A STUDY OF 2 CORINTHIANS 5:21
  by Dan Pentimone

Download the study here

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 - ¹⁷Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. ¹⁸And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹To 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. ²⁰Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. ²¹For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 

Many preachers who hold to the “penal substitutionary atonement” believe that 2 Corinthians 5:21 is the “heart of the gospel.” They believe that this verse, above all verses, explains the true meaning of the gospel. To them, this is the key passage to clearly prove, without doubt, that the “penal substitutionary atonement” is the correct view of the atonement.

John MacArthur, former pastor at Grace Community Church in California, in his MacArthur Study Bible, states on p. 1772 the following:

5:21 Here, Paul summarized the heart of the gospel, resolving the mystery and paradox of vv. 18-20, and explaining how sinners can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

MacArthur goes so far as to state:

If you don't understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don't know why Christ died. -August 24, 2020 Interview

Given that there have been various views of the atonement throughout history, this is a strong statement, since the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory didn't clearly emerge until the 1500's, with Luther and Calvin. Is it true? Have most Christians in the church ever studied this topic for themselves? Can they make a strong Biblical case for what they believe? The author of this article argues that most people who sit in churches have not studied this topic themselves and therefore base their beliefs on others' teachings.

For this reason, the author encourages readers to carefully examine the evidence presented in this article and compare it with Scripture. Be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 

To help readers understand the author’s position, I will present it at the beginning of the paper.

I believe God, in His Word, makes it perfectly clear: the only means for Him to forgive sins is the shedding of blood. In the OT, the animals were offered for sin, but they could not ultimately atone for the people's sins. In the NT, the Bible clearly teaches that the blood of Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice for man’s sin, and that his blood is offered once for all. It never needs to be offered again, nor could it be. I believe in the sufficiency of the precious blood of Christ to atone for the sins of all who believe in Christ. I believe that when the Bible speaks of Christ’s blood being shed, it means he died, as did the Old Testament sacrifices, by means of their blood being shed. In other words, Jesus had to both shed his blood and die. Jesus dying by strangulation would not have atoned for our sins, nor would two drops of blood taken from Jesus’ finger while he remained alive. I believe that Christ’s blood satisfied the justice/wrath of God such that God truly forgave sin without having to pour out his wrath, hatred, or eternal judgment on Jesus. Forgiving someone a debt does not render one unjust, even if no full payment is made. It demonstrates that the one forgiving is merciful. To claim that the blood of Christ brings forgiveness of sins, yet claim that God had to exact punishment for the crimes, does not demonstrate mercy or forgiveness. To claim that Christ suffered the wrath of God but not the hatred and eternal punishment of God on the cross would not equal full payment for our sins. Forgiveness entails the remission of debt, and Christ’s blood brings forgiveness of sins. I also believe that Jesus remained spotless, holy, undefiled while on the cross, and that the Father remained pleased with him the entire time while on the cross. I do not believe the Father turned his face from Jesus (Psalm 22:24 -  For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard). I further believe that Christ died in the place of sinners, as their sin offering, so that they would not need to die for their own sins. I believe that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is a summary of the gospel, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” 

Let’s begin our study of 2 Corinthians 5:21 by breaking down this verse into three parts. This first paper will focus on examining point one. Follow-up studies will look at points two and three. As always, readers are encouraged to reach out to the author if they believe he is in error or to offer their comments.

We can break the verse down into three main points.

         1) For he hath made him to be sin for us

         2) who knew no sin

         3) that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If MacArthur is correct, then a proper understanding of this verse is essential to a correct understanding of the gospel. To misinterpret this verse could result in a serious misrepresentation of the gospel. Let’s begin with a consideration of the possible interpretations of the phrase, “For he hath made him to be sin for us.”

