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

[ATG]

Furthermore, nobody here is claiming God imputed personal sin to Christ.

Knowing that you must be supporting the false tradition of God imputing our sins to His Son on the cross, I have to question your use of imputed 'personal' sin.

Is this another way of trying to separate God imputing His Son with sin, but not calling Him a sinner? He imputed 'our' personal sins to Jesus, but not any 'personal' sin of His own?

If so, then it still denies the truth of Scripture, that God Himself only imputes any sin, to the personal soul that sinned.

Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Since God only imputes the personal sin of the person that sins, then if God imputes any sin to any person, then that person must be the one sinning; Else God is breaking His own word of promise and judgment, that only the soul that sins, it shall be imputed with sin by God, and die by their own sinning.

Pro 8:36
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Furhtermore, the promise that God does not impute sin of any parent to any offspring, nor offspring to parent, means that God cannot rightly impute any sin of another to His own Son, nor the Son to His own Father:

Eze 18:20
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.

We notice how God's words are specifically intended to counter the prophesied lie of any sinner, that would impute their own sins to God's own Son: Bearing the iniquity of another, cannot be God having the sin of the one that sinned, imputed to another than sinned not.

And so, not only by Scriptural record, but also by Scriptural law of sin and death, God Himself never had any sin imputed to His own beloved Son, who sinned not and so had no sin. But only sinful men imputed Jesus with sin and unlawful killed Him in the name of God.

And only the unbelievers in His resurrection as Son of God, still believe with His false accusers, that He was lawfully accused and condemned by God's law.

And not only they, but also any person that believes that lie, that has since been made into a false tradition of men, for sinners to be justified by killing Him on the cross, and likewise blaming it on God Himself.

1Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

Isaiah never says the Servant became a sinner.

So, you must be trying to impute Jesus with the personal sins of others, and separate that from being imputed by any personal sin of His own, as though God could do so, and yet not judge His own Son a sinner...

Which is just another myriad of 'mystery' doctrines, used to cover the false tradition and lie, that God imputed His Son with any sin at all.

There's the mystery of the Godhead and gospel of Jesus Christ, that was hidden from the foundation of the world, and is now revealed by the prophesies and fulfillment of Scriptures.

And then there's the mysterious doctrines of men, that are magically produced out of Scriptures, that God never said nor did Himself.

The former lawfully forgives and delievers from sinning, any that repent of our own sinning against Jesus Christ, who was nailed to a tree by us that sinned against Him.

The latter unlawfully justifies the sinning of people, who still believe the lie of the devil, that God the Father imputed our own sins to the person of His dear Son, who knew no sin Himself, and yet mysteriously and devilishly made His own personal soul guilty unto death for our sinning against Him.

2Th 2:7
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:

Rev 2:24
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, that they speak;

There is no Scripturally doctrional, prophetic, nor lawful way for the righteous God and the Father, to impute and condemn God the Son, Jesus Christ the righteous, with any sin at all.

Nor is their any true mystery way of imputing the soul of any person, without imputing them with personal sin, and judging them a sinful person.

 

[ATG]

"The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
If verse 4 means God had no role whatsoever in the Servant's suffering, then verses 6, 10, 11, and 12 become unintelligible.

And no one is arguing that God the Father and Son had no role together as one on the cross, where Himself was unlawfully imputed, condemned, and killed, as though cursed and smitten by God.

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

God provided Himself a sacrifice at the hands of wicked men. He did not sacrifice Himself as a cursed sinner.

And no one can believe the prophecy of Scripture, that any at the cross knew of God's own true role; But only believed in their own unlawful role of accusing God the Son of being a sinful sacrifice for their own national purposes:

Jhn 11:50
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

Only men had the sinful role of imputing Jesus with sin, and smitting Him as though of God.

Only God the Father and Son had the role of meek submission to their sinful hands, to die for sins of all men, as the innocent and true Lamb of God.

Isaiah's point is not that the crowd was wrong to see God's hand involved at all.

Isaiah's point is they were all wrong to see God's hand involved, in imputing and smiting His Son for sin.

Isaiah makes no point that any of them rightly saw God's hand involved, by commanded obedient submission;

But that 'we' all that sinned against Him, likewise being guilty of shedding the innocent blood of the Son of man on earth.

 

[ATG]

The crowd was wrong about why He suffered.
They assumed He was being judged for His own guilt.
Isaiah says He was suffering as the righteous Servant on behalf of others.

Exactly.

And all the suffering was only by the hands of sinful men. And all the suffering willingly submitted to, was by the hand of God the Father and Son working as one together on the cross.

Only sinful men laid hands on the Son's body. Those sinful hands were only laid on the Son, by His obedience to the will of God to submit to their sinful hands.

God laid the iniquities of us all upon the Son's body, that all our iniquities committed against Him, should be laid bare upon His own body, as truly evil indeed:

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..

2Co 5:21
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.

