The notion that Christ “identified with sin” sabotages the sense of gross injustice that the sin of his crucifixion was intended to convey.

The notion of Christ’s “identification with” the curse (incorrectly appealing to Gal. 3:13) and with “sin” (incorrectly appealing to 2 Cor. 5:21) actually SABOTAGES the truth of the matter by WEAKENING the sense of GROSS INJUSTICE that such passages should convey.  Did Christ merely “identify with” the curse or was he cursed wrongfully by his crucifiers?  Did he merely “identify with” sin somehow, or was his very crucifixion a damnable sin (and hence a “sin-offering,” which ritually prophesied such a vicious crime)?  [5/01/10]

77 Questions about the Atonement (Q&A #29)

 29.     Didn’t Jesus become sin on the Cross?

Jesus became a sin-offering, not sin, per se.  The term for sin is translated ‘sin-offering’ scores of times in Levitical contexts, even side by side with its usual translation, to designate a certain kind of burnt offering requiring a flawless sacrificial victim.  This special offering was literally called a “sin” because it pointed forward to the greatest sin Israel would ever commit—the gratuitous abuse and bloody slaughter of their own divinely validated Messiah, the truly sinless ‘Lamb’ of God.  Yet by this enigmatic means God’s saving justice got magnified in a manner impossible by less violent means, for His transcendent graciousness welled up from it like a gusher.  To God be the credit!