Punished “for” or
“by” our sins – The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53
Santo Calarco
There can be no doubt that Isaiah 53 is a pivotal chapter as far as the New Testament is concerned. It was used as a springboard for proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 8:30-35) and as a prophecy of restorative suffering fulfilled through the ministry (Matthew 8:14-17) and death of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21-25).
The common Protestant view of this crucial Old Testament passage maintains that the Servant had to suffer and die through the hands of God so that God could make atonement for sin through an act of penal substitution. That is, God was bound by his holiness to satisfy his wrath against sin by transferring sin and its punishment onto an innocent substitute Jesus, as a form of retributive justice.
In this paper we will test this claim against the specific data presented within the chapter itself.
According to the Protestant view:
-1-
Jesus dies to appease God’s wrath because
-2- Jesus’ death in the place of sinners satisfies retribution and punishment
for sin.
Does Isaiah 53 talk about the death of the Servant in either of these two ways?
Conflicting perceptions and injustice. This section of Isaiah starts in 52:13 and continues until the end of chapter 53. As we read this passage as a whole we see that the writer is describing in poetic form, the suffering and death of an innocent Servant. But what is often missed is the fact that this death comes through an act of human injustice! Yes human injustice! Note the New English Translation:
“He was despised and rejected by people … even though we thought he was being punished and attacked by God. But he was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed.” Isaiah 53:3-5 NET.
First, we need to see that two conflicting sets of perceptions are being recorded. “We thought he was being punished and attacked by God” – human perspective. But then the truth surfaces: “But he was wounded because of our rebellious deeds. This means that we need to be careful and tease out false human perceptions from the truth! The text says that “we thought” God was punishing and attacking the Servant but we got it wrong! It was not God that wounded the innocent Servant but he was crushed “because of our rebellious deeds”. In other words it was not God that killed and punished the Servant but us!
When and how did this happen?
Justice or injustice?
“He was led away after an unjust
trial — but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;
because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.” v.8
NET
“By a perversion of justice he was taken away.” NRSV
So let’s get things clear right from the get go!
God did not order a perversion of justice through the execution of the innocent Servant! That’s absurd. The poem clearly says that it was at an unjust human trial that the Servant was sent away to be killed – and that by humans not God!
The passage says repeatedly that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Are we going to accuse God of sin by charging him with injustice? The passage says that the mob punished him unjustly! There is nothing here about God punishing the Servant and killing him to satisfy wrath and so demonstrate his justice. Injustice is the focus! This goes right in the face of the Protestant view. The Penal Substitution view insists that the death of Jesus under the hand of God was a manifestation of divine justice; but the text speaks not of justice but injustice! The Protestant view is untenable.
And yet God’s hand was working through this. There is an interface between conflicting human and divine wills. What we read here is divine paradox.
So what about “he was wounded for our transgressions”. Surely this is proof positive
that the Servant died as a
substitute for us and for our sins? Surely this means that he paid a penalty to
God for us?
Well this all depends on which translation you want to read and the assumptions
you bring to the text when you read it. Take the NET [New English Translation]
of the same statement:
“He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins”.
Isaiah 53:5
So which is it? Does the Hebrew say he was wounded “for” our sins by God or
“because of” our sins by our sinful actions? This is a deal breaker!
Let’s consider the immediate context:
Isaiah 53:4-5 NET
4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain;
even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God,
and afflicted for something he had done.
5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
He
endured punishment that made us well;
because of his wounds we have been healed.
Note that the punishment that the Servant endures is at the hands of violent
humans – not God! So this means that the punishment of verse 5 is defined by
the punishment of verse 4. Context is
determinative. Many read verse 5 and assume
that God punished the Servant for our sins so that we could be made well. But
this will not do. The previous verse has
made it clear that the punishment the Servant endured was at the hands of
rebellious men not God. As we become
aware of this we can then understand the true intent of the passage. Isaiah is telling us that God healed us in
the face of our violence! God brings
good out of bad.
God did
not punish the Servant in order to heal us!
Humans punished the Servant and God healed us in spite of and through
it! I will return to this point later.