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.

The bones of His body laid bare, were laid bare by us all that have sinned against Him; Not by them that beat and smote Him to death on a cross:

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.

He willingly bare His body to sinful hands, that He should bare also our iniquities, when those hands sinfully laid bare His own body to the bone.

When we see Jesus body laid bare on a cross, we see our own sins and iniquities borne in His own body on a tree, that we should all see how exceeding sinful our own sins have been against Him too.

That is why the chapter progresses from "we esteemed" to "the LORD hath laid on him" to "he shall bear their iniquities."
The Hebrew itself distinguishes human misjudgment from God's stated purpose.

Correct.

We imputed and esteemed Him with sin and guilty of death. The LORD hath laid on His body our sins and iniquties by our hands sinfully striping and crucifying Him. He bare in His own body the marks of our sins against Him, to the bone and death.

Gal 6:17
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Here we see how Jesus' dsiciples can also lay down their own lives by the will of God, not by God's hands laid upon our personal body.

Paul bare in His own body the marks of the Lord Jesus, the same as Jesus bare in His own body the marks of the Father.

Did the Lord Jesus mark Paul's body, or did the Jews that whipped and stone Him? The Jews, not the Lord Jesus. And only sinful men made the marks borne in Jesus' own body on a tree, not God the Father.

 

[ATG]

No. The verb in v.6 is the causative Hiphil form of פגע, so it means "to cause a secondary agent to lay/strike". Hence, " וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֺן כֻּלָּנוּ׃ " And-YHWH caused-someone-to-strike upon-him the-iniquity of-us-all. YHWH did not lay all our iniquities on Him, but had all our iniquities laid/struck upon Him (whose "our" is being determined by the context.)

Excellent. Not being so much an original language studier, I thought there may be some verb form argument. Which you prove, thanks much.

I was also wondering if there is anything verbally passive about the prophecy in the Hebrew or it's fulfillments in the Greek?

Such as, upon Him was laid the iniquities of us all? The iniquities of us all was laid upon Him? Not God the Father doing it Himself, even as you show, but God the Son only passively allowing it? Even as the Scripture plainly says:

Jhn 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

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.

The Scripture is clear, that the commandment of the Father was for the Son to passively submit to sinful hands, and that the sinful stripes laid upon His own back, was by their hands, not God's.

And that by obedience, the Son would be raised from the dead and likewise allowed to have mercy on any of His own enemies, that repent of His death on the cross:

Heb{5:8}
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Psa 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

We do know by the first prophecy of Christ's suffferings in Isaiah, added to those of the Psalms, that it was only men that laid the stripes upon His body, not God Himself laying any hurt upon the Son, especially not imputing any evil and sin to Him.

And we can begin with Gen 3:15, that if anyone other than man willed them to do so wickedly to the Son, and personally oversaw and had any credit for it, it certainly was not God Himself, but only the devil himself:

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The devil is the only one, not God, for whom men bruised Jesus head and body. Even as all sinning against Christ Himself is only for the devil, and never justified by God:

1Jo 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Which of course, makes perfect sense, that it is the devil, that inspires that greatly false traditonal abuse of Scripture, that God imputed sin to the Son, and smote Him on a tree as by law:

Jhn 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Which would indeed make God the false accuser and unlawful killer of men, including even His own Son. Even as those pagan gods and evil kings of old:

Psa 106:37
Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

2Ki 3:26
And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.

Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

And this devilish pagan evil doing just happens to be a perfect foreshadowing of God the Father and Jesus His Son, if indeed the Father did bruise and slay His own Son, at a time of defeat at the hands of enemies:

"God took His only Son that should reign in His stead, and offered Him for a burnt offering upon a tree. And there was great indignation against Jesus of Israel: and they departed from Him, and returned to their own homes."

Did not God take His Son that should reign, and slay Him? Was the Son not a burnt offering of God Himself? And made upon a wooden cross? And were they not indignant with the blasphemer Jesus the Jew? And did they not depart from Him and return to their own homes?

The former part is the lie against prophecy of Scripture pertaining to the Father and Son. The latter is true of the prophecy of is 53:3-4, that pertais to all at the cross, watching from afar Jesus accused, imputed, condemned, and crucified as a blasphemer against God.

It truly is a most devilish traditional device, to have sinners justified by believing in a lie, that is damned from beginning to end by Scripture of truth:

2Th 2:10
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[ATG]

No. The verb in v.6 is the causative Hiphil form of פגע, so it means "to cause a secondary agent to lay/strike". Hence, " וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֺן כֻּלָּנוּ׃ " And-YHWH caused-someone-to-strike upon-him the-iniquity of-us-all. YHWH did not lay all our iniquities on Him, but had all our iniquities laid/struck upon Him (whose "our" is being determined by the context.)


v.12 uses נָשָׂא ; v.11 uses סָבַל

Jer 44:22
“So the LORD could no longer bear (נָשָׂא] it, because of the evil of your doings and because of the abominations which you committed. Therefore your land is a desolation, an astonishment, a curse, and without an inhabitant, as it is this day.

