Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.

[ScooterJackson]

Yes, He believed His mission was to go to the cross. But in the garden, as it was now about to happen in real life, He clearly did not want to believe it, at least for a short time, and wanted to find a way around it

If Jesus ever just once had the attitude that He did not want to do what the Father sent Him to do, that would have been sinful.

So, no Jesus did not do that.

He simply asked the Father if if there be any other way let's do it the other way, but none the less the Father's will be done.

And it also reminded Christians at a later time that it was necessary not to be eager to be tortured and killed for their faith, but rather to be willing to accept it if need be.

Sounds like the lay down and let satan destroy us doctrine.

Christ was imputed with the sins of all sinners, or maybe the sins of the elect only

No, He tasted of death for ALL men, not just the elect as the false teachers claim

Hebrews 2:9 - by the grace of God should taste death for every man

Now they'll claim the "every man" part is talking about just a few but they obviously don't know what EVERY means as they attempt to read in to scripture something it does not say.

Do you think God was not going to forgive those for whom Jesus prayed for mercy?

Forgiveness is available to them as long as they turn from their sin, get born again, and abide in Christ until the end of their lives.

It does not mean people can live after the flesh all their lives and still be forgiven. We have to remember what the rest of God's Word teaches too.

 

[PaulThomson]

If Jesus ever just once had the attitude that He did not want to do what the Father sent Him to do, that would have been sinful.

So, no Jesus did not do that.

He simply asked the Father if if there be any other way let's do it the other way, but none the less the Father's will be done.

No. Wanting something that conflicts with God's will is not sin. It is called temptation. And Jesus was tempted like us in every way, but without sin.

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithfulhigh priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jas 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
as 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither temptethhe any man:
Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Temptation can be followed by the blessing of endurance. Jesus was tempted but endured in Gethsemane. Lust did not conceive in Jesus to produce rebellion and evil works.

 

[ATG]

I'm not the one saying your reading is impossible. I am simply saying that your proof texting is fictitious. Your reading is not the only viable reading, so cannot be a proof text for your reading. That something can be read into a text grammatically and semantically, does not prove that it was intended to be a layer of meaning one should take from that text.

Well said: Someone's personal reading without written proof in the Bible, is fictitiously obtained.

i.e. a personal interpretation without Scriptural proof, is not Scriptural doctine.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And so, an unproven personal interpretation taught as doctrine is a tradition of men, not a doctrine of God.

Mat 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.

God can redeem us from sin without Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) coming into play at all. Justice does not require PSA.

And I'm always suspect of fictitious code-lettered trandtions, that I've never heard of in the Bible, nor seen anything written specifically about it.

The 'trinity' or the 'rapture' are simple words that can be readily explained and seen in the Bible.

But, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, sounds like some title meant to impress enough to be believed. After all, who can doubt Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Who wants to be seen as some lay-rube, saying Penal-whaty?

Rom 16:18
And by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Which makes it even more dangerous when promoted as personally necessary to repent and be saved by the Lord Jesus Himself.

Who woulda thunk that understanding and believing Penal-Whaty was ever necessary to repent of doing evil, and do good for the Lord's sake...

If God can command us to forgive without us practising PSA and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault, then neither does God need to do so.

Excellent. If we are to practice as the Lord does and commands, then we only need what the Lord has to practice it: Grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Power of Peny-Whaty aside: PPSA. Sounds more like a disease, than the power of God to deliver from unrighteousness...

Do you believe in the Power of PSA? Huh?

 

[rewriter]

Well said: Someone's personal reading without written proof in the Bible, is fictitiously obtained.

i.e. a personal interpretation without Scriptural proof, is not Scriptural doctine.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And so, an unproven personal interpretation taught as doctrine is a tradition of men, not a doctrine of God.

Mat 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.



And I'm always suspect of fictitious code-lettered trandtions, that I've never heard of in the Bible, nor seen anything written specifically about it.

The 'trinity' or the 'rapture' are simple words that can be readily explained and seen in the Bible.

But, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, sounds like some title meant to impress enough to be believed. After all, who can doubt Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Who wants to be seen as some lay-rube, saying Penal-whaty?

