but every single word of this dirty religion. They will read it and you know what effect it will have on them? Zero. You’ve got it, none what so ever. They will say, ‘well I think he lies, he didn’t quote Coy right.’ I mean come on.
Here is one more Scripture.
Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering…
Now we are getting down to it, this is where you are suppose to commit a sin, this has nothing to do with the sin offering, it’s when you commit a sin and it has got to be as he said, a trespass offering and not a sin offering right? Wrong pale face.
Continue v. 6 …his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats for (for what? a trespass offering, right? Nope…) a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
You bring the trespass offering, for a sin offering, that's what it is. The trespass offering is a sin offering. It’s in your Bible, it’s in my Bible. It’s in verse 7...
Lev 5:7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass (bring what, a trespass offering? No), which he hath committed (this is an ‘act’ now), two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
It’s just nonsense, yet this is one of his major points. This is his poof that you can ‘be sin,’ without sinning, because there was an offering especially for just being sin and not committing a sin, it was called the sin offering. No!
We just read time and time and time again, in the same chapter, that when you committed a sin, you offered the sin offering. What he has is wrong, it’s just bogus nonsense.
Then he has one called ‘the propensity to sin.’ Because it is kind of in humanity to sin and this is one of his proofs that Christ was sin, because He was a human.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't completely understand a lot of this, but it gives you something to think about
mercy, peace and love
Kat