Because, not for our sins. Second, did you see how the NET does not say
that he was punished “for” our sins but “because of our sins”? So what’s the
difference? The Hebrew preposition translated “for” is “min”. It does not mean
“for” but “from” or “out of” or “because of”. This is why the NET has more
accurately translated the preposition as “because of” our sins to mean that it
was “out of, from, as a means of, because of” our sinful actions that the
servant was killed! This is more in harmony with the general thrust of the
whole chapter as we have already seen.
This same point is substantiated in the Greek Version [called the Septuagint]
of the Hebrew text. Remember that when New Testament writers quoted the Old
Testament it actually quoted the Greek version of it! The Greek of this text has the preposition
“dia” followed by the accusative case of the noun to follow - which again means
exactly the same as what the Hebrew says! If you look up any basic Greek
Grammar you will read that “dia” followed by nouns in the accusative case,
means “because of” not for! See “The elements of New Testament Greek”, by J.W.
Wenham, p.66.
The upshot is this: both the Greek and Hebrew use of their prepositions
indicate not that the Servant dies as a substitute for our sins but that he
dies because of our direct sinful murderous actions! In other words: we through
injustice killed the Servant through sinful, violent actions. This agrees
perfectly with the overall message of the chapter as we have seen.
The exact same dynamic is seen in verse 8 where we are told that the Servant is
put to death “out of” [Hebrew “min” again”!] an unjust trial, “from” [min] the
peoples’ transgression. We have here the exact same Hebrew and Greek construction
as we do in verse 5!
What I find interesting is the inconsistency I see in many English
translations. For example the NASB translates the exact same preposition as “for”
in verse 5 but “by” in verse 8! To say that the Servant was killed “for” our
sins or “by” our sins means two totally different things! The first may denote
substitution but the latter cannot.
Note
verse 8 in the NASB:
Isaiah 53:8 NASB
8 By
oppression and judgment He was taken away
The word "by" is the exact same Hebrew word which is translated
"for" earlier in the passage.
So let's use "by" instead of "for" and see what we come up
with:
"He was wounded BY our transgressions"! Now this means something
totally different doesn’t it?! This does not read like substitution at
all. And this is exactly what the
original language is saying. It was our sinful actions, our transgressions,
which killed Jesus - not God! This whole
chapter describes a miscarriage of justice: this innocent Servant is wounded BY
our sinful behaviours!
Look at the way the New English Translation puts it:
"He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds ... because
of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded. 9 They
intended to bury him with criminals" . Verses 5,8-9
Can you see it? This whole passage speaks with one voice! It describes what
humans intended and what they did. It
was the actions of humans that killed Jesus - not God.
What about “The Lord’s will was to crush
him with pain”?!! Isaiah 53:10
Surely this can only mean that God beat Jesus up?! Right? Wrong!
The truth is that the original Hebrew language is untranslatable! Look at what
translators of the New Revised Standard Version say on their footnotes to this
verse:
a. Isaiah 53:10 meaning of Hebrew uncertain
b. Isaiah 53:10 Meaning of Hebrew uncertain
OK then; we had better steer clear of building a belief about God killing Jesus
for our sins based on a verse that Hebrew scholars tell us is not able to be translated!
So what
do we do with this verse? We need to allow the context of the passage to furnish
us with semantic parameters; we need to allow context to dictate what this
“uncertain” Hebrew can or can’t mean!
We have seen so far that the whole passage says again and again that it was men
who killed the Servant and crushed him. So
whatever verse 10 means, we know for sure that it can’t mean that God killed
and crushed him! That’s certain.
The Greek version of this verse, written 200 years before Jesus, by Jewish
Hebrew scholars who were fluent in their native tongue and Greek have rendered
the Hebrew text as follows: when the Greek text is translated into English it
says:
“and the Lord desires to purify him [the Servant] of the
plague”!
What?! Yes! They never saw the Hebrew [which was their native tongue] saying
that God willed to crush the servant with pain but understood it to say that
God willed to purify him from the plague he endured! Totally opposite!
When the
New Testament quotes the Old Testament it does so by referring to the Greek
Version of the Hebrew. This means that we need to take this Greek version
seriously especially since we don’t know what the Hebrew says! So let’s not build such an important teaching
on a verse that is non translatable from the Hebrew.
Context has made it clear that it was men and not God who crushed the Servant!
