Jesus became sin, and Todd White says...

Found here and here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

Protestia and Reformation Charlotte both hyperventilate over Todd White's explanation of 2 Corinthians 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.

It should go without saying that the nuances of what Paul was writing here have been explained and debated for centuries. Despite the glib rejoinders offered by Protestia and RC, the scholarship is not quite so clear.

We should note we are not here to defend Todd White, we intend to examine the responses of Protestia and RC.

---------------------

Here's what White said, including the puerile buzzer sounds: 

Transcript:

It’s all about this stuff, like when we say Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus in Corinthians, right? Jesus became a gossip, a murderer, full of strife, deceit and malice. Wasn’t in his mouth, was on his body.

Oh, you have to hear this man. Jesus who knew no sin, became sin. Paul describes sin; gossip, slander. Imagine Jesus as a gossip. You can’t. He didn’t do it. He became it. I’m like seeing this for the first time. Like I’ve read the Scripture so many times that I’m seeing it and I’m like, ‘you (Jesus) became gossip.’

What!? It’s hard for us to think about it because Jesus, never gossiped. But he became gossip. On the tree he became gossip. On the tree became a slander. Did he slander, no, he became it! He became enslaved, became haughty, he became boastful, he became an inventor of evil.

Jesus became an inventor of evil on that tree. Jesus became child pornography on that tree. Listen! Jesus became full of child pornography on the tree. Jesus became a thief on the tree. Jesus became addiction on the tree. Jesus became a hater of God on the tree. What does it mean for him to become sin? Jesus became lost on the tree. Jesus became Satan worship on a tree.

Are you hearing me? This is really hard to even say, yet it’s true. What does it mean that he knew no sin but became sin? Jesus became bestiality on a tree. Jesus became sex-trafficking on a tree. Oh my gosh. Jesus became every lustful thought on a tree. It’s no joke, it’s real. Jesus became child molester on a tree. Jesus became Taliban: Christian murderer on a tree. Jesus became sacrificing babies on a tree.

Jesus, our Jesus became that on the tree. That’s what it means when he who knew no sin became sin.
***

Protestia:

Now, instead of having sound doctrine which would understand Jesus never sinned and at no point did he become a sinner or guilty of sin. (Something White never claimed.)

Instead, Christ became our representative sin-bearer, identifying completely with our sin, resulting in the Father treating the son as if he were sin itself, ("Treating?" Where did that word come from? The verse is simple: God made Jesus sin. There is no notion of God "treating" Jesus in some particular way. Protestia just makes this up.

Now, if there is another verse that backs up Protestia's claim, we would entertain it. But Protestia is simply engaging in contradiction.)

though he never actually became that. (Notice Protestia's summary denial, "he never actually became that." Let's remind readers of what Paul wrote: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us... Maybe there's a nuance we're missing here, some subtle point, a theological explanation we aren't understanding. Paul says Jesus became sin and Protestia denies this. 

Again, if there is something besides a summary denial that Protestia can offer, we would love to read it.)

Reformation Charlotte:

White, preaching on 2 Corinthians 5:21–that Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin for us–goes into a tirade of how Jesus actually became the substance of the sins ("Substance?" We read the transcript. There is no indication of a statement of "substance." What does this even mean?

Paul says God made him who had no sin, sin. There's no reference there to substance either.)

listed in Romans 1 while on the tree. Of course, if what White was saying was true, it could only mean that Jesus ceased to be God on the cross. (It could only mean this? We only have one choice, RC's statement? There are no other possibilities?

RC is embarking on a chain of false logic. First it imputes some statement on "substance" into White's statements, then based on this concludes that can only mean Jesus ceased to be God. Neither thing is true, which means the rest of what descends from these statements will diverge farther and farther into la-la land.)

We know that isn’t true.

Jesus does not become the substance of this sin on the cross, as White suggests. Even though White acknowledged that Jesus didn’t actually commit these sins, (Now RC walks back their whole argument...)

he does say that Jesus is these sins. ("Became sin,' in contradistinction to "became sin, including this list of sins." What exactly is the problem here? RC goes nuclear for no reason at all.)

A proper understanding of this text, however, is that Jesus becomes the object of God’s wrath on the tree. (There is no indication of God's wrath against Jesus in this verse or any verse in the Bible.)

Simple-minded people (Snotty pomposity...)

might think there was some sort of metaphysical component here and there wasn’t. Jesus was not transformed into sin or porn or gossip, etc. (Jesus became sin...)

Scripture uses a literary device to convey the idea that the wrath of God intended for us because of our lawlessness was poured out on Christ as if He was the one guilty of our lawlessness. (There is no hint of this in this verse or any verse in the Bible.)

This is the divine exchange and the doctrine of imputation and penal substitution. (we discuss these ideas in detail here.)