____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ May 12, 2002 ____________________________________________________ How Was Christ 'Made to be Sin'? by Tom Roberts One aspect of Calvinistic doctrine is the three-fold error whereby it is taught that (1) Adam's sin was transferred to mankind; (2) man's sin was transferred to Christ; and (3) Christ's personal righteousness was transferred to believers. None of these statements are true nor do they reflect accurately the Bible doctrine of "imputation." In this article we will note the second of these errors and study the claim that the sins of mankind have been transferred to Christ. A verse often used in this context is 2 Corinthians 5:21: "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." The phrase "he made to be sin" is the controversial part of the text and one that is grossly misused. We need to understand in what sense God made Christ "to be sin." Did God place our sins on Christ? Would that make Christ a sinner? Did Christ die a spiritual death as well as a physical death on the cross? Just what is meant? As in all studies, we need to consider all that the Bible says and not take one verse to mean something that would contradict other Bible passages. First of all, we can clear the air considerably when we note that the Bible teaches that Christ was not a sinner. Our text states: "Him who knew no sin...." Additionally, we see 1 Peter 2:22: "Who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." From these and other passages, it is clear that Christ did no sin on His own. So the question before us is: "Did Christ become a sinner by a transference of our sins to Himself?" I believe the answer to this is also "No." There is not a single Bible passage which indicates that sin from one person (or righteousness) is ever transferred to another. If we take the position that our sins were transferred to Christ, we are faced with the fact that Christ would have been a sinner. Isaiah 59:1-2 states that "sins and iniquities separate from God." Romans 6:23 states that the "wage of sin is death." We are being asked to believe that Christ actually "bore our sin" and died a spiritual death in our stead. Such a position falls short of the truth and would lead one into grave error on other points. Let us note carefully what the Bible teaches about Christ "being made sin on our behalf." Romans 8:3 puts it this way: "...God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Friends, there is quite a difference in something being a likeness of something and actually being it. While Christ wore a human body, it was not stained by sin, either His own or of others. When Christ died on the cross, He died a physical death and this death was a punishment for sin ("...the soul that sinneth, it shall die" -- Ezekiel 18:4). But He took the punishment that was due to us. He did not die because He was guilty or because He took our guilt upon Himself. He took our punishment! Isaiah 53 sheds light on the question. Isaiah says, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (vs. 4-5). Now reason with me a little. If you can understand in what manner an innocent man suffers in the place of the guilty, you can see what this is teaching. Christ was "wounded for our transgression." He was "bruised for our iniquities." "Our chastisement" was upon Him. Jesus no more actually took our sins upon Him than He actually took our griefs and sorrows upon Him. Have all my griefs been transferred to Christ? Have all my sorrows been transferred to him? No, of course not; we can easily see that. And in the same fashion we can see that our sins were not transferred to Him but that He took the "stripes" and "bruises" that were due to us because we were justly guilty. He stood in our stead. This is what 1 Corinthians 15:3 means when it states that "Christ died for our sins," and Galatians 1:4 means when it says Christ "gave himself for our sin." He was a "sacrifice for sin" (Hebrews 10:12) and in that sense He "bare our sins" (1 Peter 2:24) just as He took our griefs and sorrows. He was "made to be sin" in that He took our punishment and was treated as or like a sinner even while He was innocent. He "suffered for sins" (1 Peter 3:18) not His own and in that fashion God "made him to be sin" (only from the punishment standpoint) and by that act He "purged our sins" (Hebrews 1:3). We need to be extremely careful and not take a single passage of the Bible and stretch it to mean something that contradicts other passages. Doing such arrays passage against passage, rather than harmonizing them. To teach that 2 Corinthians 5:21 portrays Christ as receiving the guilt of our sins rather than the punishment for our sins violates this very principle. I challenge anyone to produce the evidence that teaches that guilt (or righteousness) is ever transferred from one person to another. Adam's guilt was "put to his account" because he was guilty. My guilt is put to my account because I am guilty. By the grace of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous exposed His back to the punishment which was rightly mine. "By his stripes, we are healed." "He was bruised for our iniquities." "He was wounded for our transgression" and it is in that manner that "our iniquities are laid on him." Whereas I could rightly be condemned eternally for my sins, Jesus bore my punishment and "purged" my sins by His death. This is saving grace in action and we need not confuse the issue by injecting denominational ideas and concepts into it. -- Via The Watchman Magazine, February 2002 ___________________________________________ The Matter of Authority by Bill Crews On the question of the necessity of authority for religious practices there are but two positions that one can take. Either we must have authority or we do not have to have authority for all that we do in religion. Any position in between would be ridiculous and impossible. If someone should insist that one must have authority for some things, but not for all things, by what standard could he possibly distinguish the things for which he must have authority from the things for which he does not need authority? And how