Rom 16:18
And by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Which makes it even more dangerous when promoted as personally necessary to repent and be saved by the Lord Jesus Himself.

Who woulda thunk that understanding and believing Penal-Whaty was ever necessary to repent of doing evil, and do good for the Lord's sake...




Excellent. If we are to practice as the Lord does and commands, then we only need what the Lord has to practice it: Grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Power of Peny-Whaty aside: PPSA. Sounds more like a disease, than the power of God to deliver from unrighteousness...

Do you believe in the Power of PSA? Huh?

You are also missing one key question that I have asked before and everyone wants to ignore, likely because it challenges tradition. To whom was the penalty for sin paid, if God paid the penalty to Himself, it is basically taking money from one pocket, putting it in another, and saying that someone else paid off their debt, but no real payment was made, not does it explain why it had to be so high. And on that point, do not cite the Law, as the Law was created for the benefit of humans, not humans for the benefit of the Law. God would be quite free to ignore the demands for blood. If to Satan, where did he get the authority to demand such a high price, all Satan is allowed to do is what God grants him permission to do. So, who or what received the payment?

And I already know that Anselm was the first one to find a generally accepted answer, but even that answer is flawed if one looks at it too carefully, it requires specific flawed assumptions.

 

[ATG]

and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault,

You must be referring to taking the fault, rather than arguing and fighting and going to law over it:

1Co 6:7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Which is exactly what Jesus was commanded to do, and did so obediently even unto death on a cross:

1 Pe 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,

Very well done! I hadn't considered such an obvious relationship between Jesus' submission on a cross, to our own exhorted submission to take the wrong and unjust fault-finding of others, rather than fight back:

Luk 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

2 Peter{2:21}
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

1Pe 4:15
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Jesus took the wrong upon Himself, even with stripes upon His own body, rather than resist, as He could have with legions of angels:

Mat 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus suffered Himself to be defrauded of justice, and unjustly debased in front of all others hanging on a tree.

The Father did not impute His Son with sin and fault, for meekly taking the wrong fault-finding of others. No more than the Father and Son impute any sin and fault to newborn sons of God, who likewise take the wrong of others upon themselves for Jesus' sake:

Rom 8:36
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Thank you very much for helping to perfect the gospel truth, of how Jesus could bare in His own body the sins and wrongdoings of others, without God Himself imputing any fault or laying any wrong upon Him:

By meekly taking the wrong of others, and suffering at their sinful hands, as the spotless Lamb of God in obedience to the Father's will:

Gen 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

 

[ATG]

1Co 6:7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

1Co 6:7

and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault,

Once again, you have done very well to understand this pertaining to taking the sins of others upon ourselves, but not being imputed with sin by God: Suffering the wrongdoing of others meekly, as a lamb to the slaughter for the Lord's sake.

2 Peter{2:21}
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Rom 8:36
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

So that neither Jesus the Lamb of God, nor His faithful servants, are imputed with sin and fault, for taking the wrong of others in obedience to the Spirit of grace.

Matth 10:24
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault,

This indeed is the simplest and easiest to prove answer to all false accusers of Jesus Christ, and them that still believe God imputed Him with sin, and smote Him as being in the wrong on the cross.

God does not impute the sins and faults of others, to anyone that meekly suffers their wrongs for the Lord's sake. Jesus was not imputed with fault, for taking the fault, rather than resisting their wrongdoing against Him.

and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault,

As you well say, He took their fault-finding, as His own fault, not to be the one at fault.

1Co 6:7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Their sin and fault was wrong accusation of sin and blasphemy. He took their sin and wrong upon Himself, rather than resist. And by His obedient suffering and travail without fault, He did not become the sin and wrong accused of: A blasphemer, and not the Son of God.

Jhn 15:24
They hated me without a cause.

God did not impute Jesus with their sin, nor cause Him to become the wrong and guilt instead of them.

If God imputed the man Jesus with the sin and the wrong at the cross, and then justified them by His death with His righteousness, they indeed would have been righteous and without fault, in accusing Jesus of sin and blasphemy, and they did no wrong in nailing Him to a tree, as by law of God.