Let’s bring all this together.
I see in this chapter the tragic story of an innocent Servant who is killed by his own people through their sinful acts. The people thought that his death was at the initiative of God but had it wrong! They later see that they killed the Servant - not God! But as they see the truth, the murderous mob sees the hand of God in all of this. They see that God worked in spite of their actions. Both God and the Servant absorb the sin of the murderous mob; they endure the violence of the crowd in order to subvert it!
The Servant overcomes sin and violence by enduring it and not retaliating. The result?
“11 Having suffered, he will
reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
“my servant will acquit many,
for he carried their sins [in context their murderous actions].
12 So I will assign him a portion with the
multitudes,
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful,
because he willingly submitted to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many
and intervened on behalf of the rebels.”
Because the Servant willingly submitted to the violent death of the violent crowd, because he is numbered WITH the rebels, identified with them, he lifted up their sin, intervened for the murderous rebels; and the murderous rebels are acquitted from their sin as a result of what the Servant went through!
But more than that. We are also told that God heals the crowds in spite of their murderous act: “because of his stripes [that we imposed on him in context] we are healed”. V. 5.
The Servant endures violence and murder to heal the murderers! This whole process is about restoration! God intended to restore the mobs right in the face of their murder! God subverts sinful violence by absorbing it and bringing good from the evil. Now this sounds like God!
So God’s hand was in this the whole way. They killed Jesus, Jesus endures their violence and in it and through it God forgave them in spite of it [acquits] and in so doing broke the cycle of sin and violence and then heals them!
And this is exactly how the New Testament applies this passage to the Cross.
Read 1 Peter 2:21-24 where Peter quotes this passage. He we see that Peter understands Isaiah in terms of restoration amidst violence. Peter nowhere understands Isaiah 53 the way it is preached nowadays in the western church. When he quotes Isaiah 53 he says nothing about God putting sins onto Jesus in order to punish him on our behalf in order to satisfy his wrath!
He says that Jesus endured violence, didn’t retaliate, but instead healed the crowds in spite of it by absorbing their violence!
When we read Isaiah 53 through the lenses it provides we end up with a totally different reading to what we have been accustomed. We see nothing about God’s wrath being appeased; nothing about God killing the Servant; nothing about substitution; but everything about identification, forgiveness, subversion of violence and restoration to peace. Now this sounds like the Father of Jesus to me! What about you?
With regard to a couple of comments from years prior to this response, Isaac is the type of Christ in the story of Abraham and his son climbing the mountain in faith, for it is written in Hebrews 11:19: "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death." In this way, the ram is not the crucial element in the story. Also, with respect to Christ having known no sin yet becoming sin for us, the word "sin" in this passage (2 Cor. 5:21) means "sin-offering". The following article addresses this thoroughly. Blessings to you! I hope this message reaches those who have commented before me after all the time that's passed since their initial comments were posted. See article: https://shamelesspopery.com/jesus-became-sin/?fbclid=IwAR033zbPr5pE8du5_fMdWx_in0k9R-V6sDe7vM5q40id1qEmAG3QZk-zUAw
Posted by: Michael Tejada | January 27, 2019 at 01:21 AM
The brevity of the article was focused on the first section, but the same applies to verse six. God in Christ is handed (παρέδωκεν) over to the hands of violent sinners. The early church, leaning on the wisdom of the rabbinical translators of LXX, saw Isaiah 53 in general as saying, “He died at our sinful hands, and by bearing it, his death atoned for our sins”. Cf. https://standard-deviations.com/2014/08/28/penal-substitution-the-suffering-servant-and-the-septuagint/
Posted by: Brad Jersak | August 14, 2018 at 04:05 PM
I would like to agree with you. But why didn’t you address verse 6! Given that is the key verse for penal substitution you have done nothing to undermine it but wholly avoid it. Why?
Posted by: Matt | August 14, 2018 at 03:36 AM
I fully agree. Jesus was crucified BECAUSE OF, BY, THROUGH OUR SINS.
Would like to add or expand regarding why and how we are regenerated.
Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross. What we did to the least, we did to Him. What we did to His Word, we did to Him for the Word became flesh. There He showed us what sins truly do and are AND what it does to GOD for seeing Him is seeing God and because He IS in the bosom of the Father.
