What is the correct translation of ἁμαρτίαν in 2 Corinthians 5:21? What did God make Jesus?

Question

The Greek text of 2 Cor. 5:21 has been translated in various ways:

τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ

If the translation of ἁμαρτίαν is "sin," then that implies a literal exchange, and the Father's wrath would be on Jesus, under a penal substitution view (I believe it is called). This translation may be found in several versions, including ASV, BBE, ERV, ESV, GW, LITV, etc.

Some other translations say that Jesus was made a "sin offering." As far as I know, this translation may be found in the NLT (the only such translation I encountered).

A few other translations say "God treated him as a sinner" (CEV), as well as "share our sin" (GNB), and "take our sin" (GW).

I have heard that the Greek word can be translated as "sin offering" (like the NLT). Is this true?

Are the translations primarily based on a theological understanding of the atonement? Was it a literal substitution, or not?

Answer 1

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν....¹

"For he caused him who knew nothing of sin to be sin for us...."

The preceding vv. 18-20 make it clear that 'he' is θεός (God), and 'him who knew nothing of sin' in this context is Χριστός (Christ). The presence of the article (τὸν) with the participle γνόντα indicates that it functions as a substantive and thus rules out the notions of causation ("since he did not know sin") and concession ("though he did not know sin"). It is participial only in form.

ἐποίησεν occurs with a double accusative in this passage, which indicates a focus on causality.² This is why I've elected to translate ἐποίησεν as 'caused' rather than merely 'made'.³

When did this identification of Christ with sin take place?

In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Harris argues that the translation of the second ἁμαρτία in v. 21 deals with the translator's answer to the question, "when did this identification of Christ with sin take place?" He offers two possible options:

1. The incarnation
2. The crucifixion

Translations that appear to support the former include:

"... God made him share our sin..." (Good News Translation)

"... God made him one with the sinfulness of man..." (New English Bible)

Those identifying this 'event' as the incarnation often use Romans 8:3 as support, which the New English Bible renders as:

By sending his own Son in a form like that of our own sinful nature, and as a sacrifice for sin, he [God] has passed judgement against sin within that very nature.

Harris believes the context clearly points to the latter event (crucifixion), and so he offers four possible translations for the second ἁμαρτία in v. 21:

1. Sin offering
2. Sinner
3. Sin bearer
4. Sin

Harris opts for 'sin offering':

It is true that v. 21 makes no explicit reference to the death or the cross of Christ, but this is no objection to the cultic or sacrificial view that localizes the ποίησις in the crucifixion, since the death of Jesus is mentioned three times in vv. 14–15 and διὰ Χριστοῦ (v. 18) is clearly equivalent to διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτου [= τοῦ θεοῦ] (Rom. 5:10). According to a long and distinguished tradition, the second ἁμαρτία in v. 21 refers to a “sin offering.”⁴

BDAG takes ἁμαρτία 'as abstract for concrete (abstractum pro concreto — the Dutch version has a specific example)':

As abstr. for concr. τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁ. ὑπέρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (God) made him, who never sinned, to be sin (i.e. the guilty one) for our sakes 2 Cor 5:21.⁵

There is considerable semantic overlap in these translation choices, so rather than discuss each separately, a discussion of the sense of this word is in order (regardless of which specific English word/phrase is used to translate it).

In what sense did Christ become sin?

Thrall further discusses in what sense Christ became sin in this passage in her commentary on 2 Corinthians, presenting two options from the historical interpretation of this passage:

1. As a sin offering
2. Christ in some way suffers the fate of sinners

While acknowledging support for 'sin offering', Thrall argues that the context best supports the latter sense:

The presupposition of this line of argument is that death is the ultimate consequence of sin, and so may be seen as its punishment (see Rom 5:12; 6:23). It is true, of course, that Christ did not suffer the eternal death which is sin’s ultimate penalty. But it is doubtful whether the argument should be pressed in this way as constituting an objection to this form of interpretation. In Paul’s view Christ’s death was certainly real (1 Cor 15:3–4) He could well have supposed it to include some experience, however brief, of that separation from the presence of God which he could have seen as the eternal lot of the unregenerate. This brings us to the important consideration that in essence Paul may be thinking of relationships. To say that Christ was made ‘sin’ means that ‘he came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the result of sin, estranged from God and the object of his wrath’. The context, concerned with the theme of reconciliation, would favour this interpretation. It would not be a matter of a death penalty impersonally imposed in accordance with a heavenly system of abstract justice. Rather, Christ’s death would be the consummate experience of that personal alienation from God that has characterised human life from the beginning. Whilst Paul does refer to this death in sacrificial language, and whilst also the passage in Isa 53:9–11 may be in his mind here, the ἁμαρτία is to be understood in terms more personal than that of a ‘sin-offering’, which suggests the objective neutralising and removal of sins rather than a radical change which needs to be brought about in the personal relationship of the sinner with God.⁶

In what sense is ἁμαρτία generally used most frequently in the NT?

