Featured 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't support penal substitution (reposted)

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain—for He says,

“At the acceptable time I listened to you,
And on the day of salvation I helped you.”
Behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation”

Penal substitution advocates use 2 Corinthians 5:21, that “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in HIm,” to support the concept of double imputation, that our sin was imputed to Jesus so that his righteousness could be imputed to us. They want the verse to say something like, “He made him who knew no sin to be sinful on our behalf so that we might receive the righteousness of Christ from him (modifications in italics),” but this is not what the text says.

NT Wright’s commentary on this verse is very helpful (I am not a person who always agrees with NT Wright, but here he is spot on). In the second part of the verse, the phrase “the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. If Paul meant "righteousness of Christ" then he would have said that, as he does elsewhere in his letters. So any penal substitution advocate must answer the question of why Paul does not use the phrase "righteousness of Christ" here. If you can't answer that question, the charge sticks that you are simply putting words in Paul's mouth.

The “righteousness of God” refers to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring (Genesis 12). When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, manifestation, and glory of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us.

If Paul is talking about a demonstration or manifestation rather than an imputation in this second part of the verse, it follows that he is doing the same thing in the preceding half of the verse, in which he says “God made him who knew no sin to be sin”. Paul is not saying that our sin or guilt was imputed to Jesus, but that the sinless man Jesus was made into an outworking, demonstration, and manifestation of our sin. This certainly describes the cross. The cross is the greatest sin in human history, in which all sin against God and all sin against Man are inflicted upon the God-Man Jesus Christ. No sin that any of us has ever committed is greater than the sin we committed when we crucified Jesus. The worst aspect of any one of our sins is that it contributed to the death of God’s Son. No one can fully understand what sin is unless and until they look at what we did to Jesus on the cross. On the cross, Jesus was made my sin. He was made into a demonstration of every human’s sin. Why? So that through Jesus’ resurrection, God would show His faithfulness to his covenantal promises to restore the earth from sin’s destruction.

If Jesus actually became sinful, that means he himself would need saving. He would also no longer qualify to make an effective sacrifice. Furthermore, he would cease to be God, so there is also that serious problem (to make an understatement!).

Think of the famous photo of Gordon, most commonly known as "Whipped Peter," showing the horrifically scarred back of a former slave (see attached). This photo was spread far and wide in newspapers in the late 19th century and changed minds on slavery. Gordon became America's sin. When people looked at that photo, they saw the sin of slavery. Think of Emmet Til, the young black boy who was tortured and murdered, but whose mother demanded that his casket remain open so pictures could be spread far and wide. Emmett Til became America's sin. To understand the sins of slavery and of racism, you would look at the photos of Gordon or Emmett.

So here is a paraphrase of the verse: God made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be made a manifestation of sin on our behalf, so that we sinners could, in Christ, become the manifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness. As NT Wright says, “God made [the Messiah] to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant.”

Remember the question that is always in the back of Paul’s mind, as well as his Jewish audience: “God, how are you going to prove yourself faithful to your promise to bless all nations through Israel, given that Israel is a nation of sinful human beings?” Paul’s answer here is that, just as God used a sinless person to demonstrate the sinfulness of humanity, so also God uses sinful human beings (in this case the church as the new Israel) to demonstrate His covenant faithfulness.” Humanity’s sin was proved through the cross, and God’s faithfulness is proven through the church.

Finally, we also need to look at Paul’s reference to Isaiah 49, the second of Isaiah’s four Servant Songs. It is clear that Paul has more than just the two quoted verses in mind as he is writing his letter. He is saying that now is the time that Isaiah 49 is fulfilled. The subject of his discourse is the fulfillment of Isaiah 49. Isaiah 49 is the backbone for 2 Corinthians 5 and 6. Keep in mind that verses 1-6 are the words of Jesus himself.

