2 Corinthians 5:21 ‘God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.’

P.E. Hughes comments:

‘There is not sentence more profound in the whole of Scripture, for this verse embraces the whole ground of the sinner’s reconciliation to God.’

Kruse:

‘We obviously stand at the brink of a great mystery and our understanding of it can be only minimal’

Here, according to Stott:

‘is surely one of the most startling statements in the Bible, yet we must not on that account evade it. James Denney was not exaggerating when he wrote of it, “Mysterious and awful as this thought is, it is the key to the whole of the New Testament.” For our sake God actually made the sinless Christ to be sin with our sins. The God who refused to reckon our sins to us reckoned them to Christ instead. Indeed, his personal sinlessness uniquely qualified him to bear our sins in our place.’

(The Cross of Christ, 200)

Hughes concurs:

‘There is no sentence more profound in the whole of Scripture.’

Murray Harris (Navigating Tough Text) characterises this as:

‘without doubt the most profound and incomprehensible statement in all of Scripture.’

I will discuss here the first (highlighted) part of this verse.

Paul’s meaning here has been variously interpreted.

1. Some think that Paul means that Christ was made a sin-offering. This is supported by Paul use elsewhere of sacrificial terminology to bring out the meaning of Christ’s death, Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 5:7; and by the use of the same word in Lev 4:24 and 5:21 (LXX) for ‘sin’ and ‘sin-offering’.

This interpretation is favoured by R.P. Martin (Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology), who agrees that Paul is echoing Isa 53:10 (‘When thou makest his soul an offering for sin’ (Hebrew, RSV marg.).

According to the IVP NT Commentary,

‘This draws on the Old Testament notion that God made the life of his servant a guilt offering. (Isa 53:10) On the whole, this last interpretation seems the likeliest one. The equivalent Hebrew term can actually mean either “sin” or “sin offering” (as in Lev 4:8-35). Also, the logic of verse 19 almost demands it. If our debts are not posted to our account, it is because someone else has legally assumed them-much as the scapegoat did on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) and the guilt offering did on other occasions (Lev 4-5). This is why God can make overtures of friendship toward those who are otherwise his enemies.’

Hafeman comments:

‘Like its parallel designation “concerning sin” in Romans 8:3 (cf. Isa. 53:10), this description reflects the LXX rendering of being made a “sacrifice for sin” or “sin offering” in Leviticus 4:13–14, 20–21, 24; 5:6–7, 10–12; 6:18; 9:7; 14:19; 16:15. Accordingly, this portrayal of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin indicates that the death/blood of Christ is the means by which God fulfills the need for atonement prefigured in the sacrifices of the Sinai covenant (cf. Rom. 3:25–26; 4:25; 5:8; 8:3; 1 Cor. 6:11; 11:23–26; 15:3–5; Col. 1:19–20 against the backdrop of Lev. 10:17; 16; 17:11).’

Garland (NAC), however, argues that the idea that ‘sin’ here means ‘sin offering’ is unlikely.  Although the word is sometimes used in that sense in the LXX, it does not carry that meaning anywhere else in the NT.  And this would be to give one word two different meanings (‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’) same sentence.  Moreover, if Paul had meant ‘sin offering’, then he would have been more likely to say that God ‘presented’ or ‘offered’, rather than ‘made’.  Garland favours the meaning, ‘Christ was made a sinner’.  The logic of the passage is, ‘Christ was made sin in order that others might be made righteous.’

Harris (Navigating Tough Texts) insists that the word ‘hamartia’ means ‘sin’ in both of its occurrences in this verse.  This would be alien to the use of the word elsewhere in Paul (and, indeed, in the rest of the NT).

2. Others think that it means that Christ was made to bear the consequences of sin. This is supported by Gal 3:13, which interprets the death of Christ in terms of the his bearing the consequences of our sins. It is also supported by the parallelism of the verse itself, in which the second phrase (our becoming the righteousness of God) should be construed as the antithetical counterpart of the first phrase. Our sins, instead of being counted against us, v19, were charged against Christ, cf. Isa 53:4-6,12. As a consequence, his relationship with his Father was, momentarily but terribly, severed, Lk 22:42; Mt 27:46 –

‘Paul says that Christ became sin; that is, he came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the result of sin, estranged from God and the object of his wrath…We correspondingly, and through God’s loving act in Christ, have come to stand in that relation with God which is described by the term righteousness, that is, we are acquitted in his court, justified, reconciled. We are no longer his judicial enemies, but his friends.’ (Barrett)

This interpretation is also favoured by Kruse:

‘This is supported by the fact that in Galatians 3:13 Paul interprets the work of Christ in terms of his bearing the consequences of our sins: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.’ This interpretation is further supported by the fact that ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin’ (v. 21a) is balanced in antithetical parallelism by the words, ‘so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’. The former must be construed in such a way that the latter is understood as its antithetical counterpart. If becoming the righteousness of God means God has adjudicated in our favour and put us in a right relationship with himself, then to become sin, being the antithetical counterpart of this, will mean that God adjudicated against Christ because he took upon himself the burden of our sins (cf. Isa. 53:4–6, 12), with the result that his relationship with God was (momentarily, but terribly and beyond all human comprehension) severed.’

Murray Harris objects:

‘It is unlikely that Paul is speaking simply of the incarnation when Christ assumed human nature “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) and was subject to the consequences of sin, namely, suffering and death.’