This sense chart was generated using Logos v6 showing the sense of ἁμαρτία throughout the New Testament texts:

The three other passages where the sense of 'sin offering' appears to be intended all occur in the epistle to the Hebrews (10:6, 8, 26, note that Paul's authorship of this epistle is debated). In other words, there isn't much precedent for such a reading in the New Testament in general, and none at all for Paul (assuming he was not the author of Hebrews). I believe it is more likely that the sense explained above by Thrall was intended.

Decisions about the text concerning when and in what sense Christ became sin will affect how this passage is interpreted. The reader must infer from context which interpretation is best. Hopefully this answer makes the reader more aware of some of these interpretive challenges and how some scholars have responded to them.

I prefer translating ἁμαρτία simply and consistently as 'sin' and understanding the second use as metonymy (which preserves the ambiguity, allowing the reader to infer a specific sense and accompanying soteriological theory from the context for him or herself). ⁷

---

_{¹ Eberhard Nestle et al., Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27. Aufl., rev. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993), 2 Co 5:21a.}

_{² William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 839-40 (cf. definition 2, section h, paragraph β).}

_{³ Although 'made' carries a sense of causality anyways, so this translation choice isn't that big of a deal.}

_{⁴ Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Milton Keynes, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Paternoster Press, 2005), 451-2.}

_{⁵ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, 51.}

_{⁶ Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 441–442.}

_{⁷ In the interest of keeping this brief (both in length and the amount of time I spend answering), I have omitted discussion of the remainder of this passage. While this is critical to understanding the meaning in context (particularly the sense in which followers of Christ become the righteousness of God and how/if this is analogous to the sense in which Christ became sin), the current response answers the question(s) asked by the OP.}

Answer 2

The Greek word ἁμαρτίαν is a noun declined in the accusative case, singular number from the lemma ἁμαρτία, a feminine gender noun. It occurs 174 times in the Textus Receptus.

In Heb. 10:6, it is actually translated as “sacrifices for sin.” Contextually, that is the appropriate translation as Heb. 10:6 is a quotation of Psa. 40:6. However, unlike 2 Cor. 5:21, the Greek text of Heb. 10:6 has «περὶ ἁμαρτίας», which is typically the Greek phrase we find in the LXX used to translate the Hebrew word חֲטָאָה or חַטָּאָת when it is used in the context of “sin offering.”

To complicate matters, it’s not always the case that «περὶ ἁμαρτίας» is used to translate those Hebrew words when used in the context of sin offering. For example, in Lev. 6:25, where the context involves “the law of the sin offering,” the Hebrew תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת is translated into the LXX as «ὁ νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας» rather than «ὁ νόμος περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας».¹

Therefore, grammatically, the lack of the preposition «περί» cannot be used as conclusive evidence that the apostle Paul intended to say that God made Jesus Christ “sin for us,” as opposed to a “sin offering.”

That being said, even if Christ was made a sin offering, a sin offering (like a lamb) had the sin of the sinner imputed to it by the priest laying his hands upon the offering’s head. The sin offering itself (the lamb) never knew or committed its own personal sin.

---

Footnotes

¹ also cp. Lev. 4:21

Answer 3

The verb is poeio ('made') which is a very broad concept covering both 'make' and 'do' in English. 'Effected' is, I would say, a better translation.

In God's eyes, sin was accounted to Jesus Christ. Sin itself. Sin which came into the world.

That God sees sin in him, at Golgotha, is all that is required for it to be so. And sin is seen being destroyed when Jesus yields up the spirit and expires.

The sin of the world is taken away in his death.

Those who, knowing their liability in Adam, that sin is within them by nature, look upon Jesus Christ, in his sufferings and death and bloodshed, in faith, shall live.

