November 21, 2013

Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross?

by Nathan Busenitz

Did Jesus become the literal embodiment of sin, or take on a sin nature, or become a sinner when He died at Calvary? I was asked a variation of that question just last week, which prompted today’s post.

crown_of_thorns

The heart of the question centers on Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

In what sense did Jesus become “sin on our behalf”? Does that phrase mean that Jesus literally became a sinner on the cross?

There are some today who teach that Jesus became a sinner (or took on a sin nature) at the cross. Benny Hinn is one such advocate. In a TBN broadcast, Hinn exclaimed:

“He [Jesus] who is righteous by choice said, ‘The only way I can stop sin is by me becoming it. I can’t just stop it by letting it touch me; I and it must become one.’ Hear this! He who is the nature of God became the nature of Satan when he became sin!” (Benny Hinn, Trinity Broadcasting Network, December 1, 1990)

Prosperity-preacher Kenneth Copeland echoes those same teachings. In Copeland’s words:

“The righteousness of God was made to be sin. He accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit. And at the moment that He did so, He cried, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ You don’t know what happened at the cross. Why do you think Moses, upon instruction of God, raised the serpent upon that pole instead of a lamb? That used to bug me. I said, ‘Why in the world would you want to put a snake up there; the sign of Satan? Why didn’t you put a lamb on that pole?’ And the Lord said, ‘Because it was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross.’ He said, ‘I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off.’” (Kenneth Copeland, “What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,” 1990, audiotape #02-0017, side 2)

On another occasion, Copeland reiterates that same teaching:

“How did Jesus then on the cross say, ‘My God’? Because God was not His Father any more. He took upon Himself the nature of Satan.” (Kenneth Copeland, “Believer’s Voice of Victory,” Trinity Broadcasting Network, April 21, 1991)

But do assertions like these accurately reflect Paul’s teaching that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf”?

To come back to the original question: “Did Jesus become the literal embodiment of sin, or take on a sin nature, or become a sinner when He died at Calvary?” My answer to that question is a resounding no.

Here are five reasons why:

1. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul declares that Jesus “knew no sin.” Whatever the rest of the verse means, it must be interpreted in light of Paul’s statement that Jesus “knew no sin”—meaning He had no personal experiential knowledge of sin in any way. If Jesus became a sinner or took on a sin nature then Paul would have contradicted himself in that very verse.

2. The rest of Scripture makes it clear that the Lord Jesus remained perfectly sinless, righteous, and obedient throughout His entire Passion. At no point did He ever become less than perfectly holy. Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:21 must be interpreted in light of the whole witness of Scripture. Below is a sampling of biblical passages that make this point explicit:

a) Isaiah 53:10–11 – “But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.”

Comment: The Suffering Servant is called the “Righteous One” even in the context of bearing the sin of others.

b) Luke 23:47 – “Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, ‘Certainly this man was innocent.’”

Comment: The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record the centurion’s comment. As the centurion rightly understood, Jesus remained innocent throughout His crucifixion.

c) Romans 5:19 – “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

Comment: Jesus’ death on the cross was an act of obedience, such that His righteousness is imputed to those who believe in Him.

d) Philippians 2:8 – “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Comment: In His death, Jesus remained perfectly obedient.

e) Hebrews 4:15 – “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

Comment: In this passage, the author of Hebrews is focusing on Jesus’ work of redemption (as our great High Priest). Even in the act of redemption, He was always without sin.

f) Hebrews 9:11–14 – “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Comment: The author of Hebrews emphasizes that, even in His death, Jesus offered Himself to God without blemish.

g) 1 Peter 1:18–19 – “You were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”

Comment: Speaking of Christ’s death, Peter emphasizes that He was the spotless Lamb (cf. John 1:29). There was no sinful blemish in Him at any point.

h) 1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.”

Comment: Peter explicitly states that Christ (the just) died for sinners (the unjust). If Jesus became a sinner, how could He still be called “just” or “righteous”?

i) 1 John 3:5 – “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.”

Comment: It is difficult to see how anyone could force John’s statement in this verse to fit the notion that Jesus became a sinner on the cross. Even in the act of taking away sin, there was still no sin in Him.

Based on the above passages, we can safely determine what 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not mean. It cannot mean that Jesus became unrighteous, or that He became a sinner, or that He took on a sin nature, or that He literally embodied sin.

So, then what does it mean? This brings us to our third point.

3. The best way to understand Paul’s statement (that Jesus became sin on our behalf) is in terms of imputation. Our sin was imputed to Christ, such that He became a substitutionary sacrifice or sin offering for all who would believe in Him.

As John MacArthur explains in The MacArthur Study Bible:

“God the Father using the principle of imputation, treated Christ as if He were a sinner though He was not, and had Him die as a substitute to pay the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him (Cf. Is. 53:4–6; Gal. 3:10–13; 1 Pet. 2:24). On the cross, He did not become a sinner (as some suggest), but remained as holy as ever. He was treated as if He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by all who would ever believe, though He committed none. The wrath of God was exhausted on Him and the just requirement of God’s law met for those for whom He died.”