Isa 1:14
Your New Moons and your appointed feasts
My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing (נָשָׂא] them.

NaaSaa' here means put up with/tolerate, and is arguably the same sense as Isaiah is using it in v.12
And this sense, applied to verse 12, in no way undermines the earlier verses that say that Jesus was not imputed by God, but by men, with our sins.

Excellent again.

It confirms exactly what we can read from the Scriptures, when properly guided by the definitive prophecy of Gen 3:15, the Psalms, and Isaiah 53:3-4: Sinful men of the devil accused, inmputed, condemned Jesus with sin, and laid their sinful stripes upon His bared body, and wickedly slew Him on a tree, as by law of God.

They accused the Son, and also imputed God with their sinful hands laid upon His back, which He bared to them without defence nor protest.

And it was both the Father and the Son that 'put up with' and bared their sinful beating and nailing of His body, for Their own purposes, not at all because God imputed His Son with sin and guilt, and Himself laid bare His back to the bone.

While I purposely don't go to word studies of original languages, in order to prove prophecy, doctrine, and true revelation of Scripture, but instead do so by the translation language I read with others. However, it never hurts to solidly confirm what we can already prove by Scripture written in our own tongue.

Thanks much

v.11 uses סָבַל, which is also used here
Lam 5:7
Our fathers sinned and are no more,
But we bear ( סָבַל ) their iniquities.

Here, the sense is that they are bearing the consequences of their fathers' sins, not that they are being imputed with their fathers' sins.

Well done again. Even as God in scripture promises, that though the children can suffer from the sins of the parents, they are not imputed and made guilty by God of those sins, except they commit them also.

And so the Son of man suffered the sinful works of the people at the cross, likewise without their sins being imputed to Him and made guilty by God, who did not their sins, nor any sinning at all.

Thanks again. All very clear and inarguable by honest readers.

But is blindly rejected by readers thoroughly perverted by false traditions of sinful men. Especially when they literally entrust their very souls to their belief in that tradition, in order to justify themselves apart from their own sinful works, that they themselves declare they will certainly continue doing...

And even as their fathers did, so do they impute Jesus Christ with sin, and esteem Him guilty and smitten of God, and are themselves justified in doing so.

And this sense, applied in verse 11, in no way undermines the earlier verses that say that Jesus was not imputed by God, but by men, with our sins.

Absolutely.

Some object to using Is 53: 3-4 to intepret all the other Scriptures of Jesus' sufferings, which is at the hands of sinful men on a cross. And yet does not lead to undermining any of them at all.

While they demand that all the latter prophecies should outwiegh Is 53:3-4, (which also must include the Psalms, and especially Gen 3:15.) And yet all their interpetations of those latter prophecies do undermine and contradict Is 53:3-4, Psalms, and Gen 3:15.

When interpretation of scripture can apply to all Scriptures involved, and not undermine and contradict any of them, then that interpretation must be accepted over any interpretation, that does undermine and contradict any of them.

Especially when that interrpetation is already true by the plain indisputable readfing of one of those Scriptures: Plain reading of Is 53:3-4 outweighs any false interpretation and tradition of men, that say God imputed His own Son with sin, and made Him guilty of death on the cross, as by law... (As does Gen 3:15 and Psalms)

 

[ATG]

But Isaiah does not simply say men sinned against the Servant.
He repeatedly ties the Servant's suffering to our transgressions (v.5), our iniquities (v.5), the iniquity of us all (v.6), their iniquities (v.11), and the sin of many (v.12).

I.e. men sinning against the servant, is tied to Him suffering by their sins, transgressions, and inquities against Him.

It's only a given, that the sins of men sinning against someone, is tied to their sinning against someone, and that someone's sufferings is tied to their sins.

And so, God in Scripture leaves nothing to misinterpretation, so that misinterpretation can only be by ignorance of all the Scriptures, or by unbelief and rejection of some Scriptures.

That language is far more extensive than merely saying He was the victim of sinful treatment.

Jesus was merely the victim of sinful treatment?

Isa 52:14
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their

Beaten and crucified to death beyond recognition, is not merely the victim of sinful treatment. (People need to be careful about how they try to belittle the prophecy of Scripture, that they want to sideline for something 'better'.)

In any case, the language of all the Scriptures together makes it far more extensively proven, that not only the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of the men sinning against the Servant at the cross, are tied to those men.

But also not only tied to those men's sinful hands, but also to all our hands that have sinned, transgressed, and committed iniquity against that Servant Jesus Christ at the cross.

And finally, more extensively proves that all sinning is transgression and iniquity committed against Jesus Christ, and not just merely sinning again, as some like to say so matter-of-factly.

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.

