Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[RandyPNW]

he was punished as if he was the epitome of all sin in the world.

No, but he was punished by people who said he was of the devil,

they have called the master of the house Beelzebub Mt.10:25

it was saying that he was made to be a *sin sacrifice.*

This is where you err. You completely misinterpret the idea that Jesus was "made sin," claiming that this meant Jesus was made to be misinterpreted as a criminal being punished. Clearly, that was not the meaning of the statement! And virtually all Christians I've shared this with agree with me.

Continuing to love the wicked so that they might know God while they heaped abuse on him is a great sacrifice for sin and we've talked about how wrong the majority can be.

He suffered.....as a demonstration of his willingness to forgive abuse committed against himself, as Deity!

This is what I've been saying all along. His sacrifice is at-one-ment with his Father.

This sounds like a combination of Gnosticism and Liberalism, ie the idea that knowledge saves us, as opposed to the exclusive spirituality of Christ. This is Gnosticism.

And the idea that we are saved by following Christ's example as opposed to exclusive reliance on his spirituality is Liberalism. It places salvation in our hands, as we emulate Christ, rather than in the hands of God and His mercy.

We are sold out to carnality, and despite our best intentions we fall short of eternal life. We must rely on Christ's spirituality for both his righteousness and his mercy.

We do not independently take it upon ourselves to make ourselves righteous by copying Christ. We must "abide in him," spiritually. In doing so, we obtain both his virtue and his mercy.

He was "made sin" in order to grant us mercy together with his virtue. He was "made sin" not to be misinterpreted as a sinner, but rather, to be a sin sacrifice, forgiving those who sin against God.

I understand I'm saved by God's mercy. There's nothing merciful about torturing an innocent man, except his response to it.

Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.

[Slug1]

No Slug1. When God looks at a person, does he see someone who is really sorry for the sins he committed against his Word, his Son?

God doesn't have to look for true repentance, He sees that His Son's blood (His Son is IN the person) has cleansed a person who has repented/believed. There IS NO sin in such a person when they stand before God for the first time face to face, they are already in their glorified body. God isn't even looking for sin, because His Son TOOK it all.

[Slug1]

Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.

Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?

[RabbiKnife]

He does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement

He believes in “oops, my bad”

[Slug1]

He does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement

He believes in “oops, my bad”

Ahhh, yeah... the term "propitiation" has always been hard (for me) to say. Such a great term to understand Christ as a sacrifice where God inflicts all His wrath upon His Son, so that mankind can turn too Christ for redemption when any choose to believe unto Him.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.

Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?

You nailed it. I ran his thoughts by other forums to see how other Christians would view this. None of them agreed with Journeyman's idea. Journeyman saw the post elsewhere and indirectly suggested I was slandering him.

This has become a little dishonest or at least a little slippery. He claims that the issue of being "made sin" is simply a matter of others *thinking* Jesus was a sinner. He was, in other words, made to *look like* a sinner to sinners.

That is not and has not been an element that we're concerned with here. Certainly, some sinners viewed Jesus as being punished as a sinner. That isn't the issue at all. And I'm certainly not misrepresenting him in that.

What concerns me is that he denies Jesus was "made sin" by assuming the punishment for all sinners so that he, as the Son of God, could provide a defense for all men who repent in his name. In choosing to live by his life they obtain redemption through his sacrifice for sin. He was "made sin" by becoming a *sin sacrifice.* Rabbi Knife aptly explains it above.

I have not a bit of hostility towards Journeyman. Some false teacher among Christians misled him on this. He was initially resistant to it--rightfully so. Now I'm hoping he returns to the original teaching, without losing some of the other legitimate material he obtained.

It is legitimate to understand that Jesus was not made an *actual sinner* when he was "made sin." He became, rather, the punishment for sin, or as I said, a "sin sacrifice."

[journeyman]

God doesn't have to look for true repentance, He sees that His Son's blood (His Son is IN the person) has cleansed a person who has repented/believed.

To say God doesn't look for repentance but cleanses a person who repents is just double talk.

There IS NO sin in such a person when they stand before God for the first time face to face, they are already in their glorified body.

Yes, I know. There is no sin in believers who follow our Lord,

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom.8:1

God isn't even looking for sin, because His Son TOOK it all.

He took it all in the sense that it was inflicted on him,

For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9

Would you please tell me what you think Psa.69:9 says?

[journeyman]

Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?

Yes it is missing, because God doesn't inflict his wrath on the righteous, but on the unrighteous,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom.1:18

Jesus didn't hold back the truth, but was persecuted for sharing it. And God said,

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16

I've posted this before and no one gave their opinion on it.

[journeyman]

Ahhh, yeah... the term "propitiation" has always been hard (for me) to say. Such a great term to understand Christ as a sacrifice where God inflicts all His wrath upon His Son, so that mankind can turn too Christ for redemption when any choose to believe unto Him.

And when people mention "propitiation", they often use it in a way that implies our Lord Jesus iwas someone other than God.

[journeyman]

Some false teacher among Christians misled him on this. He was initially resistant to it--rightfully so.

Actually Randy, the person who taught me loved Jesus very much and the reason I initially rejected what he was telling me, was because I ignored the scriptures he showed me. It all fits perfectly.