Isaiah 49

Listen to Me, O islands,
And pay attention, you peoples from afar.
The Lord called Me from the womb;
From the body of My mother He named Me.
He has made My mouth like a sharp sword,
In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me;
And He has also made Me a select arrow,
He has hidden Me in His quiver.
He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel,
In Whom I will show My glory.”
But I said, “I have toiled in vain,
I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity;
Yet surely the justice due to Me is with the Lord,
And My reward with My God.”

Paul precedes his direct quotation in 2 Corinthians with the urge not to “receive the grace of God in vain.” I believe this is a reference to the words of the Suffering Servant in verse 4. “I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity.” Paul is telling the Corinthians, when tempted to think that their efforts are in vain and circumstances are too difficult, to remember how Jesus overcame such feelings. When was Jesus most strongly tempted to think that he had spent his strength for nothing and vanity? The cross, of course. The cross is when Jesus even feels that he is forsaken of God, as he cries out the words of Psalm 22, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” And yet, just as in Psalm 22, in Isaiah 49 Jesus overcomes his feelings of despair by taking comfort in God’s unshakeable covenant faithfulness. “Yet surely the justice due to me is with the Lord, and My reward with my God.” This justice is Jesus’ resurrection. This reward is Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection is the fulfillment and satisfaction of God’s justice—this truth comes directly out of the mouth of Jesus himself.

 

I have disagreements with Wright, but I wouldn't say that overall he is "not helpful." I think he is correct on many things, especially when it comes to biblical narrative and resurrection. He can be confusing on justification.

And sometimes people I strongly disagree with are still helpful. John Stott's Cross of Christ I have deep disagreements with, but I find it very helpful in articulating the exact position that I would oppose when it comes to the atonement.

 

Some good observations here on the Abraham and Isaac story, and I will do a future post on why that story does not support penal substitution.

I am not sure how this relates to 2 Corinthians 5:21 though.

 

I feel like I thoroughly explained this in the OP. I didn't rant - I gave substantial arguments based on the language of the text and the context for Paul, as while as the Old Testament background.

"How does 2 Corinthians 5:21 not allow the notion of penal substituion?"

l don't think this is quite a fair question. The burden of proof is on the person who seeks to show how it does support penal substitution.

I can see a dead body and there may be a remote possibility that a person is murdered. But if the evidence is slim, and there are far more likely explanations of how the person died that fit better with all the other evidence, a murder charge is not going to be brought.

But here is the answer to your question biblically:

In the second part of the verse, the phrase “the righteousness of God” does not mean “the righteousness of Christ,” which would refer to the Messiah/Son’s legal status of righteousness. If Paul meant "righteousness of Christ" then he would have said that, as he does elsewhere in his letters. So any penal substitution advocate must answer the question of why Paul does not use the phrase "righteousness of Christ" here. If you can't answer that question, the charge sticks that you are simply putting words in Paul's mouth.

The “righteousness of God” refers to God’s covenant faithfulness to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring (Genesis 12). When Paul says, “we become the righteousness of God,” he is saying that the people of God, the Church in Christ, has become an outworking, demonstration, manifestation, and glory of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Paul is not talking here about the imputation of Christ’s legal status of righteousness to us.

And here is the answer to your question theologically:

If Jesus actually became sinful, that means he himself would need saving. He would also no longer qualify to make an effective sacrifice. Furthermore, he would cease to be God, so there is also that serious problem (to make an understatement!).

 

Yes - unless I hear good arguments otherwise.

I certainly think there are verses—if ripped out of context and isolated from all the other biblical data—that make penal substitution sound like what the Bible teaches. But you could do that with lots of texts to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.

 

This example has to do with how we treat evidence - and where a burden of proof lies.

 

But this is the genetic fallacy, right? You are trying to falsify a claim (penal substitution is wrong) by assuming a motive of the person that is making the claim (certain people don't like it because of reason XYZ).

I said penal substitution was not supported by 2 Corinthians 5:21 because of biblical and theological reasons. My motives are irrelevant to the reasoning provided and the truth of the claim. I think penal substitution has all sorts of harmful effects - but that is downstream from biblical and theological reasons for why it is unsupported in Scripture.