 

[ATG]

And no, I am not claiming there is only one imaginable interpretation.

There is only one true interpretation by Scripture, and only one imagined interpretation by men changing Scripture.

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

I am claiming that an interpretation must account for the whole chapter.

There's only one interpretation that accounts for the whole chapter, Psalms, Gen 3:15, and all the Scriptures of their fulfillment in the gospels, and writings of the apostles: Is 53:3-4 rightly interprets them all without undermining nor contradicting them.

Only men imputed Jesus with sin, and believed Him guilty and worthy of death as by law, and so esteemed Him smitten of God. God did none of those things to His own righteous Son:

Mat 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him.

Jhn 8:29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Jhn 16:32
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

All other intepretations that in any way would make God the imputer of sin to Jesus, and cursing Him as guilty on a tree, are falesly undermining and contradicting Is 53:34, that begins the whole chapter of God's suffering servant and Messiah. (As well as undermining and contradicting all the Psalms of His suffering, and Gen 3:15 of the devil being the only one other than men, that falsely accused, imputed, condemned, and killed Jesus Christ, as by law of God.)

Jhn 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Jhn 8:46
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me.

Which of you imputes Jesus with sin? And since He says the truth, that God did not, then why do you not believe Him?

Which of you says that the Father left the Son hanging on a cross, by imputing Him with sin, and cursing Him as guilty by law? Especially when Jesus says the Father did not leave Him alone, because He was well pleased with Him, who always did those things that pleased Him, even unto death on a cross...

The issue is which reading best accounts for all the language Isaiah chose to use.
I agree that men abused Christ and that God permitted it for a redemptive purpose.
The remaining question is whether Isaiah's repeated references to bearing sin and iniquity are exhausted by that fact alone.
That is the point still under debate.

There is no debate about who sinned against Christ, and did evil to His body.

If Jesus' bearing of sin and iniquity, is made anything less or more, than Jesus' body baring the sinning and iniquity committed against Him with stripes and nails; Then there is no debate about it. It's falsely applied to any of the Scriptures about Him suffering, and bodily baring up under the men's sins and iniquities committed against Him.

Any attempt to transfer any part of God's own hands doing so, or aproving men doing so, is equally false, that undermines and contradicts Gen 3:15, the Psalms, and Is 53;3-4.

And worse yet is any effort of tradition to have God impute Jesus' soul with sin, and curse Him as guilty on a tree; Which also greatly undermines and contradicts God's own promise and law of sin and death, to only impute sin only to the soul that sins against Christ.

Or, finally have Him 'symbolically' imputed with sin by God, but not personally judging Him a sinner...Which is only reaching for dark mysteries and lying wonders in the air...

 

[PaulThomson]

Why would anyone not want to believe what the Lord is showing them?
We should be willing to be corrected by the Lord and change our thinking when He shows us we weren't thinking right.

Even Jesu did not want to believe He had to go to the cross. He asked if it were possible that He avoid that ordeal.

Then He submitted, saying ,"Not what I want, but what You want."

 

[OMC]

There is no debate about who sinned against Christ, and did evil to His body.

If Jesus' bearing of sin and iniquity, is made anything less or more, than Jesus' body baring the sinning and iniquity committed against Him with stripes and nails; Then there is no debate about it. It's falsely applied to any of the Scriptures about Him suffering, and bodily baring up under the men's sins and iniquities committed against Him.

Any attempt to transfer any part of God's own hands doing so, or aproving men doing so, is equally false, that undermines and contradicts Gen 3:15, the Psalms, and Is 53;3-4.

And worse yet is any effort of tradition to have God impute Jesus' soul with sin, and curse Him as guilty on a tree; Which also greatly undermines and contradicts God's own promise and law of sin and death, to only impute sin only to the soul that sins against Christ.

Or, finally have Him 'symbolically' imputed with sin by God, but not personally judging Him a sinner...Which is only reaching for dark mysteries and lying wonders in the air...

I agree there is no debate that men sinned against Christ, falsely accused Him, and physically abused His body; the question is whether Isaiah 53 says only that. The difficulty with your interpretation is that Isaiah does not merely describe what men did to the Servant, but repeatedly explains what was accomplished through His suffering: "he was wounded for our transgressions," "the chastisement of our peace was upon him," "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," and "he shall bear their iniquities." If "bearing sin" means nothing more than enduring sinful acts committed against Him, then those explanatory statements add little beyond the fact that wicked men hurt Him. Yet Isaiah presents them as the reason His suffering brings peace, healing, and justification to others. I fully agree that God did not make Christ a sinner and that Christ remained perfectly righteous, but the text itself goes beyond describing human cruelty and presents the Servant's suffering as accomplishing something redemptive for those whose sins are in view.

 

[OMC]

There's only one interpretation that accounts for the whole chapter, Psalms, Gen 3:15, and all the Scriptures of their fulfillment in the gospels, and writings of the apostles: Is 53:3-4 rightly interprets them all without undermining nor contradicting them.

