Just a Small Addition
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, Romans 8:3 NASB
Offering for sin – We must examine some of the theologically-motivated attempts to translate this verse into English. Pay close attention:
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, NIV
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, NKJV
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, NRSV
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. NLT
for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh, YLT
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ESV
I hope you recognized that the NLT significantly amplifies the text, inserting numerous theological constructs into Paul’s words. It’s not a translation. It’s a commentary. Only the YLT and the ESV actually follow the syntax of Paul’s Greek. They do not try to explain the odd phrase, καί perí hamartías, “and for sin.” All other translations attempt to provide some added meaning to these words. Now, it may be that Paul was thinking about an offering or a sacrifice, but he doesn’t say that. He simply says, “and for sin.” We’ll have to investigate that phrase, but we must start by getting rid of the auxiliary explanations pawned off on the reader through theological translation. The NLT is terrible, but the rest are just as liable, with the two exceptions noted.
Let’s try this without the additions. There are two important terms here: perí hamartías. The first is easily dealt with. perí is the Greek preposition for “about, on account of, for, in respect to, concerning.” Since it is related to the genitive noun hamartías, we can be confident that the preposition means “for,” in the sense of “on behalf of” or “because.” In fact, this is the way the entire phrase is used in the LXX. Note the comment in TDNT: “The phrase perí hamartías is a significant one in the NT; it means ‘for [the remission of] sins.’ In the LXX this phrase corresponds to the thought of ‘sin offering.’ It occurs in relation to the vicarious ministry of the Servant of the Lord in Is. 53:10.”[1]
But also notice that the TDNT comment puts “the remission of” in brackets. The phrase says nothing more than “for sin.” Perhaps it should be understood as the remission of sin, but the phrase itself is only the two words “for sin.” TDNT’s reference to Isaiah 53:10 is instructive. It connects perí hamartías to the Hebrew word ʾāšam. When we look at this passage in Isaiah, the implication of “offering” emerges. TWOT notes:
All other twenty-two times in Lev the meaning is “trespass offering.” The same is true of Numbers 5:7–8; 6:12; 18:9, of I Sam 6:3–4, 8, 17; of II Kgs 12:16, and of Ezk 40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20 and of Isa 53:10.[2]
In summary, the root ʾāšam includes acts of sin, responsibility for them, punishment and its aftermath or, as an alternative, atonement. The word denotes any breach of God’s covenant with Israel and any divine act of dealing with it, whether punishment or atonement.[3]
The summary comment is particularly helpful. When we read the translation “offering for sin,” we typically think of a sacrifice and we end up in the penal theory of atonement. We think that God demanded some sort of payment for sin and Yeshua met that demand. But notice that ʾāšam can also mean any act of dealing with the breach between God and Man, not necessarily some sort of punitive appeasement. In fact, the Hebrew idea of atonement often does not include punishment. If Paul is thinking along the lines of ʾāšam, he may mean that Yeshua reconciled God and Israel, not that Yeshua’s death was the punishment sinners deserved (also a difficult-to-explain concept in Hebrew thinking since one man cannot die for another’s guilt). How did Yeshua reconcile God and Israel? By ushering in the Kingdom of God (Heaven) on earth. By faithfulness to the point of death. By fulfilling the role of the Messiah. By bringing back the lost sheep. Do these actions require a “sin offering”?
Finally, we need to consider the punctuation added by the translators. Did you notice which translations use a comma and which use a period? Did you recognize which translations make the last statement a separate sentence and which don’t? In the Greek text there are no punctuations, so the choice of sentence structure is up to the translator. And it matters.
So, what did Paul really mean? We might have to wait to ask him if we want to know for sure.
Topical Index: perí hamartías, for sin, ʾāšam, offering, Romans 8:3
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 827). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] Livingston, G. H. (1999). 180 אָשַׁם. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 79). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Ibid.