Numerous interpretations are offered for the meaning of this phrase. The most common are:

         1) Jesus became sin

         2) Jesus became a sinner

         3) Jesus took on a sin nature

         4) Jesus was treated as a guilty sinner

         4) Jesus became a sin offering (an offering for sin)

Nathan Busenitz, an elder at Grace Community Church in California, addressed this topic in an article entitled, “Did Jesus Become a Sinner on the Cross?” He asked this question at the beginning of his article. Did Jesus become the literal embodiment of sin, or take on a sin nature, or become a sinner when He died at Calvary? Readers are encouraged to read Busenitz's article to see the five reasons he offers for rejecting the claim that Jesus became a sinner, took on a sin nature, or became the literal embodiment of sin. In the end, Busenitz comes to the following conclusion:

So, then what does it mean? This brings us to our third point. 3. The best way to understand Paul’s statement (that Jesus became sin on our behalf) is in terms of imputation. Our sin was imputed to Christ, such that He became a substitutionary sacrifice or sin offering for all who would believe in Him.

Busenitz puts forth the teaching that the best way to interpret “For he hath made him to be sin for us” is by saying that Jesus “became a substitutionary sacrifice or sin offering for all who would believe in Him.”

In the end, the student of God’s Word must carefully examine the Scriptures to see what the Bible teaches. Christians should not care about what men say if it is contrary to the Word of God. But why would Busenitz teach the idea that Jesus “became a substitutionary sacrifice or sin offering?” Is that what this verse teaches? Is that the teaching of the Bible in totality? I believe it is. Let’s examine these questions in light of this verse and the Bible as a whole.

As Busenitz did in his article, he seeks a deeper understanding of the meaning of “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21, because the teaching that Jesus became “sin” doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of Scripture. Busenitz did a great job showing that Jesus was always righteous, innocent, obedient, without sin, without blemish, spotless, and just.

A legitimate question to be raised in studying this verse is why the exact Greek word for “sin” (“hamartia”) is used twice in the same verse if the meaning of one is “sin” and the meaning of the other is “sin offering.” Again, this is a valid question and deserves a careful explanation if this is, in fact, the correct interpretation.

“For he hath made his to be sin for us, who knew no sin…”

τον γαρ μη γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γινωμεθα

We must ask this question. Is translating one word two different ways ever found in the Bible? The resounding answer is, yes! In fact, the very word in Greek, αμαρτιαν (sin), is sometimes translated sin offering in the Septuagint. Adam Clarke (1762-1832), a Methodist minister, in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21 writes:

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 translates 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.’

Clarke even took the time to list out these references for anyone to verify his findings.

But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, I shall set down the places from the Septuagint where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where our translators have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly. In Exodus, Ex 29:14, Ex 29:36 : Leviticus, Lev 4:3, Lev 4:8, Lev 4:20, Lev 4:21, Lev 4:24, Lev 4:25, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:32-34; Lev 5:6, Lev 5:7, Lev 5:8, Lev 5:9, Lev 5:11, Lev 5:12; Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 6:30; Lev 7:7, Lev 7:37; Lev 8:2, Lev 8:14; Lev 9:2, Lev 9:3, Lev 9:7, Lev 9:8, Lev 9:10, Lev 9:15, Lev 9:22; Lev 10:16, Lev 10:17, Lev 10:19; Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8; Lev 14:13, Lev 14:19, Lev 14:22, Lev 14:31; Lev 15:15, Lev 15:30; Lev 16:3, Lev 16:5, Lev 16:6, Lev 16:9, Lev 16:11, Lev 16:15, Lev 16:25, Lev 16:27; Lev 23:19 : Numbers, Num 6:11, Num 6:14, Num 6:16; Num 7:16, Num 7:22, Num 7:28, Num 7:34, Num 7:40, Num 7:46, Num 7:52, Num 7:58, Num 7:70, Num 7:76, Num 7:82, Num 7:87; Num 8:8, Num 8:12; Num 15:24, Num 15:25, Num 15:27; Num 18:9; Num 28:15, Num 28:22; Num 29:5, Num 29:11, Num 29:16, Num 29:22, Num 29:25, Num 29:28, Num 29:31, Num 29:34, Num 29:38.

Besides the above places, it occurs in the same signification, and is properly translated in our version, in the following places: -

2 Chronicles, 2Ch 29:21, 2Ch 29:23, 2Ch 29:24 : Ezra, Ezr 6:17; Ezr 8:35 : Nehemiah, Neh 10:33 : Job, Job 1:5 : Ezekiel, Eze 43:19, Eze 43:22, Eze 43:25; Eze 44:27, Eze 44:29; Eze 45:17, Eze 45:19, Eze 45:22, Eze 45:23, Eze 45:25. In all, one hundred and eight places, which, in the course of my own reading in the Septuagint, I have marked.

