Jesus was our substitute

JESUS WAS OUR SUBSTITUTE
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that
we might become the righteousnessof God in Him. —2
Corinthians5:21
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
The Sinless countedas a sinner
2 Corinthians 5:21
R. Tuck
2 Corinthians 5:21. The Sinless countedas a sinner. We give but the bare
outline of a course of thought on this subject, because it is so suggestive of
controversialtheologicaltopics, and can be treated from the points of view of
severaldistinct theologicalschools.
I. CHRIST AS A SINLESS MAN. What proofs of this have we? And how does
such sinlessnessseparatehim from man and ensure his acceptance withGod?
II. THE SINLESS CAN NEVER, IN FACT, BE OTHER THAN SINLESS.
Neither God nor man can be deceived into regarding Christ as a sinner. No
exigencies oftheologymay make us speak of God as regarding Christ as other
than he was.

III. THE SINLESS CAN TAKE, AS A BURDEN ON HEART AND EFFORT,
THE SINS OF OTHERS. Show fully in what sensesthis can be done.
IV. WITH SIN THUS ON HIM, A SINLESS MAN MAY SUBMIT TO BE
TREATED AS IF HE WERE HIMSELF A SINNER.
V. WHEN THE SINLESS MAN THUS TAKES THE SINS OF OTHERS ON
HIM HE BEARS THE SIN ALTOGETHER AWAY. Jesus took up the
matter of our sin that it might be a hindrance and trouble to us no more
forever. - R.T.
Biblical Illustrator
For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin
2 Corinthians 5:21
Christ being made sin, for us
John Ramsay, M. A.
In every age ofthe world mankind seemto have been conscious to themselves
of guilt. Now guilt is universally accompaniedwith a sense of demerit. The
altars have groanedunder the victims that were heaped upon them; and the
temples have been filled with the most costlyperfumes. Men have every given
the fruit of their bodies for the sin of their souls. We are new no longer
permitted to wander in ignorance, uncertainty, and error, respecting the
method of our acceptancewithGod.
I. ConsiderTHE CHARACTER OF CHRIST AS UPRIGHT AND
INNOCENT.Notonly was He free from original sin; throughout the whole
course of an active and eventful life, He kept Himself unspotted from the
world. Immediately before entering upon His public ministry, His innocence
was put to a severe trial. But though the words of the text speak only of our
Saviour's innocence, we ought not to overlook His high dignity and excellence.
He was the everlasting God.

II. ILLUSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF HIS BEING MADE SIN FOR US.
The original word, here rendered sin, is also employed to signify a sin-
offering; in which significationit is frequently used in the Septuagint. This
phrase is borrowedfrom the Jewishritual, of which the sin-offering formed a
part. The design of this offering was to take awaythe guilt of the offerer by
the substitution of a victim in his place.
1. That Christ suffered and died in our stead, and consequentlyexpiated our
guilt, appears from the nature of His sufferings themselves. Whence
proceededthose groans that indicated the agony of His soul? It is impossible
to accountfor this anguish upon the supposition that His sufferings were the
same as those of any other man. Many who were thus witnessesforthe truth
have met death in its most terrible forms with composure, and even with
transports of joy. If Christians, then, in such circumstances have triumphed,
why did Christ tremble? Not surely because their courage and constancywere
greaterthan His. The causes were completelydifferent. They Suffered from
men, who can kill the body but cannot injure the soul. He suffered from God,
before whose indignation no createdbeing is able to stand.
2. That Christ suffered in our steadappears from the nature and design of
sacrifices.Thatsacrifices were ofa vicarious nature is plain from all the
accounts we have of them. The Jewishsacrifices were unquestionably of this
nature. But not only were the ancient sacrificesofa vicarious nature — they
were instituted as types of Christ, our greatHigh Priest. They must have
originated with God, as a proper means of directing the view of men to Him,
who was to appear in the end of the world to put awaysin by the sacrifice of
Himself. Viewedin this light, sacrifices were worthyof God to appoint, and
reasonable forman to perform. Since these sacrificeswere ofa vicarious
nature, and since they were also types of Christ, when He offered Himself as a
sacrifice upon the Cross, He must have borne the punishment of our sins, and
thus have expiated our guilt.
3. That Christ died in our room and stead, appears from the express
declarations ofScripture. In Isaiah53:4, Christ is said to have " borne our
griefs, and carriedour sorrows";and in the 12th verse, "He poured out His
soul to death, and bore the sins of many."

III. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SUBJECT.
1. To the faithful followerof Jesus this subjectis full of consolation. His guilt
is expiated. Not so the impenitent sinner, who will not come to Christ that he
may be saved.
2. From this subjectwe may learn the dreadful nature of sin.
3. From this subjectwe may learn the amazing love of God to man.
(John Ramsay, M. A.)
The incarnation from the human side
Christ conversantwith sin
S. Edger, B. A.
1. These are bold words of Paul. So much so that the greatmajority of
interpreters are tempted to alter them. For"sin" they take the liberty of
reading "sin offering." I suppose if Paul had meant sin offering he could very
easilyhave said so. The ideas conveyedby "sin" and "sin offering" are
exceedinglydifferent. No man carefully expressing himself would now use the
one term, when he intended to give the idea containedin the other. We know
no man without sin. He who has had no experience of sin, has not had a
human experience. If Christ had been man in every other respect, but without
being in some wayconversantwith sin, men would not have felt the powerof
His sympathetic love reaching to the worstextremities of their case. The
problem is clearenough; Christ to establishHis thorough sympathy with my
heart must be conversantwith sin, which forms so very large a part of my
experience;and yet to deliver me from sin He ought to be above it, and in no
way involved in its entanglements. He knew no sin, and He was made sin.
Here Paul affirms as real those very two things that I have felt to be a
necessity.
2. Let us try and find our way through this difficulty, and understand some of
the important conclusions in which we may be landed. The difficulty may

come up in three different forms.(1) As an intellectual difficulty; arising from
the apparent impossibility of the infinite entering into the experience of the
finite. Christ is not the manifestationof the infinite and absolute, which in its
infiniteness is incapable of being manifested. he is the manifestationof all that
is intelligible and conceivable in God, which can be pictured to the mind.(2)
There is the moral difficulty we are necessitatedto consider. How then is it
morally possible that the sinless should have the experience of sin? Here
careful reflectionis necessary. The experience of sin, so common to men, is
more complete than may at first seem. There are. three things to be carefully
distinguished in it.
(a)There are all those inducements that lead to it, and that may for a long time
be operating on the mind before its commission.
(b)Then there is the deliberate, wilful act of sin, which for the most part is
momentary; and
(c)There is that long course of sorrow, in numerous forms, which flows out of
sin.Into how much of this canthe sinless enter? Into the deliberate
determination and actof wrong, it is clearthat Christ the sinless cannotenter;
nor canHe have the slightestsympathy with it. But this forms the very least
part of the experience of sin; and in every case,as we may see, forms the
greatestbarrier to all sympathy. But the inducements to sin, the prompting
occasions andinfluences, as they are not in themselves morally wrong,
becoming so only when they are wilfully ripened into action, in themselves
arising from weaknessand suffering, into all these the sinless canenter,
without the leastmoral contamination. I admit that Christ could not Himself
feel any inclination to do wrong; therefore neither could He personally feel the
difficulty of resisting.. But He could feel for those in whom that inclination
and difficulty are greatest. His feelings cango with us up to the point of actual
commission, where our guilt begins. Can we not see at once the truth of this?
There may be strong temptations to a child that are none at all to an adult.
That does not prevent a parent from entering into the difficulties that beset
his child's path. In Christ this sympathy was immensely strong, so strong that
we can scarcelyrealise its power. So too was His experience of the general
condition of humanity wonderfully deep and comprehensive. Hence into all

this experience of sin He could enter sinlessly, to an extent that would make
the realisationoftemptation in Him far greaterthan in any one single human
being. Then againon the same grounds He could enter as fully into all that
after experience of sin in bodily sufferings and bitter mental agonies, with
which we are all so well acquainted. He could enter into these because they are
not themselves morally wrong; and though He could not know personally the
reproaches ofconscienceand the dreadful remorse of a soul under self-
condemnation, He could enter into it all, and that most intensely, through that
strong sympathetic love and that perfect knowledge ofour human condition
which we know Him to have possessed. Stillin putting this view before
thoughtful men, I have found them clinging yet to the notion that Christ's
sympathy and temptation could not be perfect without His actually
committing wrong, being a sinner, and overcoming it, which leads me to
another remark or two.(i.) It might be so if sin (actual) were a misfortune that
we could not avoid, a calamity and woe in which we were plunged againstour
will. Then our sympathising Saviour would go with us there. And I think the
difficulty greatly arises from taking that view. But sin is not that. It is a
deliberate intentional act, which at every point we are perfectly conscious of
the ability to avoid. Temptation is not doing wrong. Many men are most
powerfully and sorrowfully tempted in those casesin which they triumph. It
would not lessenthe reality of that temptation if they should conquer in every
case. Nordoes it in Christ who enters perfectly into our temptations so far as
they are suffering and wrestling;but who cannotgo with us, evenin
sympathy, when we turn the temptation into actual crime.(ii.) As a matter of
fact, it is by no means true that we either get or expect most sympathy, as
sinners, from those who have committed most crimes. Quite the opposite.
Nothing so destroys sympathy as wrong doing. And that for a very obvious
reason. Every commissionof crime destroys the sensibility of the soul and
makes us comparatively indifferent both to the suffering of temptation and to
the after sorrows whichform so large a part of the experience of sin. All our
instincts as sinners teachus that it is not in the guilt of another that we shall
find the ground of his sympathy with us; but quite apart from that, in the
moral tenderness of His nature (which the commissionof sin destroys), and in
that generalhumanity of disposition which enables him to make another's
case his own. This is just what we see so wonderfully manifest in Christ. we