If God imputed Jesus with sin and made Him to be at fault, by commanding Him to submit to their accusation, condemnation, beating, and crucifying unto death; Then by law and justice of God, it was because Jesus was wrong for calling Himself the Son of God.

God was not wrong for commanding His Son to submit to the fault-finding of others, nor was the Son wrong for obediently taking their wrong, and baring His back to their beatings:

Isaiah{50:5}
The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

1 Pe 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.
By commandment and will of the Father, the Son took the wrong of others, and bare their sinful wrongdoings upon His own body, even on a cross.

But not their sins and wrongdoings only, but also ours who have sinned and done wrong to God and Jesus His Christ and Son. Not only their wicked hands did wrong to Jesus on a cross, but also ours, if we sin likewise against Him:

Rom 7:13
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Heb 6:5
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Wanting something that conflicts with God's will is not sin.

It is for Jesus which is why He never wanted anything that was not God's will.
Actually for us desiring to be out of the will of the Father is sinful.

Why would anybody desire to be out of the will of God and want to rebel against Him?
Only satan and his children do that.

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

And through all the temptations satan threw at Him He never even once wanted to do anything the devil was trying to get him to do.

Because, Jesus said this:
John 5:19 - the Son can do nothing by Himself, but only what he sees the Father doing.

Temptation can be followed by the blessing of endurance. Jesus was tempted but endured in Gethsemane. Lust did not conceive in Jesus to produce rebellion and evil works.

I'm not the one claiming Jesus sometimes did not want to do the will of the Father

 

[PaulThomson]

It is for Jesus which is why He never wanted anything that was not God's will.
Actually for us desiring to be out of the will of the Father is sinful.

Why would anybody desire to be out of the will of God and want to rebel against Him?
Only satan and his children do that.

If there is something morally good that I would like to do, but God tells me He wants me to be somewhere else doing some other particular good thing that I would prefer not to be doing, am I sinning to prefer to do my first option, even if I choose to do God's second option and go and do that because His will/desire means more to me than my own will/desire?

Mat 21:28
"But what do you think ? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said,
'Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29
He answered and said,
'I do not want to.' But afterward he changed his mind, and went.
Mat 21:30
And he came to the second, and said the same. And he answered and said,
'I will go, sir." And he did not go.
Mat 21:31
Which of the two did the will of his father?" They say to him,
"The first." Jesus saith unto them,
"Truly I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

Which son sinned?

 

[ScooterJackson]

If there is something morally good that I would like to do, but God tells me He wants me to be somewhere else doing some other particular good thing that I would prefer not to be doing, am I sinning to prefer to do my first option, even if I choose to do God's second option and go and do that because His will/desire means more to me than my own will/desire?

Not even close to the situation Jesus was in concerning going to the Cross
Jesus was literally perfect in every way, so there was never any point in time that He did not want to do the will of the Father.

As pointed out previously, asking if there were any other options is not choosing to not want to do the will of the Father as we see Jesus plainly saying no His will be done but the Father's will be done.

 

[ATG]

GWH said: No one achieves moral perfection in this life except you Feel free to be immoral if you so desire.

You got it. While trying to condemn all people as sinners, they try to minimalize and justify their own sinning as only being 'imperfect'.

Which is why they call themselves 'imperfect human beings', rather than righteous saints, or evil-doers.

Rev 3:15
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

"No one achieves moral perfection in this life" "No one is doing right 100% of the ime" "We are all sinners" (Everyone is sinning sometimes" etc... ad nauseum

It's the limp straw dog some sinners ride on to the grave, in order to justify their own unrepentance in this life.

They only give two alternatives in life: Either Christians continuing to sin as they do, or saints must be already perfected.

They do no allow for the Scriptures' gospel of repentance from corrupt words and deeds, and yet not perfected in mind and thought without temptation, until resurrection like Jesus Christ.

Jesus would not have passed their phony litmus test, that is only intended to justify themselves as by numbers, rather than be saved justified from evil doing by the Spirit of God.

 

[ATG]

“”…of their sinning against God.” Sounds like a Hollywood movie line. Who else would they sin against, or repent towards? Lol

All sin is against God first, and to God we must repent of all sinning.

