Jesus Christ Became Our Sin

My buddy Erik, over at Irish Calvinist, had a book review on Vintage Jesus a while back and brought up a theological question that I was a little perplexed on. The question come in the form of a rebuttal of Driscoll's thoughts on Christ becoming our sin. Here is the full quote from Erik, which includes Driscoll's thought on Christ's payment as well:

From a theological perspective I found the book to be pretty tight. It was your basic Protestant defense of biblical faith. However, I was shocked to find this quote in the middle of the book (I quote the context):

On the cross as our substitute, Jesus was made to be the worst of what we are. This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned. Rather, it means that he was made sin. As a result, in that moment when Jesus cried out that he had been forsaken by God the Father, Jesus became the most ugly, wicked, defiled, evil, corrupt, rebellious, and hideous thing in all creation. In that moment, Jesus became a homosexual, alcoholic, thief, glutton, addict, pervert, adulterer, coveter, idol worshiper, whore, pedophile, self-righteous religious prig—and whatever else we are.” (p. 114—emphasis mine).

Jesus became a whore? Jesus became an idol worshipper? Really? So now we have Jesus with a new nature? He is sinless human, perfect God and a pervert? This is not what the Scripture teaches. He became sin (that is he was imputed or charged with our sin) on the cross he did not become the sinner (2 Cor. 5.21). I realize that he says, “This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned.” But that is exactly what he says. He could have said Jesus was judged in our place, being charged with our sins. He was treated like the homosexual, alcoholic, thief, etc..should have been treated (though he was sinless). I do not believe this is theological semantics, but rather the heart of the gospel. The numerous endorsers and his co-author should have caught this error. It seems to me that Driscoll’s penchant for dramatic hyperbole got the best of him and unraveled his explanation of the gospel.

The reason I put this here is because I have been reading a book by Packer called, In My Place Condemned He Stood. The book is pretty good, although I would disagree with Packer on numerous occasions on his beliefs of faith being bought on the cross and then his misuse of both Bunyan and Edwards. But that is besides the point. Here is the real point. Packer quotes Luther on the very issue raised by Erik. It would seem that Luther would definitely back Driscoll on this note. Here are a couple of quotes that Packer uses by Luther:

This is that mystery which is rich in divine grace to sinners: wherein by a wonderful exchange our sins are no longer ours but Christ's: and the righteousness of Christ not Christ's but ours. He has emptied himself of his rightoeusness that he might clothe us with it, and fill us with it: and he has taken our evils upon himself that He might deliver us from them...in the same manner as he grieved and suffered in our sins, and was confounded, in the same manner we rejoice and glory in his righteousness.
Luther's Exposition of Psalm 21

All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc. that ever was....for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins....Our most merciful Father...sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blashphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged on the cross; and, briefly, be thou person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner...therefore let him die upon the cross.
Martin Luther
(found at Galatians, ed. Philip S. Watson (London: James Clarke, 1953), 269-271; on Gal 3:13)

So, any thoughts on Christ's death based on Luther and Driscoll vs. Erik's observation?

I also find it interesting on whom Luther says that Christ died for. It would seem to point to all men, not just some.

Discuss.