Only men imputed Jesus with sin, and believed Him guilty and worthy of death as by law, and so esteemed Him smitten of God. God did none of those things to His own righteous Son:

Mat 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him.

Jhn 8:29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Jhn 16:32
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

All other intepretations that in any way would make God the imputer of sin to Jesus, and cursing Him as guilty on a tree, are falesly undermining and contradicting Is 53:34, that begins the whole chapter of God's suffering servant and Messiah. (As well as undermining and contradicting all the Psalms of His suffering, and Gen 3:15 of the devil being the only one other than men, that falsely accused, imputed, condemned, and killed Jesus Christ, as by law of God.)

Jhn 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Jhn 8:46
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me.

Which of you imputes Jesus with sin? And since He says the truth, that God did not, then why do you not believe Him?

Which of you says that the Father left the Son hanging on a cross, by imputing Him with sin, and cursing Him as guilty by law? Especially when Jesus says the Father did not leave Him alone, because He was well pleased with Him, who always did those things that pleased Him, even unto death on a cross...

I do not believe what you are arguing follows from the texts you cite, because no one here is claiming that the Father stopped loving the Son, that Christ became a sinner, or that the Father abandoned Him as morally guilty. The Father repeatedly declared His pleasure in the Son, and Christ remained perfectly righteous throughout His life and death. The question is whether Isaiah 53 and the apostolic writings teach that Christ's suffering had significance beyond merely enduring human mistreatment.

The difficulty with your interpretation is that it explains virtually every statement in Isaiah 53 as describing what men did to Christ, while minimizing what the chapter says God did through Christ. The chapter does not only say that men esteemed Him stricken; it also says, "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," "he shall bear their iniquities," and "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many" (Isa. 53:6,11). Those are not statements about human misunderstanding. They are God's explanation of the meaning of the Servant's suffering.

Likewise, John 8:46 proves Christ was sinless, which I gladly affirm, but being sinless does not answer Isaiah's claim that He bore the sins of others. In fact, Isaiah's whole point is that the righteous Servant suffers on behalf of the unrighteous. If He were personally guilty, there would be nothing remarkable about His suffering.

So I agree that men falsely accused Christ, that the devil was behind that wickedness, and that the Father was well pleased with the Son even unto death. What I do not see is how those truths negate Isaiah's repeated insistence that the Servant's suffering was not merely an example of injustice, but the means by which many would be justified. The chapter itself presents both truths together: Christ was innocent, and Christ bore the sins of many.

 

[OMC]

There is only one true interpretation by Scripture, and only one imagined interpretation by men changing Scripture.

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

I agree that there is only one true meaning intended by God, but 2 Peter 1:20 is not saying that believers may never disagree about the interpretation of a passage; Peter's point is that prophecy did not originate from the prophet's own will or private source, because "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21). The question, therefore, is not whether there is one true interpretation, but which interpretation best accounts for all the words God actually inspired. Simply asserting that your view is the true one does not resolve the discussion. We still have to explain why Isaiah says not only that men esteemed Him smitten, but also that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," that "he shall bear their iniquities," and that "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." An interpretation should account for every part of the chapter, not just the portions that fit a preexisting conclusion.

 

[OMC]

Jesus was merely the victim of sinful treatment?

Isa 52:14
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their

Beaten and crucified to death beyond recognition, is not merely the victim of sinful treatment. (People need to be careful about how they try to belittle the prophecy of Scripture, that they want to sideline for something 'better'.)

In any case, the language of all the Scriptures together makes it far more extensively proven, that not only the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of the men sinning against the Servant at the cross, are tied to those men.

But also not only tied to those men's sinful hands, but also to all our hands that have sinned, transgressed, and committed iniquity against that Servant Jesus Christ at the cross.

And finally, more extensively proves that all sinning is transgression and iniquity committed against Jesus Christ, and not just merely sinning again, as some like to say so matter-of-factly.

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.

No, I am not belittling the suffering of Christ. My point is the opposite: Isaiah 52:14 and 53:3-5 portray suffering so severe that it cannot be reduced to a mere example of injustice. I fully agree that Christ's body was marred beyond recognition by sinful men, and that every sinner bears responsibility for the rebellion that made the cross necessary. But Isaiah does not stop at describing what men did to Him. The prophet repeatedly explains what His suffering accomplished: "he was wounded for our transgressions," "the chastisement of our peace was upon him," and "by his stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:5). Those statements move beyond identifying the perpetrators and address the meaning of His suffering.