But evil is also done to man, and must also be repented of.

Therefore, the great commandments are to love God with all the heart, and our neighbor as oursselves, and do no evil to God or man.

And of course, by reminding all men, that all sinning is against God, then it rebukes men who believe their own sin is not against God, nor is evil, but their own sinning is just something they do in life. Just another mistake, nothing evil doing about it...Just a sin, that's all.

 

[ATG]

Your argument depends on defining "laid on him the iniquity of us all" as merely permitting wicked men to abuse Christ,

 

[ATG]

but Isaiah 53 goes beyond that, because the subject of the action is the LORD Himself:
"The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v. 6),
"for the transgression of my people was he stricken" (v. 8), and
"he shall bear their iniquities" (v. 11).

And here is the assumed falsehood, made by commitment to a false tradition:

There is only 1 Scripture here, where the Lord's work is prophesied. None of the other Scriptures specify who is doing the work, but only that the suffering Messiah is on the recieving end of it.

Vs 8 & 11 can certainly apply to Vs 3-4: That men despised and rejected Him, and that men imputed and esteemed Him guilty and smitten of God. Falsely.

And so, one more time, since God did not lay the stripes on His back, neither by His own hand nor by law; Nor did He impute sin and transgression on His soul.

Therefore, Vs 6 not only applies to what God and the Son did together, but also only applies to the Son submitting into men's sinful hands, without defence nor complaint, and meekly suffering their unlawful wrongdoings against His own body on a tree.

I agree that Christ committed Himself to God's righteous judgment and that He personally remained sinless throughout His suffering (1 Pet. 2:22-23), but Isaiah's point is not that Christ became personally guilty of sin; rather, though innocent, He bore the consequences and judgment associated with the sins of others.

He bore the evil consequence and false judgment of sinful men, by submitting to their hands.

He did not bear any shame, guilt, nor death by law of God for any sin of His own soul.

Your effort to acknowledge the truth if is 53:3-4, is nullified by your rejection of the truth, to go on and stay committed to the lie, that God Himself 'laid' sin on His own Son's soul, made Him guilty of sin, and cursed Him to death as by law.

He did no sin, had no sin, nor knew any sin at all in Himself.Therefore, God did not 'lay' any sin upon His soul, nor impute any guilt to His own 'account'.

God the Son's soul did not die to God, nor pay any guilt price of sin against God, but only paid the price of meekly submitting into the hands of false and wicked rulers, judges, and smiters.

The body of Jesus died on a cross by the sins of others laid upon Him. God the Son did not die by any sin imputed to Him.

His innocence and His bearing of our iniquities are not contradictions in the text; Isaiah presents both as true at the same time.

Absolutely, since Isaiah separates what sinful men did to His body, vs what God and the Son did together with Himself in their hands: Meek submission without defence, complaint, protest, fault, nor sin.

Gen 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

The innocense of His soul remained true unto the end in death. The He bare His body to the iniquities and wrongdoings unjustly laid upon Him unto death of the body, but never the soul:

1 Pe 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.
Once again, this Scripture does no specify who laid those sinful stripes on His body, but we know from other Scriptures that it was not God, but only wicked men.

Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Isaiah{50:5}
The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Isa 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Once again, the last Scripture does not specify who oppressed and afflicted Him, but we do know from the other Scriptures, that it was not God, but only oppressive men.

And we also know from Scripture 53:3-4, that all men at the cross believed it was done by God, but it was not God doing those things by His own hand, nor by His own law at all.

Gal 6:17
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Who put those marks on Paul's body? Did the Lord Jesus Himself lay them on his back, or only sinful men persecuting a son and apostle of God?

Neither did God the Father lay any marks upon the Son and Christ of God. But the apostle of the Lord followed in His Master's steps, and obediently took the wrong of others, and submitted to their wrongdoing against His own body in stripes and stoning.

Did the Lord impute the wrong to His apostle, and make Him guilty and worthy of stripes? No. Neither did God the Father impute any sin His own Messiah, nor make Him guilty and worthy of death on a cross.

