Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[journeyman]

Paul said,

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10, Deut.27:26

We all know that our Savior never violated the law in any way, so he could not be cursed by the law, but then Paul says,

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree Gal.3:13, Deut.21:23

Does God truly curse an innocent man by a method of execution? Paul was citing a passage that qualifies being cursed by the law which says,

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: Deut.21:22

So it isn't being hanged on a tree, but committing sin that brings the curse on an individual. What Paul is teaching here, is that Jesus was falsely accused, wronfully thought of as accursed of God by the people who condemned him and others passing by the cross.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, Jesus did not become a sinner to forgive sinners. He appeared to be cursed by dying on a tree like a cursed person. In this way he forgave those who put him on the tree. And he forgave all sinners willing to repent in his name.

But this doesn't mean he didn't suffer the punishment that sinners suffer. He did. He didn't suffer it as one deserving of the punishment, but as one who experienced the very sins that he was to forgive.

[journeyman]

The punishment that sinners suffer is just. The punishment our Lord suffered was unjust. The death penalty for sins or crimes worthy of death is just, but putting an innocent man to death is unjust. The sins our Lord "experienced" were the sins of rejecting him and all the horrible treatment that went with it.

Theologians misinterpret Gal.3:10 to mean that Jesus was being seen as accursed by his Father. That's not true.

[RandyPNW]

The punishment that sinners suffer is just. The punishment our Lord suffered was unjust. The death penalty for sins or crimes worthy of death is just, but putting an innocent man to death is unjust. The sins our Lord "experienced" were the sins of rejecting him and all the horrible treatment that went with it.

Theologians misinterpret Gal.3:10 to mean that Jesus was being seen as accursed by his Father. That's not true.

I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.

Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it. In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.

[RabbiKnife]

Jesus became sin.  God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.

That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.

Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.

[Slug1]

Back in the day, a (scape) goat was to be a "sin offering," symbolically taking on "all" of Israeli sin off into the wilderness and thus, Israel was symbolically cleansed of sin before God. However, Christ took on all (became the) sin of the world, all that mankind personally commits so that mankind can be "spiritually" cleansed and redeemed before God.

As Rabbiknife points out, Christ suffered "for" me (us) so that any how believe in Him, don't have to suffer the consequence of sin (spiritual death/eternal separation from God).

[RandyPNW]

I think that has become a language issue. To say Christ "became sin" was Paul's way of saying Christ became "like sin," since it is impossible for Christ to be sin in any way.

It's a simile. To say that person is a "rock" with respect to his faith is not to say that person is a literal rock. It means, as a simile, that he is so like a rock that he becomes virtually identical with a rock. But he is not actually a rock.

Jesus became so like a sinner that he virtually became one. And yet he was *not* one.

The big thing is to know that assuming the guilt of the entire human race Jesus was able to suffer for the whole human race. In suffering their sins he was able to forgive those sins. Any way you want to look at it, he suffered our sins.

[RabbiKnife]

It is neither a simile nor a metaphor

It is a mysterious reality

And you are correct on this point.

Jesus did not become a sinner, "One who commits sin."

Jesus became sin itself, the sum and totality of offense against God's holiness, and accordingly was obliterated under the wrath of God; but, thanks be to God, the Father raised Him from the dead out of God's great love.

[RandyPNW]

It is neither a simile nor a metaphor

It is a mysterious reality

And you are correct on this point.

Jesus did not become a sinner, "One who commits sin."

Jesus became sin itself, the sum and totality of offense against God's holiness, and accordingly was obliterated under the wrath of God; but, thanks be to God, the Father raised Him from the dead out of God's great love.

Sorry, to me it then only makes sense as a simile--not a mystery. But we agree on the most important parts.

[journeyman]

I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.

There's one right way. If understanding is flawed, that view of atonement is flawed.

Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it.

Jesus didn't take the curse of sin upon himself at all, because,

Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10

So when Paul says,

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13

He means Jesus was lied about, falsely accused and wrongfully condemned.

In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.

Yes of course, but all sin is against God, which is why our Lord could say,

Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:20-21

[journeyman]

It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".

It also seems that when Paul says,

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12

Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".

because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3

[Slug1]

It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".

It also seems that when Paul says,

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12

Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".

because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3

Seems vailed accusations are slung from behind scripture(s) ??

While I understand your point, we have to view context as well. What are the wages of sin? What are the consequences?

You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him. And yes, there are some who do not understand these are "some" of the consequences and wages of sin. But to say any lack of understanding by those in this thread, is due to having not known the Father, nor Christ... is a false witness and a fleshly accusation.


If I am in error and have reacted in the flesh, please explain how my view of a vailed accusation equaling a false witness is to see your post in a faulty light, offer correction! Should I find in your words that you are not making accusations and a false witness, I will apologize.