3. A further approach to is understand ‘made … sin’ with Christ’s assuming a human nature. Through the incarnation Christ was made “in the likeness of sinful man” (Rom 8:3).

4. Still others think that this means that Christ was “treated as a sinner.”

‘As our substitute, Christ came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the result of sin, that is, estranged from God and the object of his wrath (Barrett 1973:180).

Murray Harris:

‘God treated Christ on the cross as if he were sin, or, in a pregnant mysterious sense, God actually caused Christ to be sin, that is, to be the very personification of sin and so to be estranged from him and the object of his wrath… Verse 21a stands in stark contrast to verse 19b. Because of God’s transference of sinners’ sin onto the sinless one—because sin was reckoned to Christ’s account (v. 21a)—sin is not now reckoned to the believer’s account (v. 19b). This total identification of the sinless one with sinners at the cross, in assuming the full penalty and guilt of their sin, leaves no doubt that substitution as well as representation was involved. God’s action was “for us,” that is, both “on our behalf” and “in our place.”’

Filson (ISBE, 2nd ed., art. ‘John the Baptist’) links this with John’s baptism of Jesus:

‘It is historical fact that Jesus was baptized by John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke say so, and Jn. 1:31–33 implies it. But John baptized repentant sinners. Did Jesus confess personal sin? The NT rejects such an idea. Mt. 3:13–15 explains why He asked to be baptized: “to fulfil all righteousness.” This means not that it was a hollow form to Him, but that He was so loyal a member of His people and so identified with them that He had to join with them in their confession and dedication (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).’

Jesus thus becomes ‘the sinless sinner’ (Michael Cameron, quoted by Seifrid).

According to Seifrid, it is telling that Paul does not name the cross here.  Instead, he unveils the inner meaning and significance of the cross:

‘It is likely, ‘that Paul’s identification of Christ with sin recalls the usage of Leviticus in which the sacrificial offering for sin is identified with the people in their sin. The Levitical sacrifice was not merely an action or work, but entailed an identification of “being.”’

(See Lev 16:1–34; 17:12–14)

Seifrid again:

‘In this verse Paul does not describe “sin” as a mere act, or even as mere guilt, but as the guilt and power of evil that have taken up residence in the human being.’

5. Many in the Reformed tradition invoke the doctrine of imputation.  Accordingly, Christ so identified with us sinners that he becamse liable to the punishment of our sin.

According to Donald MacLeod,

‘Christ on that cross took His identity from sin, bearing all it deserved. He became the sin of His people. He came to be identified with their guilt and liable to their punishment. And because He was Sin, He became a curse (Galatians 3:13). There was no mitigation and no sparing. There was only the absolute recoil of God from the sin His Son was. He was katara: cursed, banished.’ (A Faith to Live By)

The key to the interpretation of this profound verse is the idea of imputation. Our sin was imputed to Christ, so that Christ’s righteousness might be imputed to us. Here, notes Peter Lewis, ‘we see the double-transfer of our sin to Christ and of his righteousness to us.’ As C.K. Barrett says, ‘It is important to observe that the words Paul uses are words describing relationships.’ When it says that Christ ‘became sin’, it means that ‘he came to stand in that relationship with God which normally is the result of sin, estranged from God and the object of his wrath.’ And Calvin says that accordingly

‘here righteousness means not a quality or habit but something imputed to us, since we are said to have received the righteousness of Christ.’

George Smeaton articulates the doctrine of imputation as follows:

‘While he was personally the object of the Father’s everlasting love and complacency, he was officially guilty in our guilt. The paternal and the governmental on the part of God may easily be distinguished and viewed apart. He never was the object of the Father’s loathing or aversion, even when forsaken. He never was, what the sinner inevitably is, abhorred, or abominable; because a distinction could always be made between the only begotten Son, the righteous Servant, and the sin-bearing Substitute.’

Garland notes that ‘Galatians 3:13 offers an important parallel’:

‘Paul asserts that Christ became a curse in order that blessing might come to others. This statement matches what he says here: Christ became sin in order that others might become the righteousness of God. Paul is not focusing on Jesus’ human life but on his inglorious death. Christ experienced the consequences for human sin. The one who lived a sinless life died a sinner’s death, estranged from God and the object of wrath. He was treated as a sinner in his death.’ (NAC)

In what sense did was Christ made sin for us?  Is it as representative (on our behalf), or as substitute (in our place)?  The linguistic evidence is in favour of the word hyper being used in the latter sense:

‘Christ does not become human in order to stand in solidarity with humanity but to stand in its place and to participate in a twofold imputation: he receives the burden of humanity’s sin while humanity receives God’s righteousness.’ (B.H. McLean)

Murray Harris explains the purpose and result of God’s work in Christ for us sinners:

‘The second part of our verse states the purpose, and by implication the result, of God’s total alignment of Christ with human sin. It is not that believers themselves come to share God’s inherent righteousness. Rather, “becoming the righteousness of God” refers to gaining a right standing before God that God himself bestows (“of God” is a subjective genitive; cf. Rom 5:17; Phil 3:9). The term “righteousness” is here an “abstract for concrete,” meaning “righteous” in a forensic rather than an ethical sense. By being united to the risen Christ through faith (“in him”), believers are “constituted righteous” (Rom 5:19) by God in the heavenly court.’