Why?
According to Peter: THAT WE MAY DIE TO SIN AND LIVE ONTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, BE HEALED BY THE VERY WOUNDS WE MADE AND STOP GOING ASTRAY. I.e. that sin may stop and we my life righteously and holy.
HOW?
Zech 12:10-13:9 says it clearly and it happened in Acts 2-4: The Holy Spirit of grace and supplication / pleading, in grace pleads with us to look up to Him whom we have pierced with our sins (when He bore it on the cross) and to mourn bitterly for Him - as bitterly as a parent who lost an only child. That is deeply and life long for what we did to Him, confessing that He bore our sins and it pierced and murdered Him - and apologizing, repenting and making restitution.
THEN, IN THAT DAY, when we look up to Him whom we have pierced and mourn, He opens the fountain of His blood which forgives, cleanses, frees, washes, delivers from ALL those sins and makes us righteous and holy - and by filling us with His HOLY SPIRIT as He promised - as in Acts. By the blood of the Lamb all this is done in our hearts - and we make our clothes white and overcome Satan.
So He condemns sin in the flesh Rom 8:3 and leaves it with no excuse.
Is 53:11. By this knowledge of Him, My Righteous Servant will justify (make just and righteous) many, because He shall bear their iniquities / sins.
If we have the knowledge that He bore and will bear every one of my sins, He will change, regenerate and make us just, righteous and holy.
This word of the cross is the power and wisdom of God for those being saved.
Other wise words make the cross of no effect.
Blessings!
Posted by: Faan Oosthuizen | April 13, 2018 at 03:56 PM
Have a look at Santo's FB page where he discusses this. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1088961761189588/
Posted by: Brad Jersak | August 08, 2017 at 02:50 PM
So why didn't you address verse 6? That is the lynchpin penal advocates will highlight.
Posted by: Matt | August 06, 2017 at 12:50 AM
Praise the LORD for your insights into Isaiah's prophecy of the Suffering Savior. This has helped me beyond words as I have been a strong Calvinist, penal substitutionary atonement believer for some years after converting from Roman Catholicism at age 21. I started to doubt this view PSA about 2 years ago and have struggled with it. Now I am more convinced than ever of the view you teach and the Christus Victor teaching as more compatible with scripture and the drama of Christ's life, passion , death, burial and resurrection. This Restoration view and Reconciliation go hand in hand. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" makes me drop to my knees in thanksgiving and adoration of our Savior and Redeemer. Jesus was the Overcomer who obeyed His Father. The Father said several times, "This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." The Father was in Christ and was not separated from Him at the Cross. Love and forgiveness was in the heart of the Trinity not retribution. God's grace ruled and Jesus and His Father absorbed the blows. Thank you for posting. God bless you.
Posted by: Andrew R Walsh | February 13, 2017 at 03:15 AM
Thanks for this post. I just recently blogged on this specific thing and found your post after blogging - as I hadn't studied Isaiah 53 in detail. Feel free to comment on my blog, as this is kind of the beginning of me starting to discuss all of this openly, so I haven't done all the homework to defend my viewpoint. I do see the Scriptures in the New Testament teaching that God is good, and that Jesus died at the hands of angry humans, not at the hands of an angry God. I just haven't studied all the relevant texts yet.
Posted by: Joe | November 06, 2015 at 07:58 AM
In response to Josh: 40 years in various and numerous Protestant groups. THIS was the ONLY view To which I was exposed. When I ask my fellow Christian friends if they believe in penal substitution they reply with absolutely not. When I describe it the say of course, and won't even consider the possibility of another view. I would say, as a Protestant, you are the exception and penal substitutin IS the prevalent "Protestant view." Don't be offended, m'friend. Be proud that you've been willing to think outside the box!
Posted by: Greg Rupert | March 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM
I think this article is asking the wrong question. It looks at who does the killing of the Son but not at who WILLS the death of the Son. Jesus' death was an act of submission to the Father's will. He is very clear on this in the Gospels, and the Epistles concur.