Even as they who, bitten by serpents, looked upon the brasen serpent in the wilderness, lived, and did not die of the plague.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. [John 3:14,15 KJV]

Answer 4

We should clearly distinguish between an atonement metaphor such as the sanctuary system and the theological reality, the removal of our sin. The Bible talks about the reality of Jesus taking our sins many times - here is a sample of what is known as the great "Divine Exchange" -

• 2 Cor 5:21, God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
• Gal 1:4, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.
• Gal 3:13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.
• John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
• 2 Cor 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor…
• Isa 53:4-6, Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

That is, Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we can be treated as He deserved. The Pulpit commentary puts it this way:

Many have understood the word "sin" in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage in the New Testament. We cannot, as Dean Plumptre says, get beyond the simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable mystery, "Christ identified with man's sin; man identified with Christ's righteousness." And thus, in Christ, God becomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, "the Lord our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6). That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; rather, that we might become.

This is often stated another way - Jesus took the responsibility for our sin because we could not; we are helpless sinners! Paul discusses this again in Phil 2:5-11.

This idea was illustrated on during Jesus crucifixion - when the "iniquity of us all" was laid upon Jesus, darkness came over the land (Luke 23:44, 45) and Jesus called out, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" It is almost as if God could not look upon the accumulated sin of the world.

Such is the great love that God and Jesus had for us that they would do this for sinners Note Paul's expression in Rom 5:6-11 -

For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Bengel succinctly states it this way:

2 Corinthians 5:21. Τὸν) Him, who knew no sin, who stood in no need of reconciliation;—a eulogium peculiar to Jesus. Mary was not one, ἡ μὴ γνοῦσα, who knew no sin.—ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε, made Him to be sin) He was made sin in the same way that we are made righteousness. Who would have dared to speak thus, if Paul had not led the way? comp. Galatians 3:13. Therefore Christ was also abandoned on the cross.—ἡμεῖς) we, who knew no righteousness, who must have been destroyed, if the way of reconciliation had not been discovered.—ἐν αὐτῳ, in Him) in Christ. The antithesis is, for us.

Answer 5

Your first question seems to be "should it be translated sin or a sin offering"? I'm inclined to think "sin offering".

Your question seems to be "was it a literal substitution or not?" The answer to that question is "not". "Substitution" (as in "strict substitution") is one of the several incorrect "theories of the atonement".

The verse in question begins with γὰρ which means essentially "because" and thus explains why the apostles pray, on God's behalf, that the Corinthians would "reconcile themselves to God" (subjunctive deponent).

To understand how God making Jesus to be a sin offering allows the Corinthians to reconcile themselves to God and become the righteousness of God one has to understand the mechanics of Yom Kippur.

On Yom Kippur the high priest would bring two goats; one for a sin offering and one as a scapegoat. The one for the sin offering was intended as an expression of remorse for all of the transgressions of the people:

Lev 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: Lev 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

This allowed the priest to proceed to lay the sins of the people on the living goat to be carried off into the wilderness. This is the image of the forgiveness of sins which is the righteousness of God:

Lev 16:20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

So in the context of "reconciling yourselves to God because..." and the Yom Kippur, the death of Jesus becomes the sin offering that allows the sinner to approach to God in order to be forgiven for their sins by God. To the Hebrews uses the same figure:

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God; Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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. Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Answer 6

I have been taught to explain difficult passages (or passages that don't offer enough information for clarity) by looking at other passages that relate to the same subject but shed more light so as to make the difficult passage easier to understand.

Romans 3 is a chapter that explains 2 Cor. 5:21 in my opinion.

Having concluded all (Jew and Gentile) guilty of sin Paul begins talking about justification in verse 21. He states there is a way we can have right standing with God without the Law of Moses, and that way is by the righteousness of Jesus.

Paul calls it the free gift of grace in Christ Jesus, note that the grace is "IN CHRIST". In verse 25 Paul explains why Jesus had to be offered as a sacrifice for sin. Because God is just, he could not excuse away the sins that were overlooked when the high priest entered the holy place on Yom Kippur to atone for the sins of the people, those sins had to be legally dealt with because the law states that the penalty for sin is death.

Jesus therefore atoned for all the sins God overlooked under the first covenant to uphold the righteousness of God, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin.

When Jesus ascended to heaven he carried his blood into the heavenly tabernacle to obtain redemption for all those who would come to him by faith (Heb. 9:11-12). There is no substitution of sin to Jesus, God never left him alone, and the propitiation (mercy seat) is in heaven looking for all who will come to him with a true heart and faith (Heb. 10:22).