could he condemn anything merely because it was unauthorized in the Scriptures? May God pity the man who calls himself a gospel preacher and who makes such statements as: "Why we do many things for which we do not have authority"; and "We do not have to have authority for everything we do in religion." Such a preacher would have neither right nor grounds to condemn any of the religious practices around us, which, though without authority, are not expressly forbidden in the Scriptures. On what basis would he show that instrumental music, infant baptism, choirs, missionary societies, quarterly or annual communion, etc., are wrong? Authority falls into two categories: general and specific. Some things are specifically authorized: baptism, singing, Lord's Supper. Other things are authorized because they are embraced in and necessary to the performance of things specifically authorized: (Some things may be used as "aids" in carrying out a command as long as no Scriptural principle is violated); a baptistry, songbooks, containers. To say that one must have authority for all that he does in religion is a far cry from saying that one must have specific authority for all that he does in religion. Some "gospel preachers" have offered this sort of quibble: "Why if one must have authority for everything, where did Noah get the authority for the tools he used in building the ark since God did not specify any tools." This is nothing more than a dodge, a smoke screen to cover up the fact that many churches today are practicing things for which they have no authority--either general or specific. Certainly Noah had authority in that tools were necessary to carry out the injunction to build the ark. Had God specified the tools, he would have been limited to what God specified. -- Via The Bulletin of the Church of Christ at New Georgia, March 10, 2002 ___________________________________________ Death; What Will It Mean To You? by David Cox "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). It is obvious from the preceding verse that man will face death. But the question comes to my mind what does this mean? Some might say it is the ceasing to exist or others may say it is going to be with God. The first of these answers is incorrect and the latter fails to recognize an important fact. In Luke 16:19-31, we have an incident that Jesus tells the Pharisees about concerning two men that died. These men knew each other. One was a rich man and the other was a beggar named Lazarus. As Jesus tells about these two men after death it is obvious that they continued to exist. As a matter of fact, the rich man had not lived his life in accordance with the Lord's will and was in "torments." But Lazarus, even though he had not enjoyed much in his life was existing in a place of paradise. The rich man was being "tormented" and wanted some relief. He saw "Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom" and cried out for Abraham to "send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue" (vv. 23-24). It is at this point that Abraham answered saying, "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things" (v. 25ff). After Abraham had reminded him of these things and told him of the inescapable position that he was in, the rich man was then concerned about his five brothers he had while he was alive. He recognized that their lives were being used in pursuit of the same things he had done on earth and not in seeking after God. From this we can easily conclude that man does not cease to exist, but rather he does exist and is conscious of the things of the past. From Lazarus, we see that he still exists and is enjoying the comforts of paradise, not concerned with earthly pursuits. He does not say a word about the hardships he encountered and the unwillingness of the rich man to lend help to his needs. As a matter of fact, the thought of such things could not be had for this would be a defilement which there cannot be any such thing in the paradise of God (Revelation 21:27). In the sixteenth chapter of Luke, we truly see death pictured in two ways. In the rich man we see regret, sorrow and a desire to make things right, but it is too late. On the other hand, we see Lazarus enjoying paradise and its comforts because of his faith and obedience to the Lord's will. How many times had the rich man failed to feed, give water, take a stranger in, clothed the naked or visit the sick, etc. (cf. Matthew 25:41-45). He could have, but he failed to. We must guard ourselves against failing to do the Lord's will. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus in the sermon of the mount pictures those that will say at the judgment, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Then Jesus said He would respond, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Why is this? It is because of what Jesus had said earlier in verse 21 about entering the kingdom of heaven being based on doing "the will of my Father which is in heaven." Doing good works of feeding, giving water, visiting the sick, etc. are commendable and necessary, but the will of God must be obeyed first or else they are in vain. What does death mean to you? It depends on whether you are doing the will of God. If you have obeyed Him, believing His word, repenting of your sins, confessing your faith, having your sins washed away by baptism, continuing to seek first the kingdom of God, and doing His will until death, then you have hope of a home with God. If you have failed, death means to you what it meant to the rich man in Luke 16, or those pictured by Christ at the judgment who had failed in doing the Father's will in this life. That is everlasting punishment, being in torment for eternity. Please live your life so that death will mean to you what it meant to Lazarus or to Paul that said of death "to depart, and be with Christ; which is far better" (Philippians 1:23). -- Via Gospel Power, March 16, 1997 ________________________________________ evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (610) 925-3567 e-mail: tedwards@onemain.com web site: http://home.onemain.com/~tedwards/go ________________________________________