may say then that it is His entire freedom from sin in act that gives that fine
tone to His sympathy.(iii.) I only add one remark on the practicalview of the
matter. If you can feelthe force of what I have put before you in removing
objections, then you can unhesitatingly fall back on the simple narrative as it
stands in our Scriptures. And in doing that I may confidently assertthat as a
matter of fact we do in our deepestsinfulness feelthe sympathy of the sinless
Jesus, as we feelno man's sympathy.
3. I have now only briefly to notice the concluding part of this verse. The
entire power of Christianity over us rests in the love, or the loving sympathy
of Christ, towards and with us; just that which we have been looking at. It is
the love of a holy Saviourto us, that breaks our bonds, that gives us hope that
all evil may be conquered, and strengthens us to enter upon the warfare. Most
beautifully has Paul put this fact into its sublimest form, when we thus
understand his words. Christ the sinless, he teaches, came downinto the midst
of our sinful humanity, took it and us into his warmestheart of love, became
conversantwith all the forms of sin that oppress us and make us miserable —
though without everallowing Himself to be in the leastdegree conqueredby
them. Herein He awakensour hearts to love, He strikes to the very depths of
the soulwith His loving sympathy, till His conquestover us is complete.
(S. Edger, B. A.)
Christ made sin
D. Thomas, D. D.
I. CHRIST WAS ABSOLUTELY SINLESS. Notthat He was unacquainted
with sin, for no man knew it so wellas He did. He knew its origin, growth,
ramifications, and all the hells it ever had createdor ever would create. It was
His knowledge ofsin that causedHim to fall prostrate in Gethsemane. What
then does it mean? That personallyHe was free from sin. It never stained His
heart.

1. He was without sin though He lived in a sinful world. Everywhere sin
surrounded Him as a dense, pestiferous atmosphere. But it did not taint Him.
His generationfailed to corrupt Him.
2. He was without sin, though He was powerfully tempted.
II. THAT THOUGH SINLESS, HE WAS, IN SOME SENSE, MADE SIN BY
GOD.
1. This cannotmean that God made the Sinless One a sinner. This would be
impossible.
2. Two facts may throw light upon the expression.(1)ThatGod sent Christ
into a world of sinners to become closelyidentified with them. "He was
numbered with transgressors."(2)ThatHe permitted this world of sinners to
treat and punish Him as if He were the greatestofall.
III. THAT THE SINLESS ONE WAS THUS MADE SIN IN ORDER THAT
MEN MIGHT PARTICIPATE IN GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.The grand
end was the moral restorationof man to the rectitude of God.
(D. Thomas, D. D.)
The sinless recede sin, and the sinful made righteous
S. Martin.
I. CHRIST WAS PERSONALLYSINLESS. The conceptionand birth of
Jesus, while they linked Him to human nature, did not connectHim with
human depravity. He was the secondholy man, but unlike the first He
continued so. He understood the nature of sin, and knew what it was to be
tempted; yet in His own experience He was sinless — He knew no sin in His
desires, motives, volitions, or acts. His heart never knew self-disapprobation.
II. AS THE VOLUNTARY REPRESENTATIVE OF SINFULMEN,
CHRIST WAS THROUGH A LIMITED PERIOD ACCOUNTEDBYGOD
A TRANSGRESSOR.In this sense God"made" Christ sin. Christ was a man
of sorrows and acquainted with grief. He did not come into this condition by

His own misconduct. Free from exposure to suffering on all personalgrounds
He consentedto suffer for us. But Christ held this position only for a time —
and Christ is the only suffering substitute of a guilty race for the purpose of
redemption.
III. THE OBJECT OF GOD IN TREATING CHRIST AS A SINNER WAS
TO PLACE HIMSELF IN A POSITION WHENCE HE MIGHT ACCOUNT
SINFUL MEN RIGHTEOUS, AND REALLY WORK RIGHTEOUSNESS
WITHIN THEM. Generallythe "righteousnessofGod" means that provision
which God has made in the sacrifice ofChrist for the justification of the
ungodly. To be made the righteousness of God by Christ is to have our guilt
removed by His sacrifice, and our persons sanctified. Conclusion: Behold —
1. The riches of the goodnessofGod! God made Christ sin to make us
righteousness.
2. The unutterable love of Christ. He who knew no sin made sin for us, and
this not by constraint, but willingly, not for selfinterest, but of a ready mind.
3. An absolute human necessityprovided for. But for this interposition.
(1)We are lost.
(2)We have no meeting place with God.
(3)We have no offering wherewith to come before God.
4. The hopeful circumstances in which mankind are placed, and the security
of such as participate in Christ's mediation!
5. The lessons which by Christ's mediation God reads to His intelligent
universe (Luke 15.).
(S. Martin.)
Christ made sin for us
R. Brodie, M. A.

I. THE PERSONALCHARACTER OF CHRIST. "He knew no sin." The
virtues of others are only comparative:their excellencies are counterbalanced
by defects. How seldomdo men appearto the same advantage in public and in
private. There are virtues which are in some degree incompatible: the
circumstances whichgo to form the contemplative character, are
unfavourable to the active; and contrariwise. Some virtues border closelyon
defects:— courage degenerates into temerity; caution becomes timidity. It not
unfrequently happens that men, after having establishedtheir claim to some
particular quality, fail in those points in which their chief excellence consists.
It was thus with the faith of Abraham, the meekness ofMoses,and the
patience of Job. Even where there is no flaw in the characterwhichstrikes the
eye of the public, or which is noted by private friendship, the individual
himself is deeply conscious ofhis deficiencies. Confessions ofthis kind are
found in the diaries of Luther. In all the particulars referred to, our Lord
stoodout in marked contrastto the most distinguished servants of God. His
virtues were not comparative, but absolute:there was no inconsistency — no
disproportion, His was not the excellence whicharose from the predominance
of some one virtue, but from the union and harmony of all: in the active and
contemplative, He was alike eminent. In none of His virtues was there any
exaggerationor excess. This purity did not arise from the absence of
temptation. Some who have risen superior to greatertrials, have been
overcome in smaller. To lighter trials our Lord was not less exposedthan to
severerones;nor was His conduct in regard to the one, less admirable than in
regard to the other. Jewishfishermen would never have drawn that character
if they had not seenit.
II. HIS MEDIATORIALOFFICE — "He was made sin for us." To assert,
and to found the assertionon the text, that Christ, having the guilt of our sins
imputed to Him, may be consideredas the greatestsinneron earth, is
language utterly indefensible. It is not to explain the language of Scripture,
but to distort it. Guilt is a personalquality: it is incapable of being
transferred. At the very time that Christ was expiating the guilt of sin upon
the Cross He was the Holy One of God — the just suffering in the room of the
unjust. He who was not guilty suffering in the room of those who were. Some
understand the word "sin" to mean sin-offering. The word rendered sin-

offering, as the marginal reading indicates, strictly signifies sin. The terms are
singularly emphatic. Godmade, or treated, or permitted Christ to be treated,
not merely as sinful, or a sinner, but as sin itself. Look in proof of this to the
records of His life. Considerthe estimate which His enemies formed of His
character. Theydid not speak of Him merely as a sinner, but as a friend or
favourer of sinners. They did not impute to Him merely gluttony and
intemperance, but the indictable offence of blasphemy. "Away with Him,"
was their cry, "let Him be crucified." Had there been nothing more in the
treatment of Christ than what has been here mentioned, the propriety of the
language in the text would have been sufficiently vindicated. But whence the
agonyin Gethsemane?
III. HIS BENEVOLENT UNDERTAKING. "Thatwe might be made the
righteousness ofGod in Him." This clause is to be explained on the same
principle with the former. If by the expression, being made sin for us, is to be
understood His being treated as a sinner, the corresponding expression, being
made the RighteousnessofGod in Him, must imply, that we, on His account,
are treatedas if we were righteous. The sinner on believing in Christ is
acquitted, and treated as if he were righteous. This view of the design of
Christ's sufferings, independently of the direct testimony of the text, follows
from the factof His innocence. If suffering and death are the penalty of sin, as
He could not have suffered for His ownsins, He must have suffered for the
sins of others.
(R. Brodie, M. A.)
Substitution
C. H. Spurgeon.
Note —
I. THE DOCTRINE. There are three persons mentioned here.
1. God. Let every man know what God is.(1) He is a sovereignGod, i.e., He
has absolute powerto do as He pleaseth. And though He cannot be unjust, or

do anything but good, yet is His nature absolutely free;for goodness is the
freedom of God's nature.(2) He is a God of infinite justice. This I infer from
my text; seeing that the way of salvation is a greatplan of satisfying justice.(3)
He is a God of grace. Godis love in its highest degree.
2. The Son of God — essentiallyGod; purely man — the two standing in a
sacredunion together, the God-Man. This God in Christ knew no sin.
3. The sinner. And where is he? Turn your eyes within. You are the person
intended in the text. I must now introduce you to a scene ofa greatexchange.
The third person is the prisoner at the bar. As a sinner, God has calledhim
before Him. God is gracious, and He desires to save;God is just, and He must
punish. "Prisonerat the bar, canstthou plead 'Not guilty'?" He stands
speechless;or, if he speaks, he cries, "I am guilty!" How then shall he escape?
Oh! how did heaven Wonder, when for the first time God showedhow He
might be just, and yet be gracious!when the Almighty said, "My justice says
'smite,' but My love stays my hand, and says, 'spare the sinner'! My Sonshall
stand in thy stead, and be accountedguilty, and thou, the guilty, shalt stand in
My Son's steadand be accountedrighteous!" Do you say that such an
exchange as this is unjust? Let me remind you it was purely voluntary on the
part of Christ, and that it was not an unlawful thing is proved by the fact that
the sovereignGodmade Him a substitute. We have read in history of a certain
wife whose attachmentto her husband was so great, that she had gone into the
prison and exchangedclothes with him; and so the prisoner has escapedby a
kind of surreptitious substitution. In such a case there was a clearbreachof
law, and the prisoner escaping might have been pursued and again
imprisoned. But in this case the substitution was made by the highest
authority.
II. THE USE OF HIS DOCTRINE. "Now, then, we are ambassadors for
God," etc., for — here is our grand argument — "He hath made Him to be sin
for us who knew no sin." I might entreat you to be reconciled, because it
would be a fearful thing to die with God for your enemy. I might on the other
hand remind you that those who are reconciledare thereby inheritors of the
kingdom of heaven. But I shall not urge that; I shall urge the reasonofmy
text. I beseechthee, be reconciledto God, because Christ has stoodin thy

