You should try reading it all in context. That might help. Why?
"6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 “He [c]trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”
Are you seriously going to argue Jesus was a worm
Are you going to ignore the fact the Father was in the son
2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
I Corinthians 5:21
"21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
I
Isaiah 53:10 (LEB) — 10 Yet Yahweh was pleased to crush him; he made him sick. If he places his life a guilt
offering, he will see offspring. He will prolong days, and the will of Yahweh will succeed in his hand.
Do you seriously believe the sinless Christ was transformed into sin?
Galatians 2:17 (LEB) — 17 But if while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also have been found to be sinners, then is Christ an agent of sin? May it never be!
Hebrews 9:14 (LEB) — 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God?
1 Peter 1:19 (LEB) — 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb
To be sin. The words "to be" are not in the original. Literally it is, "he has made him sin, or a sin-offering," (αμαρτιανεποιησεν.) But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer-It cannot be
(1.) that he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be therefore, in some sense, figurative. Nor
(2.) can it mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connexion that he "knew no sin," and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled. Nor
(3.) can it mean that lie was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty, it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings. But all such views as go to make the holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner-stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the Divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is prima facie a false view, and should be at once abandoned. But
(4.) if the declaration that he was made "sin" (αμαρτιαν) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering-an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson, (Lex.,) Bishop Bull, and others.
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
For he hath made him to be sin for us—Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul—his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.
Adam Clarke's Commentary.
MADE SIN
“For he hath made him to be sin (ἁμαρτίαν
for us.”[1]
2 Cor. 5:21. A common rendering of the original is sin-offering. This has ample warrant, and avoids, the insuperable difficulties attending any restriction to a primary or ethical sense of sin. That the Scriptures often use the original term in the sense of sin-offering there is no reason to question.[1]
Exod. 29:14,
36;
Lev. 4:24;
5:9;
Hos. 4:8. In the references given, after a description of the sin-offering, we have for it the simple phrase, “ἁμαρτία ἐστί
,” and so used several times; also, after the preceptive instruction respecting the daily sacrifice of atonement, we have the phrase, “
τὸ μοσχάριον τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ποιήσεις
,” the last two words being the very same used in the text under review. On ἁμαρτία, as used in the references given in Leviticus, Sophocles says that “it is equivalent to θυσία περὶ ἁμαρτίας.[2]
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods.
Thus we have in Scripture usage ample warrant for rendering the same term in the text under review as
sin-offering
Christ was not made sin for us. That idea is based upon a demonstrably wrong translation from the Greek text, a mistaken translation which has unfortunately been with us from the very earliest Christian centuries until now. The correct translation supplies the correct answer to the question, and shows that Christ took our sins.
In terms of Old Testament typology Christ could not be made sin, for nothing unholy with spot or blemish was permitted in the typical Levitical offerings.
Harmatia is used as a sin offering. Up to 94 times in the septuagint can it be seen translated hn that manner
As for your, ahem, usage of the verse above in your comment:
"18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [d]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."
How could he forsake him if he was in him reconciling the world
If you read that in context, it is basically saying that God was behind Jesus being crucified in the first place, and by that was reconciling the world to Himself. How can we be sure? It is followed by the action that God took because of the sacrifice of Christ that He set up which is, He did not impute their trespasses to them, and committed to the apostles the world of reconciliation. (And later the the church, but the apostles were the foundation of the church who first took the message/word to the world.)
Behind?
That word does not appear in the text
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
The word translated in is "en" it does not mean behind
and we still have Christ's word of mutual indwelling
John 10:38 (LEB) — 38 But if I am doing them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