If Jesus death was not an atonement, then why send Him to die? Why is the forgiveness of this murderous sin committed by the mob necessary for breaking the cycle of sin and death? What about all of mankind's other sins? If, "God did not punish the Servant in order to heal us! Humans punished the Servant and God healed us in spite of and through it", then why can't God simply forgive sin? The key question is, "Why did Jesus have to die?"
We should keep in mind that Jesus is the Lamb of God who was slain from before the foundation of the world. Jesus was a willing sacrifice. That is very clear throughout the Old and New Testaments. He is the ram caught in the bushes who replaces Isaac on the altar. He is the Passover Lamb. He is the atonement. He is the scapegoat. He is the propitiation for our sins. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. And He did so through His death and resurrection.
Posted by: Todd Holcomb | January 20, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Thank you for your very helpful article on Isaiah 53. I don’t regard it as an argument about doctrine - who’s got it right and who’s got it wrong. It’s about something infinitely more important - the true nature of God.
I would like, if I may, to add some of my own thoughts. Not on word-play, but on trying to understand the relationship of God and man.
Going back to Genesis 2 - to the peculiar set of events that happened on day 6. Animals were created and were without God’s breathed-in Spirit, then man was created in the image of God with the breathed-in Spirit. God sends Adam to the animals to show him that he cannot have a deep soul relationship with them because they are not his ‘kind’.
He then creates Eve from Adam who, by contrast, is his ‘kind’ and they are able to have deep spiritual relationship.
Adam is a type of Christ, Eve is a type of the Church. In order for Christ to have deep relationship with fallen mankind they have to be of the same ‘kind’ as Him.
In order for that to be possible, not only did Jesus have to become a human being, but also had to become like us in our sinful nature. Accomplished through His life and then His death on the cross.
In addition, man also had to become like Jesus by becoming spiritually alive (once again) which was made possible by Jesus’ resurrection. His death and resurrection were then an act of making it possible for Jesus and man to be of the same ‘kind’ so that intimate relationship could happen. The atonement is therefore primarily about identification – the bringing together of Jesus and man as the same ‘kind’.
This is made clearer in Genesis 3 when we read of the account of the fall.
Let’s consider for a moment the person of Adam. He is created as human number one, made by supreme love to live by love. He is fully equipped to head-up the human race and rule the earth in wisdom and love.
When Eve was deceived by the serpent, Adam was not deceived (1Timothy 2:13) but was faced with a very real problem. He knew that Eve would now have to die because God had told him (Genesis 2:17). To let her go meant losing the one he loved in the deepest possible way (Genesis 2:24) and then to face eternity unable to express his love – which was the reason for his existence.
But there was one other way open to him. He could take her sin upon himself and go with her and die with her. Jesus said (John 15:13), ‘Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.’
We may look upon Adam’s act as man’s greatest mistake, but could also be one of man’s greatest acts of love – which is what you would expect from God’s first (and un-fallen) created human being. This kind faithful love is also beautifully pictured in Ruth 1:16-17 – ‘Where you go, I will go . . . where you die, I will die’.
I am proposing that Adam’s act of self-sacrifice is a foreshadow of the atonement – the greatest ever act of love. Just as Adam willingly took upon himself Eve’s sin, that they remain together even unto death, Jesus was pleased to take upon himself our sin for the same reason. To become ‘like’ us so He could enter into our death.
Of course, with Jesus it does not end in death, but in resurrection. So when we willingly accept him as our Saviour, we are, in effect, choosing to be ‘like’ Him in His spiritual perfection. Then the ‘likeness’ is complete and in oneness, we can rise to glorious new life through Him, and with Him.
Posted by: Roger Berry | November 28, 2013 at 01:25 PM
Good article. Good basic understanding of the text. I would, however, object to your use of terms like, "the Protestant view." There are MULTIPLE views of the Atonement within the various Protestant traditions. I am a Protestant and personally hold to a more "Christus Victor" view, and have read and interpreted the text much as you have for most of my life. How about just calling it what it is: penal substitutionary theory, instead of labeling it something it's not? Thanks! Blessings man, good stuff.