I agree that all sin is ultimately against God and against His Christ, and that the cross exposes sin as exceedingly sinful. Yet that is not all Isaiah says. The chapter does not merely reveal our guilt; it also reveals God's provision for guilty people. If the Servant's suffering only demonstrates how wicked sinners are, then the emphasis in Isaiah on peace, healing, justification, and bearing iniquities becomes difficult to explain. The chapter presents both truths together: our sin is condemned, and through the suffering of the righteous Servant, God provides salvation for those who repent and believe. That is why Isaiah's focus is not only on what men did to Christ, but also on what God accomplished through Christ.

 

[OMC]

I.e. men sinning against the servant, is tied to Him suffering by their sins, transgressions, and inquities against Him.

It's only a given, that the sins of men sinning against someone, is tied to their sinning against someone, and that someone's sufferings is tied to their sins.

And so, God in Scripture leaves nothing to misinterpretation, so that misinterpretation can only be by ignorance of all the Scriptures, or by unbelief and rejection of some Scriptures

I agree that the Servant's suffering is tied to the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of men, but the question is how Isaiah says they are tied. Your interpretation assumes the connection is simply that sinful men sinned against the Servant. Yet Isaiah says more than that. He does not merely say, "our sins caused His suffering"; he says, "he was wounded for our transgressions," "the chastisement of our peace was upon him," "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," and "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many" (Isa. 53:5-6,11). Those statements explain the significance of His suffering, not merely its cause. If Isaiah intended only to say that men committed sins against Christ, there would be little need for the language of peace, healing, justification, bearing iniquities, and bearing the sin of many. The chapter certainly condemns the wickedness of those who afflicted the Servant, but it also presents His suffering as accomplishing something for others. That is the part of the text your interpretation does not fully account for.

 

[OMC]

So, you must be trying to impute Jesus with the personal sins of others, and separate that from being imputed by any personal sin of His own, as though God could do so, and yet not judge His own Son a sinner...

Which is just another myriad of 'mystery' doctrines, used to cover the false tradition and lie, that God imputed His Son with any sin at all.

There's the mystery of the Godhead and gospel of Jesus Christ, that was hidden from the foundation of the world, and is now revealed by the prophesies and fulfillment of Scriptures.

And then there's the mysterious doctrines of men, that are magically produced out of Scriptures, that God never said nor did Himself.

The former lawfully forgives and delievers from sinning, any that repent of our own sinning against Jesus Christ, who was nailed to a tree by us that sinned against Him.

The latter unlawfully justifies the sinning of people, who still believe the lie of the devil, that God the Father imputed our own sins to the person of His dear Son, who knew no sin Himself, and yet mysteriously and devilishly made His own personal soul guilty unto death for our sinning against Him.

2Th 2:7
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:

Rev 2:24
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, that they speak;

There is no Scripturally doctrional, prophetic, nor lawful way for the righteous God and the Father, to impute and condemn God the Son, Jesus Christ the righteous, with any sin at all.

Nor is their any true mystery way of imputing the soul of any person, without imputing them with personal sin, and judging them a sinful person.

I think you are arguing against a position I have not actually stated. I have repeatedly said that Christ never became a sinner, never committed sin, and remained the Father's beloved Son throughout His suffering. The question is not whether Christ was personally guilty. The question is whether Scripture teaches that the sinless Christ, while remaining righteous, bore the sins of others in some sense defined by the text itself.

Ezekiel 18 establishes ordinary human accountability: the sinner bears his own guilt. I affirm that. But Isaiah 53 presents the extraordinary work of the Servant: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," "he shall bear their iniquities," and "he bore the sin of many." If those phrases cannot involve the Servant bearing the sins of others in any meaningful sense, then Isaiah's repeated language becomes difficult to explain.

You keep presenting two choices: either Christ personally became a sinner, or He merely suffered the sinful acts men committed against Him. But Isaiah's language seems broader than either category. The Servant is righteous ("my righteous servant," v.11), yet His suffering is repeatedly connected to the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of others in a way that results in their justification. That is the point I am trying to account for.

So no, I am not saying God judged Christ to be a sinner. I am saying Isaiah 53 describes a righteous Servant whose suffering is uniquely related to the sins of others and whose suffering results in the justification of many. Any interpretation must explain both sides of that equation: His innocence and their justification. Your interpretation explains the innocence well, but I do not think it fully explains why Isaiah repeatedly connects His suffering to the iniquities of others and says that "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isa. 53:11).

 

[OMC]

Knowing that you must be supporting the false tradition of God imputing our sins to His Son on the cross, I have to question your use of imputed 'personal' sin.

Is this another way of trying to separate God imputing His Son with sin, but not calling Him a sinner? He imputed 'our' personal sins to Jesus, but not any 'personal' sin of His own?

If so, then it still denies the truth of Scripture, that God Himself only imputes any sin, to the personal soul that sinned.

Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Since God only imputes the personal sin of the person that sins, then if God imputes any sin to any person, then that person must be the one sinning; Else God is breaking His own word of promise and judgment, that only the soul that sins, it shall be imputed with sin by God, and die by their own sinning.