The consequence of sin can be summed up in simple terms, the consequence of sin, it's wage is "death!" Death to Christ, death to mankind (spiritually), death to peace/health on earth, death to relationship (a separation) with God, etc. Paul is led to state this:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Now, I am not adding this scripture to refute you, I add this for the illumination of context and understanding. You mention only "some" of the consequence of sin, I mention some, why the innuendo that because yours were not mentioned in my post, you raise there is a lack of understanding, is because some do not know the Father, nor Christ?


Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.

[RandyPNW]

I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.

There's one right way. If understanding is flawed, that view of atonement is flawed.

We live in an imperfect world, and you are as imperfect as the next guy. None of us handles the word of God with perfection. What matters is that we cover the doctrine of Christ's atonement for our sins.

As I said, many Christians may describe how Jesus "became sin" wrongly, and I think you do too. But the important thing is to know that Jesus assumed the curse, or punishment, of sin for us, so that we may be resurrected into perfection in the future.

How else could our punishment be removed unless Jesus suffered that same punishment, and then communicated to us his grace? Saying it perfectly is not the issue. Believing it as fact is what transforms us, and that's what's important.

Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it.

Jesus didn't take the curse of sin upon himself at all, because,

False. Christ, in suffering punishment and death from both God and men, did experience the curse of sin, which is death. God caused this to happen to him not because he deserved it but because it was necessary in order for him to forgive us.

Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10

So when Paul says,

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13

He means Jesus was lied about, falsely accused and wrongfully condemned.

No, hanging on a tree is not being lied about. It is the curse of God visited upon a sinner when he is hung upon a tree like one might display one executed for criminal behavior. This was a position Jesus was given, by God, to assume--not because he deserved it but only so that in experiencing it he could forgive us for causing this to happen to him.

In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.

Yes of course, but all sin is against God, which is why our Lord could say,

Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:20-21

Yes, all sin is against God. And so, God became a man so that in experiencing human sin He could forgive all sin.

[RandyPNW]

It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".

It also seems that when Paul says,

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12

Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".

because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3

I agree with Slug that this is over the top unChristian, accusing Christian brothers of "not knowing the Father" simply because we don't agree with you. Incidentally, I still believe you fall far short of the truth of what it meant for Christ is "become sin."

Nobody would dispute that Jesus bore the consequences of sin when he allowed sinful men to put him to death. Nobody would dispute that righteous Christians, like Jesus, are persecuted. 

But saying this falls far short of describing how Jesus' death brought about our redemption. He atoned for our sins by "becoming sin" for us, ie by putting himself in our place, and then forgiving those willing to repent.

[journeyman]

Seems vailed accusations are slung from behind scripture(s) ??

I'm not making veiled accusations. I cited Jesus's statement that his followers would be persecuted because the persecutors didn't know him or his Father. Do you understand? Jesus wasn't being punished because his Father viewed him as "the substance of sin". He was being punished by people who hate God.

While I understand your point, we have to view context as well. What are the wages of sin? What are the consequences?

The wages of sin is the death of the sinner, not the deathof the innocent.

You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him.

I never said this. Here's what I'm saying,

they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
 Psa.109:5

Our Lord suffered because he is the embodiment of God, not the embodiment of sin.

And yes, there are some who do not understand these are "some" of the consequences and wages of sin. But to say any lack of understanding by those in this thread, is due to having not known the Father, nor Christ... is a false witness and a fleshly accusation.

Again, Jesus was referring to people who would persecute his followers, as they persecuted him. But as far as not knowing the consequence of sin where Christ is concerned, you don't know what it means, but neither did I, being indoctrinated with false teaching for many years.

If I am in error and have reacted in the flesh, please explain how my view of a vailed accusation equaling a false witness is to see your post in a faulty light, offer correction! Should I find in your words that you are not making accusations and a false witness, I will apologize.

The consequence of sin can be summed up in simple terms, the consequence of sin, it's wage is "death!" Death to Christ, death to mankind (spiritually), death to peace/health on earth, death to relationship (a separation) with God, etc. Paul is led to state this:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now, I am not adding this scripture to refute you, I add this for the illumination of context and understanding. You mention only "some" of the consequence of sin, I mention some, why the innuendo that because yours were not mentioned in my post, you raise there is a lack of understanding, is because some do not know the Father, nor Christ?

Not very well and the proof is in the passage you cited. Who is Paul saying will be paid with death for their sin?

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom.6:16

Paul isn't teaching that Christ's Father paid him with death for mankinds sin. The entire Bible says if you could keep the whole law, you would be paid with blessing by God, not cursing by God.

Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.

Your statement, "I will apologize in effort to reconcile", is how reconciliation with God should be viewed, because it was God in human flesh being sinned against who is owed the aoplogy.