stead;because in this there is proof that God is loving you. Thou thinkest God
to be a Godof wrath. Would He have given then His own Son? God is love;
wilt thou be unreconciledto love?
III. THE SWEET ENJOYMENT WHICHTHIS DOCTRINEBRINGS TO A
BELIEVER. Are you weeping on accountof sin? Why weepestthou? Weep
because ofthy sin, but weepnot through any fear of punishment. Look to thy
perfect Lord, and remember, thou art complete in Him.
(C. H. Spurgeon.)
Christ our sin-offering
J. B. Thomas, D. D.
I. WHAT IS THE ESSENTIALIDEA OF SIN? Some people desire to
minimise sin; some evaporate it entirely away;some sneerat the idea. As men
grow superficial and heartless they lose all true conceptionof sin, as a real,
abiding, universal, awful fact; but, with Luther, we want no painted sin or
painted Christ, we have to do with realities. If sin is not a reality, the Bible is
inexplicable. At the outsetwe saythat sin is not merely an individual, personal
act. It involves the transgressionof the law, but more. No man lives to himself.
No act stops with the actor the actor. Your gun is fired in the air, the blaze
goes from your chimney, but there is grime left in each. So the channels of our
nature grow sooty. The act of sin leaves a stain which we and others see. Sin
sinks into us. The sotis powerless. The fibres of his will are unstranded,
unravelled. The impure become infected through and through. Sin is not a
merely personalact, for it affects others. It scalds and scars the souls about us.
We breathe our speechinto the delicate membrane of the phonograph, turn
the handle, and hear againthe same. Had we instruments delicate enoughwe
might grind out againfrom yonder post the sounds it has recordedhere. No,
sin is not an individual, isolatedact, stopping with the act. Sin is a debt. We
owe something to the laws of our being, those of the universe. We may
overdraw, but we have got to pay sooneror later, though there be a delay. Sin
is also spokenof as a disease. Sinis transmissible to posterity. Furthermore,

we cannot say that it is a natural incident in the process ofevolution, as did
Emerson, so that the thief or the man in the brothel is on his way to
perfection. Such a statement is an insult to conscience, anaffront to God.
Some flippantly saythat Adam's fall was a fall upward, which is absurd. Dives
went down into the pit and Lazarus upward, borne to Abraham's bosom.
Some talk of a lie as but an incomplete form of truth. Then the devil, the
father of lies, is the grandfather of truth! Darkness is partial light! It is folly to
excuse our sin by subterfuge.
II. THE REMEDYAND CURE IS A CRUCIFIED CHRIST. "Sinfor us, who
knew no sin." Christ, once for all, has been made a sacrifice forsin. He
instead of the sinner dies. His death for sin is a realmatter. He alone can
deliver and purify those who are polluted by sin.
(J. B. Thomas, D. D.)
The substitution of one for all
D. Rees.
Note —
I. THAT THE SAVIOUR WAS PERSONALLY FREE FROM ALL SIN. "He
knew no sin."
1. And of whom can this be said, but of Him? There is not one who must not
acknowledge withDavid, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my
mother conceive me." And if our Saviour had been born, like others, after the
flesh, such would have been His state also. But He knew no sin. Though He
assumedour nature He did not partake of its corruption. Before His
incarnation He was knownas the Holy One of Israel;before His birth, He was
declaredto be a holy thing; and when He was born, He was born "without
spot of sin, to make us cleanfrom all sin." Thus the Lord createda new thing
in the earth. Christ then was born into the world holy, perfectly holy; did He
continue so till He left it? The disciple who betrayed Him, confessedthat he
had betrayed the innocent blood.

2. And this was necessaryin order to His being the Saviour of sinners. If He
had once sinned, His obedience would not have been commensurate with the
demands of the law which we had broken (Hebrews 7:26).
II. THAT GOD MADE HIM, WHO KNEW NO SIN, TO BE SIN FOR US,
i.e., a sin offering. Sin is a greatevil, and required a great sacrifice. Itis a
breach of God's law which is holy, just, and good; and subjects the unhappy
transgressorto the heavy curse of that law (Galatians 3:10); and to us sinners
there was no hope of deliverance, unless some one should be found who could
make a sufficient atonement. We could never have done this. Neither
repentance, nor future obedience would have been sufficient to repair the
breach which sin had made. No personalsufferings of ours could ever have
expiated our offences. Eventhe sacrifices under the law could not make the
comers thereunto perfect. Christ redeemedus from the curse of the law by
being made a curse for us. He left no demand of the law unfulfilled, and no
claim of Divine justice unsatisfied. His work is perfect. There needs no
righteousness ofour own to be added to His, nor any sufferings of our own to
be joined to those which He endured.
III. THE END WHICH GOD HAD IN VIEW. "Thatwe might be made the
righteousness ofGod in Him."
1. God, the moral Governor of the world, requires righteousnessfrom all the
children of Adam. But we have all come short of the glory of God, and of the
righteousness He requires. How then canman be just with God? There is no
answerbut that of the gospel. There we read that the Son of God in human
nature — the nature which had sinned — became obedient to the law for man,
obedient unto death, and thus brought in perfect and everlasting
righteousness. We readalso that this righteousness is imputed to us of God,
for our complete justification before Him, the very moment we believe in
Christ; which is therefore calledbelieving unto righteousness. There is thus a
reciprocalimputation; the believer's guilt is transferred to the Saviour, and
the Saviour's righteousness made over to the believer. And as that Saviour is a
Divine SaviourHis righteousness may, with the strictestpropriety, be called
the righteousnessofGod.

2. This happy and glorious change of state is attended with the most blessed
and transforming effects on the spirit and conduct. He who frees from the
guilt and consequences ofsin, delivers also from its love and power. Christ is
made of God sanctificationas well as righteousness. The very faith which
justifies, sanctifies also. In particular, it secures the gift of the Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of Christ, by whose powerful operations we are renewedin
righteousness andtrue holiness, after the image of God. Conclusion:
1. How glorious does the characterof God appearin all this! Mark —
(1)His love. Was there ever such love?
(2)His wisdom in providing a Saviour so exactly adapted to our wants.
(3)His holiness and justice.
2. How anxiously should we inquire whether we are made the righteousness of
God in Christ!
3. How studious should we be to grow in grace and in holiness, and thus evince
that our faith is a lively and active principle, working by love, and bringing
forth much fruit to the glory of God!
(D. Rees.)
The heart of the gospel
C. H. Spurgeon
1. The heart of the gospelis redemption, and the essenceofredemption is the
substitutionary sacrifice ofChrist. They who preachnot the atonement,
whateverelse they declare, have missed the souland substance of the Divine
message. In the days of Nero there was greatshortness of foodin Rome,
although there was abundance at Alexandria. A certain man who owned a
vesselwentdown to the sea coast, and there he noticed many hungry people,
watching for the vessels that were to come from Egypt. When these vessels
came to the shore there was nothing but sand in them which the tyrant had
compelled them to bring for use in the arena: Then the merchant said to his

shipmaster, "Takethou goodheed that thou bring nothing back with thee
from Alexandria but corn, for these people are dying, and now we must keep
our vessels forthis one business of bringing food for them." Alas! I have seen
certain mighty galleys of late loaded with nothing but mere sand of philosophy
and speculation, and I have said, "Nay, but I will bear nothing in my ship but
the revealedtruth of God, the bread of life so greatlyneeded by the people."
2. The doctrine of substitution is setforth in the text. I have found, by long
experience, that nothing touches the heart like the Cross of Christ. The Cross
is life to the spiritually dead. There is an old legend that when the Empress
Helena was searching forthe true Cross they found the three Crossesof
Calvary buried in the soil. Which out of the three was the veritable Cross they
could not tell, except by certain tests. So they brought a corpse and laid it on
one, but there was neither life nor nation, but when it touched another it
lived; and then they said, "This is the true Cross."
I. WHO WAS MADE SIN FOR US? "He who knew no sin."
1. He had no personalknowledge ofsin. Throughout the whole of His life He
never committed an offence againstthe great law of truth and right. "Which
of you convinceth Me of sin?" Even His vacillating judge enquired, "Why,
what evil hath He done?"
2. As there was no sin of commission, so was there about our Lord no fault of
omission. He was complete in heart, in purpose, in thought, in word, in deed,
in spirit.
3. Yea, more, there were no tendencies about our Substitute towards evil in
any form.
4. It was absolutelynecessarythat any one who should be able to suffer in our
steadshould Himself be spotless.
II. WHAT WAS DONE WITH HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN? He was "made
sin." The Lord laid upon Jesus, who voluntarily undertook it, all the weight of
human sin. Instead of its resting on the sinner it was made to restupon Christ.
Christ was not guilty, and could not be made guilty; but He was treatedas if
He were, because He willed to strand in the place of the guilty. Yea, He was

not only treatedas a sinner, but He was treatedas if He had been sin itself in
the abstract. Sin pressedour great Substitute very sorely. He felt the weightof
it in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the full pressure of it came upon Him
when He was nailed to the accursedtree. The Greek liturgy fitly speaks of
"Thine unknown sufferings":probably to us they are unknowable sufferings.
The Lord made the perfectly innocent one to be sin for us: that means more of
humiliation, darkness, agony, and death than you canconceive. I will not say
that He endured either the exactpunishment for sin, or an equivalent for it;
but I do say that what He endured rendered to the justice of God a vindication
of His law more clearand more effectualthan would have been rendered to it
by the damnation of the sinners for whom He died. The Cross is under many
aspects a more full revelationof the wrath of God againsthuman sin than
even Tophet.
III. WHO DID IT? "He," i.e., God Himself. The wise ones tell us that this
substitution cannot be just. Who made them judges of what is just? Do they
say that He died as an example? Then is it just for Godto allow a sinless being
to die as an example? In the appointment of the Lord Jesus to be made sin for
us, there was a display of —
1. The Divine Sovereignty. God here did what none but He could have done.
He is the fountain of rectitude, and the exercise ofHis Divine prerogative is
always unquestionable righteousness.
2. The Divine justice.
3. The great grace ofGod. God Himself provided the atonement by freely and
fully giving up Himself in the personof His Son to suffer in consequenceof
human sin. If God did it, it is welldone. If God Himself provided the sacrifice,
be you sure that He has acceptedit.
IV. WHAT HAPPENS TO US IN CONSEQUENCE?"Thatwe might be
made the righteousness ofGod in Him." Every man that believes in Jesus is
through Christ having takenhis sin made to be righteous before God. More
than this, we are made not only to have the characterof "righteous," but to
become the substance called"righteousness." Whatis more we are made "the
righteousness ofGod." Herein is a greatmystery. The righteousness which

