What Does it Mean that Jesus “Became Sin” For Us? - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Again Distnr provides a teaching, but it cannot just simply present its case. Nope, once again a supposed false teacher is dragged in for the purpose of taking a few more shots. In this case the unnamed author gratuitously recycles its criticism of Todd White to no one's benefit. 

We should also note that the only Scripture quoted by the author is subject verse. He does not make his case from the Bible.

Further, the author does manage to make occasional good points, but immediately negates them with undocumented false assumptions. For example, the Calvinistic "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" doctrine is mentioned but never documented.

Lastly, it seems the author wants to assume a scholarly veneer by explaining interpretive methodology and quoting Greek word meanings, but it comes off as posturing. A teacher's job is to explain, not obscure. The author obscures, which make him a bad teacher.

(...)

One passage that has puzzled and intrigued scholars and believers alike is 2 Corinthians 5:21, (After centuries of debate, the author has the answer for us...)

which reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” This verse is a powerful and transformative statement that speaks to the heart of the Christian faith.

Here’s a prime example of exactly not how to interpret this passage. Here, notorious blasphemer, Todd White, mangles this passage to mean something it does not mean at all. (We redacted the link to a Todd White video snippet as an irrelevant tangent.)

To be clear, Jesus did not “become sin” in any ontological sense (Sigh. Ontological: Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. The author apparently doesn't want to clarify his thoughts, but instead hides behind two dollar words.

Further, the subject verse does not contain the phrase “become sin,”  yet the author put it in quotes.)

and that is not what this passage is saying. What this preacher said in this video clip is heretical and should be rejected outright. If Jesus were to become these sinful things in an actual way, then he would not be the sinless, perfect lamb of God. (An undocumented claim. We think a question like "can Jesus literally be made sin and remain sinless" is a matter worth exploring. The author punts; he simply makes his statement and moves on.) 

Therefore, we need to do better than what this unqualified preacher has done. To fully understand this verse, we need to examine it through the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which involves analyzing the grammar, syntax, and historical context of the passage to discern its original meaning. (The author continues his pretentiousness. Does the author have some sort of training in these areas?)

By doing so, we can uncover the deeper layers of meaning and significance that lie beneath the surface of this text.

Let’s begin by looking at the context of this passage. The apostle Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians to address various issues in their church, including defending his apostolic authority and encouraging the believers in their faith. In chapter 5, Paul discusses the hope of eternal life and the ministry of reconciliation. He emphasizes the transformation and reconciliation that take place when an individual becomes a new creation in Christ. (Okay, context. Good. However, the author will not tie in this context to the rest of his presentation.)

Moving on to the grammar and syntax of the verse, we see that Paul uses several key terms to convey his message. (The author will go on to cite several Greek words, but will not tell us where in the verse they belong. Let's do the author's work for him:

2Co. 5:21 God made (poieó) him who had no sin (hamartia) to be sin for (huper) us, so that (hina) in (en) him (autō) we might become the righteousness (dikaiosuné) of God.

The word “poieō” indicates an active and purposeful action on God’s part, emphasizing that God is the initiator of the process described in this verse. The phrase “hamartia,” which refers to missing the mark, error, or failure, highlights Jesus’ perfection and innocence. This phrase signifies the act of becoming a sin offering or a bearer of sins, which does not imply that Jesus became sinful, but rather that he took upon himself the sins of humanity as a sacrificial offering. (This is a generally proper explanation.)

This is the doctrine of imputation. Here, our guilt is imputed, or assigned to Christ in a legal transaction. (Whoa... what? "a bearer of sin" is a whole lot different than "our guilt is imputed." This is a substantial presumption.

The idea of a legal transaction is foreign to the text and to Hebrew thought. The sacrificial system implemented by God does not carry the connotation of transferring guilt. Rather, the spilled blood is the cleansing agent, covering over [atoning for] sin: 

He. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The sacrificial animals were never regarded as being imputed with guilt. Therefore, Jesus was not imputed with our guilt.)

The preposition “huper” denotes substitution or acting on behalf of someone else, (The word never indicates substitution with regard to Jesus. Never. Read the Greek definitions. The word means on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning... Jesus died FOR OUR SAKE, not IN OUR PLACE.)

indicating that Jesus took our place and bore the consequences of our sins. (Non, no, no! There is no verse in the Bible that tells us Jesus took our place, or that He bore the consequences of our sin. Zilch. Nothing. Period.)

This is where we get the doctrine of penal substitution, or the penal substitutionary atonement. (We analyze this doctrine in detail here. Suffice to say, it is a false doctrine. Jesus died a sacrificial death, not a substitutionary one, for [on behalf] of us. His blood was spilled on our behalf to cleanse us from our sins. He was not punished by the Father; He did not die in our place.)

The conjunction “hina” introduces the purpose or result of the action, showing the intended outcome of Jesus becoming a sin offering. The phrase “en autō” denotes union with Christ, highlighting believers’ intimate connection to Jesus through faith.

Finally, the phrase “dikaiosynē theou” refers to the moral standard or divine approval that is characteristic of God, signifying the status of being declared righteous before God, which believers receive through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the other half of the doctrine of imputation as Christ’s righteousness is imputed, or credited to us in this same legal transaction mentioned above. (This false. "Imputed" and "credited" are not synonymous. And as we mentioned, this was not a legal transaction, it was a sacrificial transaction. 

To "impute" is to ascribe or obligate something to someone. The source of this bad idea is primarily derived from here:

Ro. 4:23-24 KJV Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead...

However, this word "imputed" is the Greek word logizomai, to take into account, to make account of. So this means that God took into account Abraham's faith and declared him as righteousness on account of it. 

The English meaning does not correspond to the Greek meaning. Therefore, nothing is legally imputed to us. It's a bad translation. Rather, we are justified as righteous because God takes our faith into account when He considers us:

Ph. 3:9 ...and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.)

The historical background of this passage is also critical to understanding its meaning. In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were offered to atone for sins, temporarily providing a means for people to be declared righteous before God. Paul’s audience in Corinth would have been familiar with this sacrificial system, and his use of this imagery would have resonated with them. By comparing Jesus to a sin offering, Paul emphasizes that Jesus’ death on the cross was the ultimate and final sacrifice for sin, providing a permanent means of atonement and reconciliation with God. (The author again swerves into the truth. When he isn't adding his false doctrine on top of his explanations, it goes much better for him.)

So what does all of this mean for believers today? Through Jesus’ sacrificial death, believers are reconciled to God and become new creations in Christ. This powerful message of hope, transformation, and reconciliation lies at the heart of the Christian gospel and serves as a foundation for the ministry of believers. Christians are called to share this message of reconciliation and hope with others, calling them to taste and see the goodness of God in the sacrifice of the spotless lamb on the cross. (Once again, very good.)

This passage is definitional to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith and demonstrates God’s love for us by bearing the punishment on the cross that we deserve as sinners. (Sigh. This did not happen. The Bible does not tell us anything of the sort. The Father did not punish Jesus.

Further, God did not die on the cross, the God-Man did.)

By examining this passage and rightly interpreting it through its biblical and historical context, we can truly understand its meaning and significance. Through Jesus’ sacrificial death, believers can be reconciled to God and become new creations in Christ, experiencing the transformative power of his mercy and grace, and we can confidently share this message with others, calling them to turn to Christ in repentance in faith.