This view explains Paul’s use of the Greek word hamartia (“sin”) which was often used in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) to mean “sin offering.” For example, in Leviticus 4–6, the Septuagint uses the word hamartia more than 20 times to translate the Hebrew concept of sin offering. Paul’s frequent use of the Septuagint means he would have been familiar with using hamartia in that way.

Furthermore, this view fits with what the rest of the Scriptures teach about Christ’s death and the doctrine of imputation. Here are a few more biblical passages to make the point.

a. Isaiah 53:6 – “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.”

Comment: This verse does not teach that the Suffering Servant would become a sinner; but rather that that sins of others would be imputed to Him.

b. Ephesians 5:2 – “Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”

Comment: Jesus’ death was a “fragrant aroma” to God. The idea here points back to the Old Testament concept of a sin offering (cf. Lev. 4:7–10).

c. Hebrews 9:28 – “Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”

Comment: The author of Hebrews describes the fact that Jesus Christ bore our sins, meaning they were imputed to His account. He did not become a sinner, rather He bore the sins of those who were sinners.

d. Hebrews 10:10 – “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Comment: In referring to Jesus’ death, the author of Hebrews points back to the Old Testament sin offering. (See Hebrews 10:8, just two verses earlier, where the author specifically references “sin offerings.”)

e. 1 Peter 2:22–24 – “He committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

Comment: Peter again expresses the point that Jesus was sinless, even in His Passion. Moreover, Peter articulates the fact that on the cross Jesus bore our sins as our substitutionary sacrifice.

Based both on Paul’s use of the Septuagint, and on other passages that describe the death of Christ, it is best to understand Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:21 as a reference to the imputation of our sin to Christ, such that He bore our sins as a substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.

4. It is should be noted that, if Jesus took on a sin nature or became a sinner on the cross, He would no longer have been an acceptable sacrifice for sin, since He would have been blemished by sin at the very moment of His death.

In the Old Testament, only a spotless lamb could be offered as an acceptable sacrifice. As Moses recorded in Leviticus 22:20 – “Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it will not be accepted for you.” The analogy, fulfilled perfectly in the Lamb of God, necessitates that Jesus remained spotless even in His sacrificial death.

5. Finally, on a theological level, the idea that God the Son even temporarily became a sinner, or the literal embodiment of sin, raises serious questions about the unchangeableness of His holy character and perfect nature. Those who would twist 2 Corinthians 5:21 to claim that Jesus’ perfect nature was momentarily replaced by a sin nature immediately raise unanswerable theological questions about the immutability of Jesus Christ.

Bonus: Just for fun, I should add that understanding 2 Corinthians 5:21 in the sense of a substitutionary sacrifice is the way that Christians throughout church history have interpreted this verse. I’ll conclude our post with just three citations from the church fathers to make the point:

Cyril of Alexandria:We do not say that Christ became a sinner, far from it, but being righteous (or rather righteousness, because He did not know sin at all), the Father made Him a victim for the sins of the world.” (Letter 41.10)

John Chrysostom: “God allowed His Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is God’s righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then they would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed” (Homily on 1 Cor 11:5)

Ambrosiaster: “It was only because all flesh was subject to sin that He was made sin for us. In view of the fact that He was made an offering for sins, it is not wrong for Him to be said to have been made ‘sin,’ because in the law the sacrifice which was offered for sins used to be called a ‘sin.‘ (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, cf. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 7:252)

Nathan Busenitz

Posts Twitter

Nathan serves on the pastoral staff of Grace Church and teaches theology at The Master's Seminary in Los Angeles.
  • Brian Morgan

    Very helpful article! Thank you.

  • That One Guy

    He got crossed because he wanted to set all the believers free and he helped them to have faith in the human race which is still overwhelmed with thoughts that will make the world go insane by non believers who think 1 guy is an asshole and 1 guy is awesome. so stuupid.

    When you see it, you see it.

  • Kevin Moore

    Thanks for this Nathan. It’s very insightful and helpful, especially in view of the “born again Jesus” doctrine of many in the Word of Faith and Charismatic movements, such as Bill Johnson, for example. They argue that He had to be born again because He became sin! I just don’t know how they can allow those words to come out of their mouths.

  • kevin2184

    This article proves the point that prosperity/word of faith doctrine is not just incorrect in one or two areas but is perverse to the core. Bad doctrine, like unchecked cancer, will grow until it kills.

  • http://www.melissacollins.biz/ Melissa Collins

    Very educational! Thank you so much. Love being armed with the truth!

  • Darrell

    Thank you for your fine work on this blog

  • Josh Marquez

    Great Article Thank you!!