Adam had in the garden was perfect, but it was the righteousness ofman:
ours is the righteousness ofGod. Human righteousness failed;but the believer
has a Divine righteousness whichcan never fail. How acceptable with God
must those be who are made by God Himself to be "the righteousness ofGod
in Him"! I cannotconceive of any thing more complete.
(C. H. Spurgeon).
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(21) Forhe hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.—The “for” is
omitted in many of the best MSS., but there is clearly a sequence ofthought
such as it expresses. The Greek orderof the words is more emphatic: Him
that knew no sin He made sin for us. The words are, in the first instance, an
assertionofthe absolute sinlessnessofChrist. All other men had an
experience of its power, gained by yielding to it. He alone gained this
experience by resisting it, and yet suffering its effects. None could“convict
Him of sin” (John 8:46). The “Prince of this world had nothing in Him” (John
14:30). (Comp. Hebrews 7:26; 1Peter2:22.)And then there comes what we
may call the paradox of redemption. He, God, made the sinless One to be
“sin.” The word cannotmean, as has been said sometimes, a “sin offering.”
That meaning is foreign to the New Testament, and it is questionable whether
it is found in the Old, Leviticus 5:9 being the nearestapproachto it. The train
of thought is that God dealt with Christ, not as though He were a sinner, like
other men, but as though He were sin itself, absolutely identified with it. So, in
Galatians 3:13, he speaks ofChrist as made “a curse for us,” and in Romans
8:3 as “being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” We have here, it is obvious,
the germ of a mysterious thought, out of which forensic theories of the
atonement, of various types, might be and have been developed. It is
characteristic ofSt. Paul that he does not so develop it. Christ identified with

man’s sin: mankind identified with Christ’s righteousness—thatis the truth,
simple and yet unfathomable, in which he is content to rest.
That we might be made the righteousness ofGod in him.—Better, that we
might become. The “righteousnessofGod,” as in Romans 3:21-22, expresses
not simply the righteousness whichHe gives, nor that which He requires,
though neither of these meanings is excluded, but rather that which belongs to
Him as His essentialattribute. The thought of St. Paul is that, by our
identification with Christ—first ideally and objectively, as far as God’s action
is concerned, and then actually and subjectively, by that actof will which he
calls faith—we are made sharers in the divine righteousness. So, under like
conditions, St. Peterspeaks ofbelievers as “made partakers of the divine
nature” (2Peter1:4). In actual experience, ofcourse, this participation is
manifested in infinitely varying degrees. St. Paul contemplates it as a single
objective fact. The importance of the passagelies in its presenting the truth
that the purpose of God in the death of Christ was not only or chiefly that
men might escape punishment, but that they might become righteous.
BensonCommentary
2 Corinthians 5:21. Forhe made him, who knew no sin — A commendation
peculiar to Christ; to be sin — Or a sin-offering rather, (as the expression
often signifies both in the Old Testamentand the New;) for us — Who knew
no righteousness, who were inwardly and outwardly nothing but sin, and who
must have been consumed by the divine justice, had not this atonement been
made for our sins; that we might be made the righteousness ofGod in him —
Might be accountedand constituted righteous by God, or might be invested
with that righteousness;1st, imputed to us; 2d, implanted in us; and, 3d,
practisedby us; which is, in every sense, the righteousness ofGod by faith. See
note on Romans 10:4; Php 3:9.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:16-21 The renewedman acts upon new principles, by new rules, with new
ends, and in new company. The believer is createdanew; his heart is not

merely setright, but a new heart is given him. He is the workmanship of God,
createdin Christ Jesus unto goodworks. Thoughthe same as a man, he is
changedin his characterand conduct. These words must and do mean more
than an outward reformation. The man who formerly saw no beauty in the
Saviour that he should desire him, now loves him above all things. The heart
of the unregenerate is filled with enmity againstGod, and God is justly
offended with him. Yet there may be reconciliation. Our offended God has
reconciledus to himself by Jesus Christ. By the inspiration of God, the
Scriptures were written, which are the word of reconciliation;showing that
peace has been made by the cross, and how we may be interested therein.
Though God cannot lose by the quarrel, nor gain by the peace, yet he
beseeches sinners to lay aside their enmity, and acceptthe salvation he offers.
Christ knew no sin. He was made Sin; not a sinner, but Sin, a Sin-offering, a
Sacrifice for sin. The end and design of all this was, that we might be made the
righteousness ofGod in him, might be justified freely by the grace of God
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Canany lose, labour, or
suffer too much for Him, who gave his beloved Sonto be the Sacrifice for
their sins, that they might be made the righteousness ofGodin him?
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
For he hath made him to be sin for us - The Greek here is, 'for him who knew
no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us.' The design of this very
important verse is, to urge the strongestpossible reasonfor being reconciled
to God. This is implied in the word (γὰρ gar) "for." Paul might have urged
other arguments, and presented other strong considerations.But he choosesto
present this fact, that Christ has been made sin for us, as embodying and
concentrating all. It is the most affecting of all arguments; it is the one that is
likely to prove most effectual. It is not indeed improper to urge on people
every other considerationto induce them to be reconciledto God. It is not
improper to appealto them by the convictionof duty; to appealto their
reasonand conscience;to remind them of the claims, the power, the goodness,
and the fear of the Creator;to remind them of the awful consequencesofa
continued hostility to God; to persuade them by the hope of heaven, and by
the fearof hell 2 Corinthians 5:1 l to become his friends: but, after all, the
strongestargument, and that which is most adapted to melt the soul, is the

fact that the Son of God has become incarnate for our sins, and has suffered
and died in our stead. When all other appeals fail this is effectual;and this is
in fact the strong argument by which the mass of those who become
Christians are induced to abandon their oppositionand to become reconciled
to God.
To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original. Literally, it is, 'he has
made him sin, or a sin-offering' ἁμαρτίανἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen. But
what is meant by this? What is the exactidea which the apostle intended to
convey? I answer, it cannot be:
(1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend
this. The expressionmust 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 saidthat he was holy, harmless,
undefiled. Nor,
(3) Can it mean that he was, in any proper sense ofthe word, guilty, for no
one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressorofthe Law; and if he
was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deservedto 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 respectwhether 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 Redeemera 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 systemof religion, that in all conceivable sensesof
the expressionhe was holy, and pure, and the objectof the divine
approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statementthat he was
in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deservedto die, is "prima facie" a
false view, and should be at once abandoned. But,

(4) If the declarationthat he was made "sin" (ἁμαρτίανhamartian) 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 generallyadopted by expositors;or it must be
takenas an abstractfor the concrete, and mean that God treatedhim 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 passagesin the Old Testamentwhere the word "sin" (ἁμαρτία
hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice forsin. Thus,
Hosea 4:8, "Theyeat up the sin of my people;" that is, the sin-offerings; see
Ezekiel43:22, Ezekiel43:25;Ezekiel44:29;Ezekiel45:22-23, Ezekiel45:25.
See Whitby's note on this verse. But whichevermeaning is adopted, whether it
means that he was a sacrifice for sin, or that God treated him as if he were a
sinner, that is, subjectedhim to sufferings which, if he had been personally a
sinner, would have been a proper expressionof his hatred of transgression,
ands proper punishment for sin, in either case it means that he made an
atonement; that he died for sin; that his death was not merely that of a
martyr; but that it was designedby substituted sufferings to make
reconciliationbetweenman and God. Locke renders this: probably expressing
the true sense, "ForGodhath made him subject to suffering and death, the
punishment and consequence ofsin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were
guilty of no sin." To me, it seems probable that the sense is, that God treated
him as if he had been a sinner; that he subjected him to such pains and woes
as would have been a proper punishment if he had been guilty; that while he
was, in fact, in all sensesperfectlyinnocent, and while God knew this, yet that
in consequence ofthe voluntary assumption of the place of man which the
Lord Jesus took, it pleasedthe Father to lay on him the deep sorrows which
would be the proper expressionof his sense of the evil of sin; that he endured
so much suffering, as would answerthe same greatends in maintaining the
truth, and honor, and justice of God, as if the guilty had themselves endured
the penalty of the Law. This, I suppose, is what is usually meant when it is said
"our sins were imputed to him;" and though this language is not used in the