Answer 7

Άμαρτία Sin (offering)

The Hebrew words for guilt asham, sin Khata or chatta'ah are often translated sin-offering in English translations. You will see hamartia ἁμαρτίας (sin) and poieo ποιήσεις (do/make); the same phrase in Paul's and in the Greek LXX for offer/sacrifice for sin-offering:

• Exodus 29:14
  HEB: מִח֖וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
  NAS: the camp; it is a sin offering.
  KJV: the camp: it [is] a sin offering.
  INT: without the camp sin he; SLT: this the sin.

• Exodus 29:36
  HEB: וּפַ֨ר חַטָּ֜את תַּעֲשֶׂ֤ה לַיּוֹם֙
  NAS: a bull as a sin offering for atonement,
  KJV: a bullock [for] a sin offering for atonement
  INT: A bull A sin shall offer day; SLT: And the bullock of sin,
  LXX: τὸ μοσχάριον τῆς ἁμαρτίας ποιήσεις

• Leviticus 4:20
  HEB: עָשָׂה֙ לְפַ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֔את כֵּ֖ן יַעֲשֶׂה־
  NAS: with the bull of the sin offering; thus
  SLT: he did to the bullock as he did to the bullock of sin
  LXX: ποιήσει τὸν μόσχον ὃν τρόπον ἐποίησεν τὸν μόσχον τὸν τῆς ἁμαρτίας οὕτως ποιηθήσεται

• Leviticus 4:21
  HEB: הַפָּ֣ר הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן חַטַּ֥את הַקָּהָ֖ל הֽוּא׃
  NAS: bull; it is the sin offering for the assembly.
  KJV: bullock: it [is] a sin offering for the congregation.
  INT: bull the first is the sin the assembly he
  LXX: τὸν πρότερον ἁμαρτία συναγωγῆς ἐστιν

Whole-offering or burnt-offering:

• Leviticus 5:9-10 ESV: and he shall sprinkle some of the blood of the αμαρτίας sin offering on the side of the altar, while the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar; it is a αμαρτίας sin offering. Then he shall ποιήσει offer the second for a ολοκάρπωμα burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

• Leviticus 14:19 (ESV) ποιήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας The priest shall offer the sin offering, to make atonement for him who is to be cleansed from his uncleanness. And afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.

• Lev 15:15 ASV: and the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah for his issue. LXX: καὶ ποιήσει αὐτὰ ὁ ἱερεύς μίαν περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ μίαν εἰς ὁλοκαύτωμα

• Numbers 6:11 and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering LXX: καὶ ποιήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς μίαν περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ μίαν εἰς ὁλοκαύτωμα

Very common asham Guilt, Trespass:

• Leviticus 5:16
  HEB: עָלָ֛יו בְּאֵ֥יל הָאָשָׁ֖ם וְנִסְלַ֥ח לֽוֹ׃
  NAS: for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and it will be forgiven
  KJV: for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven
  INT: with the ram of the guilt will be forgiven
  SLT: with the ram of the trespass, and it was forgiven to him
  LXX: ἐν τῷ κριῷ τῆς πλημμελείας καὶ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ

• Leviticus 6:17
  HEB: הִ֔וא כַּחַטָּ֖את וְכָאָשָֽׁם׃
  NAS: like the sin offering and the guilt offering.
  KJV: as [is] the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.
  INT: he the sin and the guilt
  SLT: as the sin and the trespass.
  LXX: τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ τῆς πλημμελείας
  ABP: ου It shall not πεφθήσεται be baked εζυμωμένη being leavened. μερίδα αυτήν [2 it as a portion δέδωκα 1 I have given] αυτοίς to them από of των the καρπωμάτων yield offerings κυρίου of the LORD. άγια [2 a holy αγίων 3 of holies εστίν 1 It is], ώσπερ as το the one της for the αμαρτίας sin offering, και and ώσπερ as το the one της for the πλημμελείας trespass offering.

• Leviticus 6:25 ESV: “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy.
  LXX: (6:18) λάλησον ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων οὗτος ὁ νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐν τόπῳ οὗ σφάζουσιν τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμα σφάξουσιν τὰ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἔναντι κυρίου ἅγια ἁγίων ἐστίν
  Brenton: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering; - in the place where they slay the whole-burnt-offering, they shall slay the sin-offerings before the Lord: they are most holy.

