Isa 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Read the entire chapter. You have a bible don't you?
Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.
- Thread starter ATG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Read the entire chapter. You have a bible don't you?
To all Skeptics who love to point at this one: Scripture calls Jesus sinless, yet says He "became sin." So which is it?
The answer doesn't start in 2 Corinthians. It starts back in Exodus and Leviticus. Under the Law, a sacrifice had to be without blemish. Exodus 12:5 says the Passover lamb must be "without blemish, a male of the first year," and Leviticus repeats the same standard over and over (Leviticus 22:19-21). A flawed or sickly animal was disqualified before it ever reached the altar. It simply couldn't atone for anything.
That's the key to the whole question. Christ's sinlessness was never in tension with Him bearing sin. It was the qualification for it. Peter says it plainly, calling believers redeemed "with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). He had to be perfect before He could bear sin, not perfect instead of bearing it. A guilty man can't pay a debt of guilt he already owns himself.
This is also what's happening in Isaiah 53:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." That phrase, "laid on him," is the same language used for the Day of Atonement, when the priest laid his hands on the scapegoat and transferred the sins of the camp onto an animal that had done nothing wrong (Leviticus 16:21-22). The goat didn't become sinful. It carried a charge that was never its own. That's a transfer of guilt, not a transfer of character.
Paul spells it out: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). "Made to be sin" is legal language, not chemistry. It means Christ was credited with our sin, not infected by it. Think of it this way: if a judge orders an innocent man's debt paid, that doesn't make the innocent man dishonest. The category here is judicial, not moral.
And that verse doesn't stop halfway. It's a two-way exchange. Our guilt went to Him, His righteousness comes to us. Neither side changes what they actually are. That's the whole point of Isaiah 53 in miniature. The same chapter that says "we have turned every one to his own way" also says "with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). The wound is real, the exchange is real, and the price was paid by someone who owed nothing.
So the "contradiction" only works if you assume "sin" can only mean a moral quality a person has. Scripture is using it here in its legal sense, a charge someone bears, the same way the spotless lamb never became a sinner just by standing in for one. Once you see that distinction, a sinless Christ bearing sin isn't a contradiction. It's the whole logic of the sacrificial system, brought home at the cross.
The answer doesn't start in 2 Corinthians. It starts back in Exodus and Leviticus. Under the Law, a sacrifice had to be without blemish. Exodus 12:5 says the Passover lamb must be "without blemish, a male of the first year," and Leviticus repeats the same standard over and over (Leviticus 22:19-21). A flawed or sickly animal was disqualified before it ever reached the altar. It simply couldn't atone for anything.
That's the key to the whole question. Christ's sinlessness was never in tension with Him bearing sin. It was the qualification for it. Peter says it plainly, calling believers redeemed "with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). He had to be perfect before He could bear sin, not perfect instead of bearing it. A guilty man can't pay a debt of guilt he already owns himself.
This is also what's happening in Isaiah 53:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." That phrase, "laid on him," is the same language used for the Day of Atonement, when the priest laid his hands on the scapegoat and transferred the sins of the camp onto an animal that had done nothing wrong (Leviticus 16:21-22). The goat didn't become sinful. It carried a charge that was never its own. That's a transfer of guilt, not a transfer of character.
Paul spells it out: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). "Made to be sin" is legal language, not chemistry. It means Christ was credited with our sin, not infected by it. Think of it this way: if a judge orders an innocent man's debt paid, that doesn't make the innocent man dishonest. The category here is judicial, not moral.
And that verse doesn't stop halfway. It's a two-way exchange. Our guilt went to Him, His righteousness comes to us. Neither side changes what they actually are. That's the whole point of Isaiah 53 in miniature. The same chapter that says "we have turned every one to his own way" also says "with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). The wound is real, the exchange is real, and the price was paid by someone who owed nothing.
So the "contradiction" only works if you assume "sin" can only mean a moral quality a person has. Scripture is using it here in its legal sense, a charge someone bears, the same way the spotless lamb never became a sinner just by standing in for one. Once you see that distinction, a sinless Christ bearing sin isn't a contradiction. It's the whole logic of the sacrificial system, brought home at the cross.
You have quite a bad attitude for someone trying to teach biblical principles. Where is the fruit of the Holy Spirit?
And I see the death as separation from God, which did occur with the first act of sin.
Your understanding of the Hebrew clashes with what I learned in my Hebrew classes. I was taught that the double use of the word for dying was an emphatic idiom in Hebrew implying absolute certainty.
And when one references Jesus paying the price for sin, the question arises, to whom did He pay the price? The law that called for blood was written for the benefit of humanity, so that becomes problematic. If the price was paid to God, it amounted to God moving money from one pocket to another and claiming that some price was paid, and that the law somehow had priority over humanity, which contradicts that the law was for the benefit of humanity. If it was to Satan, according to Job, he only had what authority God allowed him, so how did he get so much.
Likewise, to claim that our physical, mortal bodies become immortal requires some brand new laws of physics. Yet the existent laws of physics seem to have applied for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions, or since safely before any humans existed, so when did there ever exist a chance for immortal physical bodies? Yet if you refer to non-physical bodies, how did a physical act cause such a problem as to so harm a nonphysical entity?
Right. And that is spiritual death. My point was that both physical and spiritual death are in view.