He became, rather, the punishment for sin, or as I said, a "sin sacrifice."

Jesus wasn't being punished by his Father. He propitiated his own anger.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:20

What does Eze.18:20 mean to you Randy?

[RandyPNW]

Actually Randy, the person who taught me loved Jesus very much and the reason I initially rejected what he was telling me, was because I ignored the scriptures he showed me. It all fits perfectly.

Yes, one can love Jesus and also not love Jesus so much by passing on uninspired "words" from God. We are a mixed breed and need to be scrutinized constantly. The greatest saints can be dangerous in this. I wouldn't at all depreciate some of these great saints, even if in their human weakness they propagate errors along with all the good they do.

Jesus wasn't being punished by his Father. He propitiated his own anger.

I don't know what that means. You continue to protest statements that *nobody is making!* Nobody is saying the Father was "punishing" His own Son. He was visiting the punishment upon him that we all deserved, as sinners. He was *not* being punished for his own sins.

If you don't think God can visit punishment upon Jesus that we deserved then you don't understand NT doctrine. The basis for our redemption was that Jesus took what we deserve and then forgave us for it. This is Christianity 101. Your Jewish friend does not have "special revelation" on this when he contradicts it, revises it, and therefore distorts it.

Nobody will make Christian doctrine any simpler by reducing it to a strictly human understanding. It *always* required divine revelation to understand something that God Himself did!

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:20

What does Eze.18:20 mean to you Randy?

It means that somebody does not experience punishment for doing something that somebody else does. That is generally true. But it is not true with respect to Jesus, who did indeed receive punishment for things we deserved.

He did not deserve the punishment from men he received, and yet God gave him up to experience that. So he did receive  the punishment that wicked men deserve, and in so doing, forgave us and provided in his own life the means of eternal redemption.

What do you think this means, Journeyman?

Heb 2.9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

While it's true that Jesus was not "punished" for what we do, he did receive the punishment that sinners deserve in order to forgive them. He "tasted death for everyone."

[Slug1]

For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9

Would you please tell me what you think Psa.69:9 says?

David feels that rebuke against God, is against him. In my Bible, this verse refs Romans 15:3 as Paul expresses the same.

[Slug1]

And when people mention "propitiation", they often use it in a way that implies our Lord Jesus iwas someone other than God.

I've never experienced what you just stated.


Edit: Let me add, should people do what you state, they're opinion does not change the meaning of "propitiation."

Also, this past Sunday (3 Oct), our pastor raised the meaning of "propitiation" in the message brought forth. When I listened I was smiling, God always provides confirmation.

[journeyman]

We are a mixed breed and need to be scrutinized constantly.

I agree.

I don't know what that means.

it means Jesus, being One with his Father, turned his own wrath away from sinners.

You continue to protest statements that *nobody is making!* Nobody is saying the Father was "punishing" His own Son.

People here believe God poured his wrath out on his Son and you seem to agree with this. Do you believe God poured his wrath out on Jesus?

He was visiting the punishment upon him that we all deserved, as sinners.

If you don't think God can visit punishment upon Jesus that we deserved then you don't understand NT doctrine.[

The basis for our redemption was that Jesus took what we deserve and then forgave us for it. This is Christianity 101.

Your Jewish friend does not have "special revelation" on this when he contradicts it, revises it, and therefore distorts it.

Nobody will make Christian doctrine any simpler by reducing it to a strictly human understanding. It *always* required divine revelation to understand something that God Himself did!

It sounds like you're referring to OT passages which say God visits the iniquity of fathers to future generations of their children. This doesn't mean God punishes children for sins their fathers committed. It means God punishes future generations who commit sin as their fathers did,

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? Eze.18:19

It means that somebody does not experience punishment for doing something that somebody else does.

No. it means it's not God's will that someone be punished for what someone else dioes.

That is generally true.

No. it's always true where God's will is concerned.

But it is not true with respect to Jesus, who did indeed receive punishment for things we deserved.

But not from his Father where sin is being judged.

He did not deserve the punishment from men he received, and yet God gave him up to experience that.

Yes he did, but as the express image of himself. This is why it says,

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:10

It pleases God that his Son feels the same way his Father is grieved and longsuffering when people sin against him.

Rev
What do you think this means, Journeyman?

Heb 2.9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

While it's true that Jesus was not "punished" for what we do, he did receive the punishment that sinners deserve in order to forgive them. He "tasted death for everyone.

The writer of Hebrews is quoting the OT with respect to Jesus. He's saying the Father set his Son (a man) over all creation. While he was "made lower" than angels, he was still above them. Same for anything, including death, which he tasted and no doubt spit out. Point is, our Lord proved to every man he is superior to all.

And when he says,

For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, Heb2:2,

He means, every disobedience receives its just penalty. So Jesus wasn't paying any just penalty.

[journeyman]

David feels that rebuke against God, is against him. In my Bible, this verse refs Romans 15:3 as Paul expresses the same.

Yes thats right, but David is speaking prophecy of how Jesus feels. It isn't God pouring his wrath out on his Son. It's man pouring their wrath out on the Son, because they hate the Father.