Bible, and though it is liable to greatmisapprehension and perversion, yet if
this is its meaning, there can be no objectionto it.
(Certainly Christ's being made sin, is not to be explained of his being made sin
in the abstract, nor of his having actually become a sinner; yet it does imply,
that sin was chargedon Christ, or that it was imputed to him, and that he
became answerable forit. Nor canthis idea be excluded, even if we admit that
"sin-offering" is the proper rendering of ἁμαρτία hamartia in the passage.
"ThatChrist," says an old divine commenting on this place, "was made sin
for us, because he was a sacrifice forsin, we confess;but therefore was he a
sacrifice for sin because our sins were imputed to him, and punished in him."
The doctrine of imputation of sin to Christ is here, by plain enoughinference
at least. The rendering in our Bibles, however, asserts it in a more direct form.
Nor, after all the criticism that has been expended on the text, does there seem
any necessityforthe abandonment of that rendering, on the part of the
advocate ofimputation. For first ἁμαρτία hamartia in the Septuagint, and the
corresponding ‫םׁשא‬ 'aashaamin the Hebrew, denote both the sin and the sin-
offering, the peculiar sacrifice and the crime itself. Second, the antithesis in
the passage,so obvious and beautiful, is destroyed by the adoption of "sin-
offering." Christ was made sin, we righteousness.
There seems in our author's comment on this place, and also at Romans 5, an
attempt to revive the oft-refuted objectionagainstimputation, namely, that it
involves something like a transference of moral character, an infusion, rather
than an imputation of sin or righteousness. Nothing of this kind is at all
implied in the doctrine. Its advocates withone voice disclaim it; and the
reader will see the objection answeredatlength in the supplementary notes at
Romans 4 and Romans 5. What then is the value of such arguments or
insinuations as these: "All such views as go to make the Holy Redeemera
sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings he endured, border on
blasphemy," etc. Nor is it wiserto affirm that "if Christ was properly guilty, it
would make no difference in this respect, whetherit was by his own fault or
by imputation." What may be meant in this connectionby "properly guilty,"
we know not. But this is certain, that there is an immense difference between
Christ's having the guilt of our iniquities chargedon him, and having the guilt
of his own so charged.

It is admitted in the commentary, that God "treatedChrist as if he had been a
sinner," and this is allegedas the probable sense ofthe passage. Butthis
treatment of Christ on the part of God, must have some ground, and where
shall we find it, unless in the imputation of sin to him? If the guilt of our
iniquities, or which is the same thing, the Law obligationto punishment, be
not chargedon Christ, how in justice can he be subjected to the punishment?
If he had not voluntarily come under such obligation, what claim did law have
on him? That the very words "sinimputed to Christ" are not found in
scripture, is not a very formidable objection. The words in this text are
strongerand better "He was made sin," and says Isaiah, according to the
rendering of Dr. Lowth, "The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquities of
us all. It was required of him, and he was made answerable." Isa, Isaiah53:6.)
Who knew no sin - He was not guilty. He was perfectly holy and pure. This
idea is thus expressedby Peter1 Peter2:22; "who did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth;" and in Hebrews 7:26, it is said he was "holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." In all respects, andin all
conceivable senses,the Lord Jesus was pure and holy. If he had not been, he
would not have been qualified to make an atonement. Hence, the sacred
writers are everywhere at great pains to keepthis idea prominent, for on this
depends the whole superstructure of the plan of salvation. The phrase "knew
no sin," is an expressionof great beauty and dignity. It indicates his entire
and perfectpurity. He was altogetherunacquainted with sin; he was a
strangerto transgression;he was conscious ofno sin; he committed none. He
had a mind and heart perfectly free from pollution, and his whole life was
perfectly pure and holy in the sight of God.
That we might be made the righteousness ofGod - This is a Hebraism,
meaning the same as divinely righteous. It means that we are made righteous
in the sight of God; that is, that we are acceptedas righteous, and treated as
righteous by God on accountof what the Lord Jesus has done. There is here
an evident and beautiful contrastbetweenwhat is said of Christ, and what is
said of us. He was made sin; we are made righteousness;that is, he was
treated as if he were a sinner, though he was perfectly holy and pure; we are
treated as if we were righteous, though we are defiled and depraved. The idea
is, that on accountof what the Lord Jesus has endured in our behalf we are

treated as if we had ourselves entirely fulfilled the Law of God, and bad never
become exposedto its penalty. In the phrase "righteousness ofGod," there is
a reference to the fact that this is his plan of making people righteous, or of
justifying them.
They who thus become righteous, or are justified, are justified on his plan,
and by a scheme which he has devised. Locke renders this: "that we, in and by
him, might be made righteous, by a righteousness imputed to us by God." The
idea is, that all our righteousnessin the sight of God we receive in and
through a Redeemer. All is to be traced to him. This verse contains a beautiful
epitome of the whole plan of salvation, and the uniqueness of the Christian
scheme. On the one hand, one who was perfectly innocent, by a voluntary
substitution, is treated As if he were guilty; that is, is subjectedto pains and
sorrows whichif he were guilty would be a proper punishment for sin: and on
the other, they who are guilty and who deserve to be punished, are treated,
through his vicarious sufferings, as if they were perfectly innocent; that is, in a
manner which would be a proper expressionof God's approbation if he had
not sinned. The whole plan, therefore, is one of substitution; and without
substitution, there can be no salvation. Innocence voluntarily suffers for guilt,
and the guilty are thus made pure and holy, and are saved. The greatness of
the divine compassionand love is thus shownfor the guilty; and on the
ground of this it is right and proper for God to call on people to be reconciled
to him. It is the strongestargumentthat can be used. When God has given his
only Son to the bitter suffering of death on the cross in order that we may be
reconciled, it is the highest possible argument which canbe used why we
should ceaseouropposition to him, and become his friends.
continued...
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
21. For—omitted in the oldest manuscripts. The grand reasonwhy they
should be reconciledto God, namely, the great atonementin Christ provided
by God, is statedwithout the "for" as being part of the message of
reconciliation(2Co 5:19).
he—God.

sin—not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to "righteousness,"
and would make "sin" be used in different senses in the same sentence:not a
sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis
"righteous men," not "righteousness";but "sin," that is, the representative
Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sinof all men past, present, and
future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is
used; though its manifestations are manifold (Joh 1:29). "Beholdthe Lamb of
God, that taketh awaythe SIN of the world." Compare "made a curse for us,"
Ga 3:13.
for us—Greek,"in our behalf." Compare Joh 3:14, Christ being represented
by the brazen serpent, the form, but not the substance, of the old serpent. At
His death on the cross the sin-bearing for us was consummated.
knew no sin—by personalexperience (Joh8:46) [Alford]. Heb 7:26; 1Pe 2:22;
1Jo 3:5.
might be made—not the same Greek as the previous "made." Rather, "might
become."
the righteousnessofGod—Notmerely righteous, but righteousness itself;not
merely righteousness,but the righteousness ofGod, because Christ is God,
and what He is we are (1Jo 4:17), and He is "made of God unto us
righteousness."As our sin is made over to Him, so His righteousness to us (in
His having fulfilled all the righteousness ofthe law for us all, as our
representative, Jer23:6; 1Co 1:30). The innocent was punished voluntarily as
if guilty, that the guilty might be gratuitously rewardedas if innocent (1Pe
2:24). "Suchare we in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God
himself" [Hooker].
in him—by virtue of our standing in Him, and in union with Him [Alford].
Matthew Poole's Commentary
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: Christ knew no sin,
as he was guilty of no sin; Which of you (saith he, John 8:46) convinceth me of
sin? 1 Peter2:22, He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: but God
made him to be sin for us. He was numbered with the transgressors, Isaiah

53:12. Our sins were reckonedto him; so as though personally he was no
sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was
made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so answering the type in the law,
Leviticus 4:3,25,29 5:6 7:2.
That we might be made the righteousness ofGod in him; that so his
righteousness might be imputed to us, and we might be made righteous with
such a righteousness as those souls must have whom God will accept. As
Christ was not made sin by any sin inherent in him, so neither are we made
righteous by any righteousness inherent in us, but by the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us; as he was a sinner by the sins of his people reckoned
and imputed unto him.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For he hath made him to be sin for us,.... Christ was made of a woman, took
flesh of a sinful woman; though the flesh he took of her was not sinful, being
sanctifiedby the Spirit of God, the former of Christ's human nature:
however, he appeared"in the likeness ofsinful flesh"; being attended with
infirmities, the effects of sin, though sinless;and he was traduced by men as a
sinner, and treated as such. Moreover, he was made a sacrifice for sin, in
order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word signifies
both sin and a sin offering; see Psalm40:6 and so Romans 8:3. But besides all
this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were
transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placedto his account;he sustained
their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being
chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treatedby the justice of
God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin,
is a strongerexpressionthan to be made a sinner: but now that this may
appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that
he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made
sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but
through his Father's actof imputation, to which he agreed;for it was "he"
that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they

traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him
at Pilate's bar as such; nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily
engagedto be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their
sins, and gave himself an offering for them; but he, his Father, is said to make
him sin; it was he that "laid", or "made to meet" on him, the iniquity of us
all; it was he that made his soul an offering for sin, and delivered him up into
the hands of justice, and to death, and that "for us", in "our" room and stead,
to bear the punishment of sin, and make satisfactionand atonement for it; of
which he was capable, and for which he was greatly qualified: for he
knew no sin; which cannotbe understood or pure absolute ignorance of sin;
for this cannot agree with him, neither as God, nor as Mediator; he full well
knew the nature of sin, as it is a transgressionofGod's law; he knows the
origin of sin, the corrupt heart of man, and the desperate wickednessofthat;
he knows the demerit, and the sad consequencesofit; he knows, and he takes
notice of too, the sins of his own people; and he knows the sins of all wicked
men, and will bring them all into judgment, convince of them, and condemn
for them: but he knew no sin so as to approve of it, and like it; he hates,
abhors, and detests it; he never was conscious ofany sin to himself; he never
knew anything of this kind by, and in himself; nor did he ever commit any,
nor was any ever found in him, by men or devils, though diligently soughtfor.
This is mentioned, partly that we may better understand in what sense he was
made sin, or a sinner, which could be only by the imputation of the sins of
others, since he had no sin of his own; and partly to show that he was a very
fit person to bear and take awaythe sins of men, to become a sacrifice for
them, seeing he was the Lamb of God, without spot and blemish, typified in
this, as in other respects, by the sacrificesofthe legaldispensation;also to
make it appear that he died, and was cut off in a judicial way, not for himself,
his ownsins, but for the transgressions ofhis people; and to express the
strictness of divine justice in not sparing the Son of God himself, though holy
and harmless, when he had the sins of others upon him, and had made himself
responsible for them. The end of his being made sin, though he himself had
none, was,
that we might be made the righteousness ofGod in him; not the essential
righteousness ofGod, which canneither be imparted nor imputed; nor any