Albert Barnes (1798-1870), a British theologian and Presbyterian minister, wrote the following explanation in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21 and the use of the word "sin".

To be sin - The words ‘to be’ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‘he has made him sin, or a sin-offering’ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen . But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be this:

(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 connection that he “knew no sin,” and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled. Nor,

(3) Can it mean that he 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” (ἁμαρτίαν hamartian) 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 (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word “sin” (ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hos_4:8, “They eat up the sin of my people;” that is, the sin-offerings; see Eze_43:22, Eze_43:25; Eze_44:29; Eze_45:22-23, Eze_45:25.

Other respected commentators take the same view of 2 Corinthians 5:21, understanding that “Christ was made sin” to mean he was made a “sin offering.” The following is from the Matthew Henry Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21.

The sacrifice he offered: He was made sin; not a sinner, but sin, that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990), a Scottish scholar and professor, writes the following in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

“sin offering.” The Greek word translated “sin offering” in the REV is hamartia (#266 ἁμαρτία). Hamartia usually means “sin,” but it can also mean “sin offering.” Jesus Christ was the sin offering that cleanses the believer from sin, but he was a much more complete sin offering for us than the sin offerings described in the Old Testament were, as will be explained below. Many Greek lexicons do not mention that hamartia can mean “sin offering,” but that is one of its meanings. For example, Newman’s Greek-English Dictionary says hamartia means “sin” and “sin offering,” and the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible lists both “sin” and “sin offering” under “sin” as a translation of hamartia. English Bibles that have “sin offering” or an equivalent in 2 Corinthians 5:21 include the CJB, NLT, REV, The New Testament by Charles Williams, and The Holy Bible: New European Version. Hamartia is the translation of the Hebrew word for “sin offering” many times in the Septuagint (cf. Septuagint text of Exod. 29:14, 36; 30:10; Lev. 4:3, 8, 21, 24, 25, 29, 32, and 4:33).

Also, just as the Greek word hamartia can be “sin” or “sin offering,” the Hebrew word chatta'ah (#02403 חַטָּאָה or חַטָּאת), the most common word for “sin” in the Hebrew Bible, means either “sin” or “sin offering,” depending on the context (see commentary on Lev. 4:3). In fact, we would expect if the Hebrew word chattath can be “sin” or “sin offering,” then the Greek translation of it would do the same and then that concept be brought into the Greek-speaking Jewish culture, because although the language was Greek, the Jewish concepts of sin and sacrifice for sin were carried with them as many of them changed from speaking Hebrew (or Aramaic) to speaking Greek.

Whether one agrees with the translation of “sin” to mean “sin offering,” as shown in these many examples, there should be no doubt that this is a valid method for interpreting Scripture.

The  Bible is also very clear that Jesus was a sin offering, or an offering for sin, in many other passages. Consider the following verses from both the Old and New Testaments that clearly identify Jesus as a sin offering or sacrifice. If there is any doubt about this concept, each reader is encouraged to read the entire book of Hebrews to see the beautiful picture given of Jesus offering himself and his blood/life for the forgiveness of sins.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God…

Further verses regarding Christ’s sacrifice are important as well. Although the word offering or sacrifice are not used in these verses, they nevertheless relate directly to the work of Christ. Noah Webster, in his 1828 Dictionary, defines “propitiation” as  “In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners.”

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

FINAL QUESTIONS:

As you consider this first point of 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us,” give careful consideration to the following questions?

         1) How would you interpret, “For he hath made him to be sin for us…” _________

         2) Do you believe Jesus became a sinner? _______

         3) Do you believe Jesus changed from pure to impure on the cross? _______

         4) Do you believe the Father damned Jesus on the cross? ______

         5) Do you believe the Father was angry with His Son and turned His face away? ______

         6) Do you believe the blood of Christ satisfied the justice/wrath of God? ______

May Christ be Magnified!