Pro 8:36
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Furhtermore, the promise that God does not impute sin of any parent to any offspring, nor offspring to parent, means that God cannot rightly impute any sin of another to His own Son, nor the Son to His own Father:

Eze 18:20
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.

We notice how God's words are specifically intended to counter the prophesied lie of any sinner, that would impute their own sins to God's own Son: Bearing the iniquity of another, cannot be God having the sin of the one that sinned, imputed to another than sinned not.

And so, not only by Scriptural record, but also by Scriptural law of sin and death, God Himself never had any sin imputed to His own beloved Son, who sinned not and so had no sin. But only sinful men imputed Jesus with sin and unlawful killed Him in the name of God.

And only the unbelievers in His resurrection as Son of God, still believe with His false accusers, that He was lawfully accused and condemned by God's law.

And not only they, but also any person that believes that lie, that has since been made into a false tradition of men, for sinners to be justified by killing Him on the cross, and likewise blaming it on God Himself.

1Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

I think you're assuming the very point under dispute. Ezekiel 18 certainly teaches that God does not hold a son accountable for his father's personal sins in the ordinary sense of individual judgment, and I fully agree that Christ never committed sin and was never personally guilty of sin. But Isaiah 53 is not discussing ordinary human accountability; it is describing the unique work of the Servant. The reason I distinguish between Christ's personal sinlessness and His bearing of the sins of others is because Scripture itself does so. Isaiah calls Him "my righteous servant" while simultaneously saying "he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11). If bearing the iniquities of others necessarily means becoming personally guilty of those sins, then Isaiah would be contradicting himself within the same verse.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:3 is speaking about blasphemously denouncing Jesus. No Christian should call Jesus a sinner, an evildoer, or worthy of condemnation for His own actions. But the New Testament also says Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3) and that He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). So the question is not whether Christ was personally guilty, but how those statements fit together with His perfect righteousness.

My concern is that your interpretation makes every reference to bearing sin mean nothing more than enduring the sinful acts committed against Him. Yet Isaiah repeatedly connects that bearing with the justification of many (Isa. 53:11), and Peter connects it with our dying to sin and living unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). The text presents Christ as both entirely righteous and uniquely related to the sins of others. Any interpretation must account for both truths without denying either one.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Even Jesu did not want to believe He had to go to the cross. He asked if it were possible that He avoid that ordeal.

Then He submitted, saying ,"Not what I want, but what You want."

No, He believed His mission was to go to the Cross but He would rather have found some other way if it were possible that there could be some other way which there was not.

 

[PaulThomson]

No, He believed His mission was to go to the Cross but He would rather have found some other way if it were possible that there could be some other way which there was not.

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

 

[rewriter]

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

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.

 

[PaulThomson]

I think you're assuming the very point under dispute. Ezekiel 18 certainly teaches that God does not hold a son accountable for his father's personal sins in the ordinary sense of individual judgment, and I fully agree that Christ never committed sin and was never personally guilty of sin. But Isaiah 53 is not discussing ordinary human accountability; it is describing the unique work of the Servant. The reason I distinguish between Christ's personal sinlessness and His bearing of the sins of others is because Scripture itself does so.

Aren't you assuming the point under dispute? i.e. that Christ was imputed with the sins of all sinners, or maybe the sins of the elect only, But you are adding the logical fallacy of "special pleading" to your argument for your assumption.

Isaiah calls Him "my righteous servant" while simultaneously saying "he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11). If bearing the iniquities of others necessarily means becoming personally guilty of those sins, then Isaiah would be contradicting himself within the same verse.

But it does not necessarily mean "becoming personally guilty of those sins," There are other meanings the words "he shall bear their iniquities" can have.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:3 is speaking about blasphemously denouncing Jesus. No Christian should call Jesus a sinner, an evildoer, or worthy of condemnation for His own actions. But the New Testament also says Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3) and that He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). So the question is not whether Christ was personally guilty, but how those statements fit together with His perfect righteousness.

And ATC and I are describing how those statements can fit together with Jesus'perfect righteousness. But you can't seem to countenance an alternative perspective to your own.

My concern is that your interpretation makes every reference to bearing sin mean nothing more than enduring the sinful acts committed against Him.

No. It means that, unlike Job, He did not respond with even the slightest taint of unrighteousness.

1Pe 2:23
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously:

Yet Isaiah repeatedly connects that bearing with the justification of many (Isa. 53:11),

Jesus justified many by praying for their forgiveness from the cross in the midst of His unjust torture. Do you think God was not gping to forgive those for whom Jesus prayed for mercy?

and Peter connects it with our dying to sin and living unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). The text presents Christ as both entirely righteous and uniquely related to the sins of others. Any interpretation must account for both truths without denying either one.