 

[OMC]

And here is the assumed falsehood, made by commitment to a false tradition:

There is only 1 Scripture here, where the Lord's work is prophesied. None of the other Scriptures specify who is doing the work, but only that the suffering Messiah is on the recieving end of it.

Vs 8 & 11 can certainly apply to Vs 3-4: That men despised and rejected Him, and that men imputed and esteemed Him guilty and smitten of God. Falsely.

And so, one more time, since God did not lay the stripes on His back, neither by His own hand nor by law; Nor did He impute sin and transgression on His soul.

Therefore, Vs 6 not only applies to what God and the Son did together, but also only applies to the Son submitting into men's sinful hands, without defence nor complaint, and meekly suffering their unlawful wrongdoings against His own body on a tree.

I think Isaiah 53 says more than you're allowing it to say.

Certainly men despised, rejected, mocked, scourged, and crucified Christ. No disagreement there. But Isaiah does not merely describe what men did. Isaiah explicitly says: "The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v.6),
and: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief" (v.10).
The subject in both cases is the LORD, not men.

I agree God did not physically wield the whip or drive the nails.
Wicked men did that.
But Isaiah goes beyond identifying the human agents and reveals God's purpose in Christ's suffering.
Verse 11 connects that suffering directly to justification: "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."
Therefore, the passage does not permit us to reduce Christ's sufferings to merely enduring the unlawful actions of sinful men.
Isaiah explicitly presents both realities together: men sinned against Him, and God was accomplishing redemption through those sufferings. That seems to be the plain meaning of the chapter.

He bore the evil consequence and false judgment of sinful men, by submitting to their hands.

He did not bear any shame, guilt, nor death by law of God for any sin of His own soul.

Your effort to acknowledge the truth if is 53:3-4, is nullified by your rejection of the truth, to go on and stay committed to the lie, that God Himself 'laid' sin on His own Son's soul, made Him guilty of sin, and cursed Him to death as by law.

He did no sin, had no sin, nor knew any sin at all in Himself.Therefore, God did not 'lay' any sin upon His soul, nor impute any guilt to His own 'account'.

God the Son's soul did not die to God, nor pay any guilt price of sin against God, but only paid the price of meekly submitting into the hands of false and wicked rulers, judges, and smiters.

The body of Jesus died on a cross by the sins of others laid upon Him. God the Son did not die by any sin imputed to Him.

I don't believe the text supports the conclusion you're drawing.

I agree completely that Christ did no sin, knew no sin, and was personally innocent throughout His suffering (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22).
I have never argued that Christ became morally corrupt or personally guilty in His own character.

However, Isaiah does not merely say that men falsely accused Him.
Isaiah says: "The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6),
and: "he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11).
That language goes beyond merely enduring the unlawful actions of wicked men. The bearing of iniquities is directly connected with the justification of many.

Likewise, you keep arguing that only men acted against Christ.
But Isaiah 53:10 explicitly says: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief."
The chapter presents both realities simultaneously: wicked men sinned against Christ, and God was accomplishing redemption through those sufferings.
To acknowledge the first while denying the second does not seem to do justice to the whole passage.

Absolutely, since Isaiah separates what sinful men did to His body, vs what God and the Son did together with Himself in their hands: Meek submission without defence, complaint, protest, fault, nor sin.

Gen 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

The innocense of His soul remained true unto the end in death. The He bare His body to the iniquities and wrongdoings unjustly laid upon Him unto death of the body, but never the soul:

1 Pe 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.
Once again, this Scripture does no specify who laid those sinful stripes on His body, but we know from other Scriptures that it was not God, but only wicked men.

Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Isaiah{50:5}
The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Isa 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Once again, the last Scripture does not specify who oppressed and afflicted Him, but we do know from the other Scriptures, that it was not God, but only oppressive men.

And we also know from Scripture 53:3-4, that all men at the cross believed it was done by God, but it was not God doing those things by His own hand, nor by His own law at all.

Gal 6:17
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Who put those marks on Paul's body? Did the Lord Jesus Himself lay them on his back, or only sinful men persecuting a son and apostle of God?