I searched for ἁμαρτία AND ποιέω on Biblearc and found many references in the LXX, few of them translate as making/offering of sin (offering). This shows that the phrase in Paul's verse ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν made sin was easily understood as made-sin-offering, or offered as sacrifice for sin. The biblical languages don't require detailed phrases, they frequently contain pregnant phrases which can be hard to understand today to us who have been cut-off from the Jewish religion or theology. Interestingly, only a couple of Bible versions rightly translate this phrase, and apparently all the mainstream versions couldn't understand it. The theologians choose to ignore it despite knowing well enough.

• Cambridge Greek Testament: The proposal to make ἁμαρτίαν in ἁμ. ἐποίησεν mean ‘sin-offering’ has found advocates from Augustine to Ewald; but N.T. usage is against it.
• Alford: He made (to be) sin (not, ‘a sin-offering,’ as Augustine, Ambros., Œcum., Erasm., Hammond, Wolf, al., for the word seems never to have the meaning, even in the LXX (see however the remarkable reading of the Codex A at Lev 6:25); and if it had, the former sense of the same word in this same sentence would preclude it here

2 Corinthians 5:21

• MOUNCE: He made him who knew no sin to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
• Orthodox Jewish Bible: The one who in his person had no da’as of chattat (sin) [Ac 3:14; Yn 8:46; MJ 4:15; 7:26; 1K 2:22; 1Y 3:5], this one Hashem made a chattat sin offering
• TLV: He made the One who knew no sin to become a sin offering on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Answer 8

  i don't deny penal substitution otherwise why would Jesus need to suffer unto death for our sins as a substitute (the just for the unjust), nor do I deny propitiation, expiation or reconciliation by Father's hand through wicked men that which affected Father being pleased by the bruising and grief He caused His Son to undergo.

What I don't accept is that for our sins Father's wrath was upon His Son when Jesus became our substitute and scapegoat leveticus 16.

Isaiah reveals that people reckoned Him smitten by God under His wrath for His own sins BUT for our sins transferred upon Him was the Chastisement (Musar #4148)of our peace with Father upon Jesus and through His scourging we are healed.

And why KJV 1 Corinthians 12:3 is stated

Hebrews 5 further clarifies Isaiah 53:5 as the type of suffering He went through and why for our sins.

No where in scripture where suffering was pronounced upon Jesus did it involve wrathful judgement but only corrective discipline of which teaches those whom God accepts as ligitimate human sons and daughters in order to cause obedience.

Jesus did not of Himself need to suffer such correction while human as He was Sinless in His ways but because of His substitution as our living atoning scapegoat is why Father was pleased to bruise and cause grief unto death towards His ligit son whom underwent such corrective suffering to learn obedience for our sake as our High priest. whom can sympathize with us when we upon salvation struggle against sin.

We elect of God although conceived in sin as the non-elect were not created to remain under such wrath but created to be accepted as ligitimate children of Father and an brother or sister to Jesus. Our sins were not to lead to remain in death as the non-elect because God intended to intervene and free us from such Bondage through Jesus whom satisfied God to while Sinless in the likeness and not exactness of sinful flesh as the elects substitute, undergo such suffering unto death voluntarily.

He suffered corrective discipline unto death to learn obedience for our sins that don't lead to spiritual death as an set example of how God deals with ligitimate adopted children whom struggle against sin by progressive sanctification.

As why Jesus said that if we want to be His disciples we must pick up our own pole and( luke14:26) in order to follow after His example.

If the suffering and death of Jesus had anything to do with undergoing Wrath, Jesus would not use His suffering in life unto death as an set example for us to follow in His steps.(john 1:26)

So it is why and what Jesus suffered while Sinless as our substitute and ransom that at such a great price in His Sinless sons volunteered death that appeased Father to nullify His wrath toward those whom He intended to redeem and reconcile with.

God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, if PSA is as most theologians think, being  that Jesus became the embodiment of sin as our scapegoat then you say  such statements from God in Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

And

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

Is false.

Father is only pleased in the suffering he caused towards His ligit Son through discipline and scourging, even if such scourging leads to death.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom YHVH loveth He disciplines, Even as a father the son He is pleased with.

Father is pleased in His Sons suffering and death because of what His chastening and scourging accomplished. Not because he supposedly became the embodiment of sin as our substitute and scapegoat to then suffer a wrathful death.

Faith in Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection by Father as Sinless while undergoing chastening and scourging as a received Son for our sins was the great ransom price that redeeems us and saves the elect from God's wrath.