righteousness ofGod wrought in us; for it is a righteousness "in him", in
Christ, and not in ourselves, and therefore must mean the righteousness of
Christ; so called, because it is wrought by Christ, who is God over all, the true
God, and eternal life; and because it is approved of by God the Father,
acceptedofby him, for, and on the behalf of his elect, as a justifying one; it is
what he bestows on them, and imputes unto them for their justification; it is a
righteousness, andit is the only one which justifies in the sight of God. Now to
be made the righteousness ofGod, is to be made righteous in the sight of God,
by the imputation of the righteousness ofChrist. Justas Christ is made sin, or
a sinner, by the imputation of the sins of others to him; so they are made
righteousness, orrighteous persons, through the imputation of his
righteousness to them; and in no other way canthe one be made sin, or the
other righteousness. And this is said to be "in him", in Christ; which shows,
that though Christ's righteousnessis unto all, and upon all them that believe,
it is imputed to them, and put upon them; it is not anything wrought in them;
it is not inherent in them. "Surely in the Lord have I righteousness and
strength", says the church, Isaiah45:24 and also, that the way in which we
come by this righteousness is by being in Christ; none have it reckonedto
them, but who are in him, we are first "of" God"in" Christ, and then he is
made unto us righteousness. Secretbeing in Christ, or union to him from
everlasting, is the ground and foundation of our justification, by his
righteousness, as openbeing in Christ at conversionis the evidence of it.
Geneva Study Bible
For he hath made him to be {q} sin for us, who {r} knew no sin; that we might
be made the {s} righteousness ofGod in him.
(q) A sinner, not in himself, but by imputation of the guilt of all our sins to
him.
(r) Who was completely void of sin.
(s) Righteous before God, and that with righteousnesswhich is not
fundamental in us, but being fundamental in Christ, God imputes it to us
through faith.

EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
2 Corinthians 5:21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one
side of it being the previous prayer), for this must logicallyhave precededthe
prayer (in opposition to Hofmann); but the inducing motive, belonging to the
δεόμεθα κ.τ.λ., forcomplying with the καταλλ. τῷ θεῷ, by holding forth what
has been done on God’s side in order to justify men. This weighty motive
emerges without γάρ, and is all the more urgen.
τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτ.]description of sinlessness(τὸναὐτοδικαιοσύνηνὄντα,
Chrysostom); for sin had not become knownexperimentally to the moral
consciousnessofJesus;it was to Him, because non-existentin Him, a thing
unknown from His own experience. This was the necessarypostulate for His
accomplishing the work of reconciliation.
The μή with the participle gives at all events a subjective negation; yet it may
be doubtful whether it means the judgment of God (Billroth, Osiander,
Hofmann, Winer) or that of the Christian consciousness(so Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p 279:“quem talem virum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam
non habuerit”). The former is to be preferred, because it makes the motive,
Which is given in 2 Corinthians 5:21, appear stronger. The sinlessness of
Jesus was presentto the consciousness ofGod, when He made Him to be
sin.[242]Rückert, quite without ground, gives up any explanation of the force
of μή by erroneously remarking that betweenthe article and the participle
ΜΉ always appears, never Οὐ. See e.g. from the N. T., Romans 9:25;
Galatians 4:27; 1 Peter2:10; Ephesians 5:4; and from profane authors, Plat.
Rep. p. 427 E: τὸ οὐχ εὑρημένον, Plut. de garrul. p. 98, ed. Hutt.: πρὸς τοὺς
οὐκ ἀκούοντας, Arist. Eccl. 187:ὁ δʼ οὐ λαβών, Lucian, Charid 14:
διηγούμενοι τὰ οὐκ ὄντα, adv, Ind. 5, and many other passage.

ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] for our benefit (more precise explanation: ἕνα ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ.), is
emphatically prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling the
prayer in 2 Corinthians 5:20; hence also ἩΜΕῖς is afterwards repeated.
Regarding ὙΠΈΡ, which no more means insteadhere than it does in
Galatians 3:13 (in opposition to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 134,
and older commentators), see onRomans 5:6. The thought of substitution is
only introduced by what follow.
ἁμαρτίανἐποίησε]abstractum pro concreto (comp. λῆρος, ὄλεθρος, and the
like in the classicwriters, Kühner, II. p. 26), denoting more strongly that
which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Pind. pp. 145, 476), andἐποίησε
expresses the setting up of the state, in which Christ was actuallyexhibited by
God as the concretumof ἁμαρτία, as ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛΌς,in being subjectedby
Him to suffer the punishment of death;[243] comp. κατάρα, Galatians 3:13.
Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 437, thinks of Christ’s having with His
incarnation receivedalso the principle of sin, although He remained without
παράβασις. But this is not containedeven in Romans 8:3; in the present
passageit can only be imported at variance with the words (ἁμ. ἐποίησεν), and
the distinction betweenὁμαρτία and παράβασις is quite foreign to the passage.
Even the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentiallyin the fact
that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin.
Christol. p. 83 ff.), does not fully meet the sacrificialconceptionofthe apostle,
which is not to be explained away. For, taking ἁμαρτίανas sin-offering ( ,‫א‬ ָׁ‫ׁש‬ ָׁ‫ם‬
‫םח‬ ָָּׁ ‫,)תא‬ with Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis,
Rosenmüller, Ewald, and others,[244]there is no sure basis laid even in the
language ofthe LXX. (Leviticus 6:25; Leviticus 6:30; Leviticus 5:9; Numbers
8:8); it is at variance with the constantusage of the N. T., and here, moreover,
especiallyat variance with the previous ἁμαρτ.
γενώμεθα]aorist (see the critical remarks), without reference to the relationof
time. The present of the Recepta woulddenote that the coming of the ἡμεῖς to

be ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (to be ΔΊΚΑΙΟΙ) still continues with the progress ofthe
conversions to Christ. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Crit. p. 43 B: “id, quod
propositum fuit, nondum perfectum et transactum est, sed adhuc durare
cogitatur;” see also Hermann, ad Viger. 850.
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ]i.e. justified by God. See on Romans 1:17. Notthank-
offering (Michaelis, Schulz); not an offering just before God, well-pleasing to
Him, but as δωρεὰ θεοῦ (Romans 5:17), the opposite of all ἸΔΊΑ
ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (Romans 10:3). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of 2
Corinthians 5:20 are then those, who Τῇ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝῌ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΟὐΧ
ὙΠΕΤΆΓΗΣΑΝ, Romans 10:3.
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] for in Christ, namely, in His death of reconciliation(Romans
3:25), as causa meritoria, our being made righteous has its originating
ground.
[242]Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 100.
[243]It is to be noted, however, that ἁμαρτίαν, justlike κατάρα, Galatians
3:13, necessarilyincludes in itself the notion of guilt; further, that the guilt of
which Christ, made to be sin and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was not
His own (μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν), and that hence the guilt of men, who through
His death were to be justified by God, was transferredto Him; consequently
the justification of men is imputative. This at the same time in opposition to
Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 329, according to whom (comp. his explanation
at our passage)Paulis held merely to express that Godhas allowedsin to
realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him, while it was not in Him as conduct.
Certainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it lay upon Him as the guilt of men
to be atonedfor through His sacrifice, Romans 3:25;Colossians2:14;
Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter2:24; John 1:29, al.; for which reasonHis suffering

finds itself scripturally regardednot under the point of view of experience
befalling Him, evil, or the like, but only under that of guilt-atoning and penal
suffering. Comp. 1 John 2:2.
[244]This interpretation is preferred by Ritschlin the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863,
p. 249, for the specialreasonthat, according to the ordinary interpretation,
there is an incongruity betweenthe end aimed at (actualrighteousness of
God) and the means (appearing as a sinner). But this difficulty is obviated by
observing that Christ is conceivedby the apostle as in reality bearer of the
divine κκτάρα, and His death as mors vicaria for the benefit (ὑπέρ) of the
sinful men, to be whose ἱλαστήριονHe was accordinglymade by God a sinner.
As the γίνεσθαι δικαιοσύνηνθεοῦ took place for men imputatively, so also did
the ἁμαρτίανἐποίησεναὐτόνtake place for Christ imputatively. In this lies
the congruity.
Expositor's Greek Testament
2 Corinthians 5:21. The very purpose of the Atonement was that men should
turn from sin.—τὸνμὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίανκ.τ.λ.:Him who knew no sin (observe
μὴ rather than οὐ, as it is not so much the bare fact of Christ’s sinlessnessthat
is emphasised, as God’s knowledge ofthis fact, which rendered Christ a
possible Mediator) He made to be sin on our behalf. Two points are especially
deserving of attention here: (i.) That any man should be sinless (cf.
Ecclesiastes8:5) was an idea quite alien to Jewishthought and belief; and
therefore the emphasis given to it by St. Paul, and the absolutely unqualified
way in which it is laid down in a letter addressedto a community containing
not only friends but foes who would eagerlyfastenon any doubtful statement,
show that it must have been regardedas axiomatic among Christians at the
early date when this Epistle was written. The claim involved in the challenge
of Christ, τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας (John8:46), had never been
disproved, and the Apostolic age held that He was χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας …
ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν(Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26),
and that ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἕστιν (1 John 3:5; cf. St. Peter’s application of
Isaiah53:9 at 1 Peter2:22). That He was a moral Miracle was certainly part