1Pe 2:24
Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live for righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

By enduring our (humanity's) sins prosecuted against Him by a representative sampling of us (of humanity), but praying for our forgiveness for those sins, Jesus exposes our undeserving venality and His own superabounding desire to reconcile with the abominable, and this revelation is designed to inspire in us a desire to honour Him and follow Him, which means we aim to live for righteousness. Through His crucifixion and His prayer of forgiveness, we are therefore healed because of and by means of His stripes.

 

[OMC]

Aren't you assuming the point under dispute? i.e. that Christ was imputed with the sins of all sinners, or maybe the sins of the elect only, But you are adding the logical fallacy of "special pleading" to your argument for your assumption.

I don't think that's a fair criticism of my argument, because I have been careful not to assume that Christ was imputed with the sins of all sinners, or only the elect, as a premise.

But it does not necessarily mean "becoming personally guilty of those sins," There are other meanings the words "he shall bear their iniquities" can have.

Exactly. My point was never that "he shall bear their iniquities" must mean Christ became personally guilty of their sins. In fact, I was arguing the opposite. The problem is that you seem to move from "it doesn't necessarily mean personal guilt" to "therefore it can only mean enduring sinful acts committed against Him." That conclusion does not automatically follow.

And ATC and I are describing how those statements can fit together with Jesus'perfect righteousness. But you can't seem to countenance an alternative perspective to your own.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my position. I have repeatedly acknowledged that you and ATC are offering an alternative explanation, and I've been engaging that explanation directly. My point has never been that your view is impossible, but that I remain unconvinced it fully accounts for the language of Isaiah 53.

No. It means that, unlike Job, He did not respond with even the slightest taint of unrighteousness.
1Pe 2:23
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously:

My question, however, remains whether Peter intends that to be the whole meaning of bearing sins. Just one verse later Peter says:
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24).
Peter is clearly holding up Christ's sinless response as an example for believers to follow, but he also seems to connect Christ's suffering with something accomplished for others: "that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness."

So I agree that 1 Peter 2:23 is important and that any interpretation must preserve Christ's perfect righteousness.
Where we still differ is whether His bearing of sins is exhausted by His righteous endurance under human wickedness, or whether Peter and Isaiah are describing something more that explains why His suffering results in the justification, healing, and restoration of others. That is the part of your view I'm still trying to understand from the text itself.

Jesus justified many by praying for their forgiveness from the cross in the midst of His unjust torture. Do you think God was not gping to forgive those for whom Jesus prayed for mercy?

That's an interesting connection, and I certainly agree that Christ's prayer, "Father, forgive them" (Luke 23:34), reveals extraordinary mercy in the very midst of His suffering. I also agree that many of those involved in the crucifixion later had the opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness.
My question, however, is whether Isaiah 53:11 is referring specifically to that prayer or to something broader.
The verse says
"by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
The justification of many is connected to His bearing their iniquities, not merely to His praying for their forgiveness.
If Isaiah meant only that Christ responded righteously to persecution and prayed for His enemies, then I still think we need to explain why the prophet repeatedly ties that suffering to the justification, peace, healing, and forgiveness of others throughout the chapter.
So I have no difficulty affirming that Christ's prayer for His persecutors is part of the story.
The question is whether that alone exhausts Isaiah's meaning when he says, "he shall bear their iniquities."
I remain unconvinced that it does, because Isaiah seems to present the Servant's suffering itself as having a unique role in the justification of many.

1Pe 2:24
Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live for righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

By enduring our (humanity's) sins prosecuted against Him by a representative sampling of us (of humanity), but praying for our forgiveness for those sins, Jesus exposes our undeserving venality and His own superabounding desire to reconcile with the abominable, and this revelation is designed to inspire in us a desire to honour Him and follow Him, which means we aim to live for righteousness. Through His crucifixion and His prayer of forgiveness, we are therefore healed because of and by means of His stripes.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I think it does a better job than many of preserving both Christ's righteousness and the moral power of the cross.
I agree that 1 Peter 2:23-24 places strong emphasis on Christ's response to suffering and presents Him as an example for believers to follow.
Peter certainly connects Christ's endurance under unjust treatment with our call to "live unto righteousness."
Where I still hesitate is that Peter says more than that Christ's example inspires us. He says:
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree..."
and then grounds our healing in His stripes.
Your explanation focuses on the revelatory power of the cross: Christ exposes our wickedness and His mercy, leading us to repentance and reconciliation.
I can see that theme in the text.
My question is whether Peter intends only a moral influence explanation or whether he is also saying that Christ's suffering did something objectively related to our sins.
In other words, I think you've explained very well how the cross reveals God's character and moves sinners toward repentance.
What I'm still wrestling with is why Peter and Isaiah repeatedly connect Christ's suffering not only with our transformation, but also with our healing, justification, and the bearing of sins.
It seems to me that the text is saying both that Christ's perfect response reveals righteousness and that His suffering accomplishes something for those whose sins are in view.
The challenge is explaining both dimensions without compromising His perfect righteousness.