As I noted earlier, the Greek here for "made sin" means "made a sin offering" as it's used in the OT. Even the language of "He who had no sin" recalls needing a sacrificial animal free of defect. The NASB and NIV in the footnote here even say "sin offering" for this verse.
But never did the OT sin offering receive God's wrath. That's what you've got to realize.
"Offering" isn't a magic word. It doesn't disprove penal substitution if Jesus offered Himself to God's punishment.
A "sin offering" is a specific kind of Levitical Sacrifice, found in Leviticus 4-5. So you must base your understanding of "sin offering" on how
the Bible describes it. And when you look at those sections of Scripture, you'll see that
never was a transfer of punishment taking place on the animals.
The animals sacrificed as "sin offerings" were not taking the death penalty in place of the sinner, and there is good evidence for this (e.g. see the link in the opening post).
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." (Gal. 3:13).
Hanging from the tree is execution, a form of punishment.
He was punished in our place: "He became a curse for us".
Obviously, someone did the punishing: a righteous God.
Hanging on a tree was done by men! It was a physical death inflicted by the Jews and Romans. That's not the same as God's Eternal Wrath being poured out on, e.g., a soul in hell.
Note that Paul explicitly says this was a "redemption," meaning His being hung on a tree acted as a payment of sorts, not a punishment.
Don't read more into the Scripture than what is warranted.
The term "for" in Greek does not really refer to substitution, but rather 'on behalf of', an important distinction. Note how 1 John 3:16 says just as Jesus laid down his life "for" us, so we ought to lay down our lives "for" our brethren. See how this makes no sense if laying down your life "for" another signifies a PSub situation? It would mean Christians are called to act as penal substitutes for their brethren, which is absurd.
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53: 5-6)
The key term here is "
chastisement," which the NIV wrongly translates as "punishment." A chastisement is about fatherly correction, which is different from a judicial retributive punishment. In other words, hellfire is not chastisement. Christians can still be chastised, even if they're not deserving of hellfire. This term alone undermines any PSub reading of this text.
These words are deliberately color-coded because the same Hebrew term appears elsewhere in Scripture, in important texts I'll now cite. Is 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Job 6:9 that it would please God to bruise me [Job]
Job 5:17 blessed is the one whom God reproves; therefore despise not the discipline of the Almighty
Prov 20:30 Stripes that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.
Notice how the Bible says God "bruised" and "chastised" good men, like Job, who were not under God's wrath. Rather, God let them endure these things for a purpose other than punishing them.
When the text says "the Lord has laid on Him our iniquity," this refers to God placing the responsibility of making atonement on Jesus' shoulders. This is seen two ways. First, when the OT speaks of "bearing sin," it refers to the High Priest taking the responsibility of making atonement for the people. It does not mean the High Priest takes their guilt and receives their punishment. Second, a few verses down in Isaiah 53:12, the same term for "
laid on" from verse 5 appears, but this time in v12 it's translated as "
made intercession for"!
By His stripes - flogging is punishment.
Jesus was whipped by the Romans, but this doesn't mean he was enduring the Father's wrath.
He was punished by God: "It pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (v. 10)
See above.
We are healed - our backs are spared - substituion.
We being healed
does not mean our backs are spared. That's logically fallacious and exegetically unwarranted. That's like saying I was injured and healed in a hospital and so any legal punishments due to me went away. Rather, what Christ endured ended up bringing healing to us.
The early church did not have a single theory of the atonement.
This is misleading and a bit oversimplified. While they didn't go into details about the atonement,
the early church never spoke of it as Jesus being punished by the Father, and they especially never spoke of the Father dumping His Wrath on Jesus! Think about that for a bit. Consider that if PSub is true, then the early church
failed to understand a key element of salvation.
The only reason why Protestants came up with the idea of Penal Substitution was because it was crucial for upholding their new doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