of the primitive Gospel, (ii.) The statement ἁμαρτίανἐποίησενis best
understood if we recall the Jewishritual on the Day of Atonement, when the
priest was directed to “place” the sins of the people upon the head of the
scapegoat(Leviticus 16:21). ἁμαρτία cannotbe translated “sin-offering” (as at
Leviticus 4:8; Leviticus 4:21; Leviticus 4:24; Leviticus 4:34; Leviticus 5:9-12),
for it cannothave two different meanings in the same clause;and further it is
contrastedwith δικαιοσύνη, itmeans “sin” in the abstract. The penalties of
sin were laid on Christ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, “on our behalf,” and thus as the
Representative ofthe world’s sin it becomes possible to predicate of Him the
strange expressionἁμαρτίανἐποίησεν(ποιέω being used here as at John 5:18;
John 8:53; John 10:33). The nearestparallel in the N.T. is γενόμενος ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν κατάρα (Galatians 3:13);cf. also Isaiah53:6, Romans 8:3, 1 Peter
2:24.—ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα κ.τ.λ.:that we might become, sc., as we have
become (note the force of the aorist), the righteousness ofGod in Him (cf.
Jeremiah23:6, 1 Corinthians 1:30, Php 3:9, and reff.). “Suchwe are in the
sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself. Let it be counted
folly or frenzy or fury or whatsoever. It is our wisdom and our comfort; we
care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned and God
hath suffered; that God hath made Himself the sin of men, and that men are
made the righteousness ofGod” (Hooker, Serm., ii., 6).
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us] Literally, He made, i.e. in the
Sacrifice on the Cross. The word sin has been variously explained as a sin-
offering, a sinner, and so on. But it is best to take the word in its literal
acceptation. He made Him to be sin, i.e. appointed Him to be the
representative of sin and sinners, treatedHim as sin and sinners are treated
(cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15). He took on Himself to be the representative of
Humanity in its aspectof sinfulness (cf. Romans 8:3; Php 2:7) and to bear the
burden of sin in all its completeness. Hence He wonthe right to represent
Humanity in all respects, and hence we are entitled to be regarded as God’s
righteousness (whichHe was)not in ourselves, but in Him as our
representative in all things. See also 2 Corinthians 5:14.

who knew no sin] Cf. Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter2:22; 1 John 3:5; also John 8:46.
that we might be made the righteousness ofGod in him] We not only are
regardedas God’s righteousness, but become so, by virtue of the inward
union effectedbetweenourselves and Him by His Spirit, through faith. See 2
Corinthians 5:17 and note. “He did not say righteous, but righteousness,and
that the righteousness ofGod.” Chrysostom. See also Bp Wordsworth’s note.
Cf. Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22; Romans 5:19; Romans 10:3; 1 Corinthians
1:30.
Bengel's Gnomen
2 Corinthians 5:21. Τὸν) Him, who knew no sin, who stoodin no need of
reconciliation;—a eulogium peculiar to Jesus. Mary was not one, ἡ μὴ γνοῦσα,
who knew no sin.—ἁμαρτίανἐποίησε, made Him to be sin) He was made sin
in the same way that we are made righteousness.Who would have dared to
speak thus, if Paul had not led the way? comp. Galatians 3:13. Therefore
Christ was also abandonedon the cross.—ἡμεῖς)we, who knew no
righteousness, who must have been destroyed, if the way of reconciliationhad
not been discovered.—ἐναὐτῳ, in Him) in Christ. The antithesis is, for us.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 21. - He hath made him to be sin for us; rather, he made; he speaks with
definite reference to the cross. The expressionis closelyanalogous to that in
Galatians 3:13, where it is saidthat Christ has been "made a curse for us." He
was, as St. Augustine says, "delictorum susceptor, non commissor." He knew
no sin; nay, he was the very righteousness, holiness itself(Jeremiah23:6), and
yet, for our benefit, God made him to be "sin" for us, in that he "sent him in
the likeness ofsinful flesh and for sin" (Romans 8:3). Many have understood
the word "sin" in the sense ofsin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a
precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage
in the New Testament. We cannot, as DeanPlumptre says, getbeyond the
simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable
mystery, "Christ identified with man's sin; man identified with Christ's

righteousness."And thus, in Christ, Godbecomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, "the
Lord our Righteousness"(Jeremiah23:6). That we might be made the
righteousness ofGod in him; rather, that we might become. The best
comment on the pregnant significance ofthis verse is Romans 1:16, 17, which
is developed and explained in so large a sectionofthat greatEpistle (see 3:22-
25; 4:5-8; 5:19, etc.). In him In his blood is a means of propitiation by which
the righteousnessofGod becomes the righteousness ofman (1 Corinthians
1:30), so that man is justified. The truth which St. Paul thus develops and
expresses is statedby St. Peterand St. John in a simpler and less theological
form (1 Peter2:22-24;1 John 3:5).
Vincent's Word Studies
For
Omit. It is a later addition, in order to softenthe abruptness of the following
clauses.
Made to be sin (ἁμαρτίανἐποίησεν)
Compare a curse, Galatians 3:13. Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the
representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence
of sin, in His enduring "the contradictionof sinners againstHimself"
(Hebrews 12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.
Who knew no sin (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν)
Alluding to Christ's own consciousnessofsinlessness, notto God's estimate of
Him. The manner in which this reference is conveyed, it is almost impossible
to explain to one unfamiliar with the distinction betweenthe Greek negative
particles. The one used here implies the factof sinlessness as presentto the
consciousnessofthe person concerning whom the fact is stated. Compare
John 8:46.

CHARLES STANLEY
"Let Him be crucified". That's what they cried, especiallythe religious
leaders of the day. Let Him be crucified. Becausethey wantedto getrid of
Jesus atany price. And the crucifixion was the worstkind of death. In fact, it
was handed down from the barbarians centuries before. Then to the Persians,
then to the Greeks,then to the Romans and they perfectedit so that a person
could suffer the longestperiod of time without dying. And so to sayabout
Jesus, the perfect Son of God, "Let Him be crucified," would be the worst
kind of proclamation they could yell out to Him. What was all of that about?
They want to get rid of Him. People still want to getrid of Him.
Things haven't really changedall that much. People don't like the name of
Jesus. And those who don't, make it known. Those of us who love Him, make
it known that we do. And so, when you look at the Scriptures and find out
who was this who was creating all of this, it was the religious leaders of the
day. Because He interfered with their religious system. That is, He wasn't
teaching what they were teaching and what was happening was, they were
losing control. And so the only way to getrid of Him was to say, start saying,
get a rally going. "LetHim be crucified".
And so when you look at that passageofScripture, I want you to turn if you
will to First Corinthians chapter one. And I want us to read beginning in verse
eighteen, because Paulhere is describing what this is all about. And he says
beginning, for example in verse eighteen. "Forthe word of the cross is

foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being savedit is the
powerof God". That is, people who are lost, they think that's ridiculous. For
it is written, "I will destroythe wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the
cleverI will setaside".
Where is the wise man? And has not God made foolishthe wisdom of the
world? Forsince in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not
come to know God, God was well-pleasedthrough the foolishness ofthe
messagepreachedto save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask forsigns
and Greeks searchfor wisdom; but we preachChrist crucified, to Jews a
stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those of us who are the
called, both Jews and Greeks, Christthe power of God and the wisdom of
God.
Who was this fellow? He was not just the preacher, but He was more than
that. He was not just some itinerant fellow who came along, that's what the
world thinks, that He was just another one of those. But the Bible tells us He's
something and much more than that. Who was this man with this whole new
idea about life? He encouragedpeople, forexample, in a Roman empire to
love one another, which was absolutely foreign. Love one another, to be
forgiving toward eachother. No, you don't love your enemies. You destroy
them, you kill them if at all possible. And so, His messagewas stinging. It was
disrupting their whole thought pattern. And so He was encouraging people to
live on a whole different lifestyle.
In fact, when you read the Sermon on the Mount, for example, and then you
look at the lifestyle that they had, it was totally different. So, naturally they
were very troubled by this itinerant preacher, they call Jesus. And if you'll
think about some of the things He said, He taught them how to pray. Well
they had their prayers. You need to be taught how to pray. They had the
prayers that they repeated. He taught them how to pray. He taught them not

to worry. He taught them to trust the Heavenly Fatherfor everything. And so
He taught them how to pray for the things in life that they needed. All of this
was, this was a whole different lifestyle and a whole different religionthat
they were interestedin or that they were accustomedto.
And so, He was an intruder into their society, an intruder to their religion.
There was nothing about Him that was enticing to those religious leaders. So,
when He beganto talk about things like healing the sick, and when they saw
Him, for example, do just that, and giving sight to a blind man like
Bartimaeus. And when He talked about raising the dead, this was it. You can't
raise anybody from the dead. Once you're dead, you are dead. And yet, that's
what He was talking about. And the factthat people didn't seemto object to
that, but they were increasing all the time and people were sort of looking
down on the Pharisees andthe Sadducees becausethis Man offered them the
promise of life. Life that had some beauty to it. Life that had some glory in it.
Life that had some sense ofsatisfaction. And especiallythe part about loving
eachother. Told them not to worry, not to fret over things, but that their
Heavenly Father would provide everything they needed.
All of these were ideas that the Pharisees and the Sadducees knew in their
mind, but Jesus came teaching that in a very practicalway. And the healing of
the sick was a real issue to them. And then when He raisedthe dead, that was
it! Nobody can raise the dead, impossible to raise the dead. And in spite of
what they saw, in spite of what the people saw and what they were excited
about, these religious leaders had turned their face againstJesus, turned their
authority againstHim, and their intention was to destroy Him at all cost.
Anything that seemingly threatened their ideas, their laws in any way, or
would round people up and give them a new idea about life, especiallyof some
theologicalidea, that was a threat.