Posted by: Josh | November 27, 2013 at 05:52 PM
That is amazing. This gave me chills. And it helps me conquer the sin in my own life - to see that sin crushes Jesus. My Jesus, whom I love. Thank you so much for sharing this. And when I saw "restoration," I squealed aloud - it is currently one of my favorite things about God. Thanks again! God led me here for sure, I know it, because I recently heard in a song/verse (can't remember) that it pleased God to crush Him, and it hurt me to hear that, so this really helps. Thank you so much!
Posted by: Tiffany Roney | November 27, 2013 at 08:05 AM
Re. 2 Cor. 5
'Substitution' might indeed be a fair term to describe the Isa. 61 type saving 'exchange' described in 2 Cor. 5. But this type of substitution is much different than the appeasement of retributive wrath often associated with that word. I see this in context as follows:
1. Christ identifies with those under the curse and steps in to bear the weight of our plight in solidarity and identification with us.
2. But rather than the Father then punishing the Son:
a. God is IN the Son,
b. NOT counting our sins against us (not NEEDING to satisfy his wrath, but freely forgiving us),
c. and Reconciling the world to himself.
So while substitution is surely a fair word, that's only so in the context of identification, exchange and forgiveness, rather than the assumption of wrath-appeasement found in Calvin or Edwards.
Posted by: Brad | November 03, 2013 at 09:13 AM
With regard to the 'optimistic idealism,' I would say Santo is drawing from the NT use of Zech. 12 which indeed does say that 'We will look on him, the one we have pierced, and we will mourn.' This is not just about seeing the crucifixion act and being swayed, but rather, the power of the revelation of the Cross as God's decisive act of love and forgiveness ... and how this can open the eyes and turn the heart to repentance. It was this kind of 'optimistic idealism' that seems to be in the heart of the Father when he sends his Son to save the world.
As for the parables, I think you make a point that is often overlooked. When the One (the king, master, tenant) sends his Son and the world kills him, he seems very, very retributive. But notice that the retribution is not directed at his Son. Moreover, the punchline of the parables IS the death and resurrection of Christ, where the just penalty of the murder of the Son is NOT in fact retribution, but rather, 'Father, forgive them.'
Posted by: Clarion Journal | November 03, 2013 at 09:07 AM
Just playing the advocate role, but what about 2 cor 5:21 - that God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness if God. Isn't that quite clearly substitution?
Posted by: Dan | November 03, 2013 at 04:24 AM
Wow, how good is this!!
Love the way you described it and it reminded me of romans 4:25 where the word 'dia' was used.
Thanks for this!
Posted by: Mia den Hertog | November 02, 2013 at 12:25 AM
I am troubled by this article in many ways, but what I'll comment on particularly is the optimistic idealism that seems to lie behind the thought. It seems as though God's "beneficent act" of the forgiveness of the murderers of His only begotten Son is expected to "turn the tide" and shame the murderers into repentance. Human history itself gives the lie to that type of expectation. Besides that, the theological framing of the whole argument moves entirely opposite to Jesus own words in the parable of the tenant farmers who murder the owner's son when he comes to collect the rent. The Owner acts there with justice which is both retributive and redemptive (the kingdom continues, given to a new group of 'adopted' tenants)
Posted by: Daniel Koerner | November 01, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Yeeessss! This confirms so much what I've been getting while meditating on this particular piece of Scripture - and it makes so far more sense in its overall context. Thanks so much for sharing!
Posted by: Florian Berndt | November 01, 2013 at 02:56 PM
Wow! I love how you showed these verses in their true light, going back to the original languages! I had been especially troubled by verse 10 about the Lord "being pleased/willing to crush Him" - and what a relief to read what you shared about the way the Greek translates it...It just makes so much sense! He stops the cycle of sin and pain by giving us love instead of anger, forgiveness instead of retaliation. When we are shown such surprising grace right in the midst of our sin, it just melts our hearts and draws us to Him in love and awe... Thank you for this wonderful article, so great to read!
Posted by: Susannah | October 16, 2013 at 02:38 PM
Just love the article! What a fresh and wholesome presentation! It gives new understanding to the truth that Jesus actually identifies Himself with us and takes on our hurts, pain, and violation from the foundation of the world to the end... and He does so, so that He can heal us. The words: He became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God should paraphrased as: He became mutilated in the flesh so that we could become the health of God in the spirit.
Posted by: Rene Lafaut | October 15, 2013 at 08:19 PM