Neither did God the Father lay any marks upon the Son and Christ of God. But the apostle of the Lord followed in His Master's steps, and obediently took the wrong of others, and submitted to their wrongdoing against His own body in stripes and stoning.

Did the Lord impute the wrong to His apostle, and make Him guilty and worthy of stripes? No. Neither did God the Father impute any sin His own Messiah, nor make Him guilty and worthy of death on a cross.

I think you're creating a distinction that Isaiah itself does not create.

I fully agree that wicked men scourged Christ, mocked Christ, and crucified Christ.
Acts 2:23 explicitly says He was slain by "wicked hands."
I also agree that Christ remained personally sinless throughout His suffering (1 Pet. 2:22).

But Isaiah 53 does not stop with what men did.
It explicitly says: "The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v.6),
and: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief" (v.10).
The chapter attributes Christ's suffering not only to the actions of wicked men but also to the redemptive purpose of God.

I am not saying God made Christ personally sinful, corrupt, or morally guilty.
Scripture never says that.
But neither does Scripture reduce His sufferings to merely enduring human mistreatment.
Isaiah connects His bearing of iniquities directly with the justification of many:
"By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities" (v.11).
So the issue is not whether Christ remained innocent. He did.
The issue is whether Isaiah teaches that God was accomplishing atonement through Christ's sufferings.
The text repeatedly says He was.
To acknowledge only the role of sinful men while denying the LORD's stated role in verses 6, 10, and 11 does not seem to account for the whole chapter.

 

[ScooterJackson]

by reminding all men, that all sinning is against God, then it rebukes men who believe their own sin is not against God

They'll claim the righteousness of Jesus is applied to them so even if they did live in sin they are still in right standing with the Lord which is mocking God Who said in Gal 6:7,8 that is one sows to the flesh they reap corruption.

The righteousness of Jesus is only applicable to those who abide in Christ which is walking after the Spirit rather than walking after the flesh. The reformers (catholics too) won't accept this from God's Word.

 

[PaulThomson]

Not even close to the situation Jesus was in concerning going to the Cross
Jesus was literally perfect in every way, so there was never any point in time that He did not want to do the will of the Father.

As pointed out previously, asking if there were any other options is not choosing to not want to do the will of the Father as we see Jesus plainly saying no His will be done but the Father's will be done.

I did not say that Jesus chose to not want to do the will of the Father. Clearly, Jesus chose to do the will of the Father. In a binary choice "Do my own will?" or "Do the God's will?" Jesus always chose to do God's will. However, wanting/willing particular details of God's revealed will not to be part of His actual will, but nevertheless submitting to and performing God's revealed will, is not in any way "sin". It is being tempted but honourably enduring and overcoming temptation.

You seem to think that being tempted to depart from God's will is the same thing as sinning. You seem to think that, because Jesus proved sinless, He could not even have desired something that was outside of, nor could have not desired anything that was part of God's will. Your point of view seems to me to deny the scriptures, which tell us that Jesus became flesh and was tempted like us in every way.
Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[ScooterJackson]

I did not say that Jesus chose to not want to do the will of the Father.

Jesus was literal perfect and He said He only does what His Father does and says what His Father says so just having the desire for just a moment to not be in agreement with the Father would have been sinful for Jesus. It's not even possible for Jesus to desire something other than the Father desires.

You seem to think that being tempted to depart from God's will is the same thing as sinning.

No, because Jesus cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of the Father.
The devil could tempt Jesus all he wanted and Jesus just ignored him not allowing any thoughts of the devil to come in to His thinking.

He could not even have desired something that was outside of, nor could have not desired anything that was part of God's will.

I don't believe Jesus was sitting around accepting satan's instructions to depart from the Father, no.

Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let's not read in to scripture something it does not say.
Jesus never once desired what satan was trying to get Him to desire.

All the devil did was present to Jesus thoughts of sin and Jesus immediately cast it out of His thinking not allowing the devil's lies to enter in. John 14:30 - the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

We should be doing what Jesus did and each time the devil tries to get us to allow his thoughts of sin to enter in to our thinking, cast them down and ignore them. And right on cue someone will come along and claim "that's works based salvation"