  • Bryan Garcia

    If Jesus didn’t become sin on the cross then that means our sins have NOT been forgiven and that we aren’t saved and still face the wrath of God. That was the whole reason for him to go to the cross. He took on our sins on himself, so that our penalties could be paid in full. He he who knew no sin became sin on our behalf so that we could be with God. If that was not the case then that verse would not state it like that. Jesus because sin on our behalf so that wee could be made right with God. Other why else would he have gone to the cross? It plainly states he went to the cross so that we could be made right with God. How can mere mankind be made right with God? God had to come down to earth and die on the cross so that our penalties could be paid in full, and Jesus Christ is God manifested in human flesh.

    • Andrew

      I think you have missed his point. Mankind, or those who submit themselves under Christ, are made right with God through his death for the penalty of our sin. The issue, though, is whether or not Christ became a sinner on the cross by bearing the punishment of our sins. Clearly, if it were so, there would be major theological problems and it wouldn’t be consistent with the rest of the NT. A better way to look at it, as Nathan has suggested, is to look at it as a substitution. Christ took our place. This is possible because at the moment of salvation a believer becomes one with Christ (prominent theme of Ephesians) so that before the throne those in Christ are seen as having the same righteousness as Christ. BUt, there is still the issue of sin that must be dealt with. That is where the cross comes in. Because we are one with Jesus, he can die for us and it would be completely satisfactory to the payment required. Our oneness with Christ is such a reality that it is as if we died when Christ died. I think the concept can be hard to understand according to our culture, but in the ancient near east the idea was that the leader of a nation or group could die for the wrongdoings of the group and the payment would be satisfied.

      I don’t know if that makes it any more clear on what Nathan is arguing for. I don’t think there is any question that he believes that the cross is where our sins were paid in full, but it has to do with the nature of exactly how they were paid – did Christ become a sinner or was he our substitution?

    • Albert

      Maybe saying it this way might help:

      If you and your family are sitting in a restaurant and are eating your dinner, along with many other families, and then a guy walks in and tells the maitre d’ that he is willing to pay for anyone’s dinner as long as they come up to him and say, “I accept you paying for my dinner.”

      Now there might be some that think there’s a catch; it doesn’t sit right with them, so they refuse to let him pay. They don’t like the idea that this man might require something of them later.

      Others see this as a great gift and tell him they accept him paying for their dinner and are grateful.

      The debt was inputted to him and you were free to go from the restaurant without having to pay for your dinner.

      Now, the guy didn’t eat your dinner. He willingly took your place in paying your debt; as long as you accepted him doing so.

      Those that didn’t accept him are still liable for their own debt and will pay for it at closing time.

      Jesus did the same thing. He willingly laid down his own life to pay for our debt so that we don’t have to. And all he wants us to do is accept him as Lord and Savior, so he can share eternity with us. Those that choose not to accept his free git of a paid debt will pay dearly themselves.

      Does that make sense?

  • Pingback: 6-String Salvo, November 22, 2013 | Mike Lee

  • Albert

    Clear case of people reading into the text what they want it to say instead of understanding context.

    You are very right to suggest imputation.

    I think I like the NASB translation better for this verse:
    “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

    The “on our behalf” clearly expresses the imputation.

  • Rachael

    Do most respected Biblical teachers agree with this viewpoint? Though Jesus was sinless, was He looked at by God as though he were sin? Was Jesus truly forsaken by God in a short period of time or was it His feeling? If He were truly forsaken, could it be He was looked at as if He were sin — would that be the ‘becoming sin’?

  • Pingback: Just In Case You Missed It – Nov. 4-23 | Worldly Saints

  • Pingback: Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross? | A disciple's study

  • Pingback: Do Not Be Surprised… This ‘n’ That (22 November 2013) | Truth2Freedom's Blog

  • Norman Andresen

    I like the explaination of ‘he became sin for us’. It is well reasoned. What concened me was the opening quote of Mr Hinn -”He who is righteous by choice…” Jesus as the Son of God did not become rightous by choice he is inherently righteous. It is part of His nature. Any teaching such as this should cause the listener to question what was just heard. It is “teaching” like this that causes much misunderstanding.

  • Pingback: Weekly Roundup: 11-22-2013 - West Virginia for the Gospel

  • http://www.joelhawting.blogspot.com.au/ Joel Hawting

    Great article! Thanks for sharing this – I will be circulating it around to some of my friends who would benefit from reading this.

  • Pingback: Made to be sin for us? | Effectual Grace

  • Pingback: Saturday Shout-Outs: Chicago, Armor Bearers, & Ministry Links | H.B. Charles Jr.

  • Pingback: Helpful Links | Youth Ministry Reformation

  • Pingback: Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross? | Strengthened by Grace

  • Pingback: Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross? | the Cripplegate | Christian Reasons

  • Pingback: Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross? by Nathan Busenitz | THE WORD on The Word of Faith (a GroupBlog)