So Jesus came upon the scene, the eternal Sonof God, with love and caring
and goodnessand mercy and kindness and healing, but it crossedthe line
when He talkedabout being the Son of God. And so Jesus came upon the
scene with a total whole new idea about life, and their idea was, getrid of Him
at any cost, because to believe what Jesus was teaching was for the Pharisees
and the Sadducees to lose control of the people of their day. So if you'd have
been one of those persons who lived in those days, do you think you would
have followedJesus? Ordo you think maybe you would have thought well it's
a little saferto stay with the Romans because theyhave all the power.
Now I know this guy is preaching healing and forgiveness and cleansing and
heaven and all these things that sound good, but would that be a safe wayto
live? No, you either believe that Jesus Christis the Son of God and the only
Savior, or you don't. There's those, Jesus made everything very straight and
clear. You don't come to the place where you have to choose, "Well, maybe He
was right and maybe He was wrong". No. Jesus is the only begottenof the
Father, the Son of God, born of a virgin, prophesied by Isaiah and the
prophets as the one coming to setman free of sin and disobedience and
rebellion. And the process ofdoing it would absolutely disrupt society. That's
what He did. What would it take to disrupt the lifestyle that we have?
Well, it's already being disrupted. And so, what you and I believe is becoming
less and less popular, and more and more threatening to a societythat wants
to be morally free and free in every way, do what you want to do when you
want to do it, you don't have to ask anybody and you certainly don't want
somebody who goes to church telling you how to live. And you and I have to
make a decision. Am I going to be true to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, believe
what He taught in His Word, or am I going to go with the world?
And if you think, "Well, I don't have to make that decision". Yes, you will.
You're alreadyhaving to make it. If you watch the television, you listen to the

people you work with or some of your friends or people who are strangers,
whateverit might be, the pressure is on to rid our societyof anything that is
Jesus, godly, anything of that nature. And so when you look at the life of the
Lord Jesus Christ, really what happened at the cross, it should cause us to be
more determined than ever before to live a godly life. Jesus Christ was the
virgin born Son of God, prophesied by the prophets, that He would come as
the Savior.
All that He taught was absolutely essential. Butthe most important thing
Jesus did, what do you think it was? The most important thing Jesus did was
to die as the One who bore the sin of the world, our Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ. He came into the world for the primary purpose of dying for your sin
and mine. And the more we are obedient to Him, praise Him, worship Him,
live true to Him, the more uncomfortable those around us will be. Becausethe
world is bent toward doing what they want to do, the way they want to do it,
and they don't want anybody else telling them what to do.
And so, when you talk about the death of Jesus Christ, if you don't, if you
don't get this point, you miss His whole point. He didn't just die the death of a
preacher, of a healer, of a man with a new idea, He died a substitutionary
death. And that word is the heart of everything we believe about the atoning
death of Jesus. Thatis, to substitute something means that something takes its
place. And so, when Jesus came, He came and died as a substitute for all of us,
so that we don't have to die in our sin. And that is the heart and core of the
whole message ofthe gospel, that Jesus Christ, the perfect sinless Sonof God,
came into the world for the primary purpose of giving His life, because His life
was divine, that's the only life that could be a substitute.
It couldn't be any one of us. It was, it was a substitutionary, why? BecauseHe
was born of a virgin. He was Godborn in the flesh. He was the Sonof God.
And for example, when He was baptized, He was announced as the Son of

God. On the Mount of Transfiguration, He was announced to those who were
with Him, as the Son of God. It's the fact that He was the Sonof God, came to
be a substitute for our sin that made Him different from all the rest. Jesus was
the perfectSon of God, the only substitute necessaryto take care of not only
the sins of a few people, but the sins of the whole world.
Think about this. He had to be different in order for God to say that I will
place the sin of all mankind upon Him, crucify Him as payment for the sin of
the world that's who Jesus is, that's what it's all about. It's all about Jesus
dying and taking our sin debt upon Himself in order that you and I would be
acceptable to God. Because Jesus came that we might have life, as He said,
and have it more abundant. If you intend to go to heaven, there is only one
way. And the world can't stand that thought. But Jesus said, "I am the way,
the truth, the life," and then He made it very clear. "No one comes to the
Father but by Me".
You either believe that or you don't believe it. If you don't believe it, you don't
believe the Word of God. If you do believe it, do you know why you believe it?
Becauseonly Jesus Christ, the perfect Sonof God, He's the only sacrifice that
could be acceptable because He's the only sinless sacrifice,that ever lived. So
when somebody says to you, "Well, are you a Christian"? Yes. They look at
you and think, "Well, if you have this experience of salvation, I'm just as good
as you are. You go to church, I go to church. You've been baptized, I've been
baptized. You believe about Jesus. I believe about Jesus". No, no, no, no. We
don't believe about Jesus, we believe in Jesus to the extent that we have
yielded ourselves to Him as our Savior, Lord and Master, our God.
And our hope of heaven is not just a hope, but it's absolute assurance. And so,
we're living in a world where the trauma is getting worse and worse. Because
the more holy God's people live, the more, the more unacceptable we become.
The more true we are to the Word of God, when you saythat Jesus Christ is

the only way. So when your grandchildren or maybe your children come to
you and they talk to you about what they've been learning. And the factthat
you do not want to be narrow minded because it makes it a little difficult.
Listen, when somebody's says you're narrow-minded, here's what you say.
I'm not narrow-minded. I just believe what God said. Period. End of story.
Well what did God say? Well, I'm glad you askedme that because that's what
I want you to ask me. What does God say? And God says, "I've sent My only
begottenSon into the world, that whosoeverbelieves in Him would have
everlasting life. Those who don't, the wrath of God's coming upon them. I
know you don't like that. I'm sorry". But, that's the issue. Jesus made it
crystal clear. I am the way, the truth, the life, no man comes to the Fatherbut
by Me. Either Jesus Christ was a liar or He's truly the Son of God, before
whom we'll stand one of these days.
And so, when you read the Scripture and I go back to Romans chapter five,
for example, and look if you will be, this is a wonderful passage. Look if you
will in this fifth chapter. The Scripture says, beginning in verse six, "While we
were still helpless". That's whatPaul said, "While we're still helpless", verse
six, "at the right time, God's time, Christ died for the ungodly. For one will
hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man someone
would dare even to die. But Goddemonstrates His own love toward us, in that
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, died in our behalf".
Listen, much more then, having now been justified by His blood. What does
that mean? That means that the blood of the Lord Jesus Christwas shed, and
therefore those of us who trust Him as our Saviorto be justified means to be
declaredrighteous, by what He did, not what we did, we shall be savedfrom
the wrath of God through Him. Forif while we were enemies we were
reconciledto God through the death of His Son, much more, having been
reconciledwe shall be saved by His life. If you'll notice in that passage, it's all

about Him, Him, Him. Saved by His life, believe Him, trust Him. That's what
it's all about.
And then, I go back to a passagein Acts chapter four, when Peterwas
defending the gospel, preachedthis awesome sermon, and then, he and John
were arrestedand called before the Sanhedrin and the Jewishleaders of this
day, here's what he said. Petersaid in verse eleven of this fourth chapter, he's
speaking ofJesus, "Is the stone which was rejectedby you," the builders, but
which became the chief cornerstone. Speaking ofJesus. And then, he made
this statement, "There is salvationin no one else, for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved".
Look at that verse of Scripture. You either believe the Bible or you don't
believe it. You either believe He's the only way, you don't. Listen to what he
said, "There is salvation in no one else". You canstop right there. You believe
the Bible, there is salvationin no one else, there is no other name. Nothing
else, nobody else under heaven that has been given among men by which we
must be saved. What you believe is absolutely essentialin your relationship to
God. And listen to this, it isn't a matter of being thoughtful of other people. It
isn't a matter of being narrow-minded. It isn't a matter of being unkind and
unloving and judgmental and critical, that's not what it's about. It's about do
I believe what God said?
And when you read these verses, whichPeter and John were defending, the
gospel, listento this. Here's what he said, and this is before the Sanhedrin and
all people who are getting ready to persecute him, there is salvationin no one
else, there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by
which we must be saved. No other name.

Now, they will say to you, "Well, that's being narrow-minded". Well, that's
right. God's very narrow-minded. He's so narrow-minded that He sent one
Person, one Man, one virgin-born Man, the Sonof God who was with the
Father before eternity began. He sent one person and He, they calledHim
Jesus, and there's no one else. There is no other name under heaven that has
been given among men by which we must be saved. You either do believe it or
you don't believe it. And so, you can expectto be criticized and we should not
be ashamed of the testimony of the gospelofJesus Christ.
Now think about this. Think about this. Does Godmake it clear in His Word
how to be saved? And the answeris, "Yes". Does He make it clearin His
Word that those who are willing to trust Him as their personalSavior will be
saved? Yes He does. So the question is, am I going to believe what God said or
not? So I would ask anybody this. If you're not going to believe what the Bible
says, what are you going to believe? That is, what are you going to put your
faith in if it's not the Word of God? If there's something other than this, what
are you going to believe in? But when it comes down to eternity, this is it.
So what you have to ask is this. Do I believe the Word of God or do I not? And
secondly, do I have, do I believe it strongly enough and do I have the courage
to say to the people that I live with, work with and people I meet and so forth,
when they question it, do you have the courage to say, when they say to you,
"Do you believe that Jesus is the only way"? Here's what you say. "That's
what the Bible says". "Well, do you believe everything the Bible says"? "Yes I
do". Well, and then sayto them. "What do you believe"? In other words, you
don't have any reasonto give an inch. You don't have any reasonto ever be
embarrassed. You don't have any reasonto ever be afraid to defend the truth
of the Word of God. No reason.
Jesus said, "ForGod so loved the world that He gave His only BegottenSon,"
speaking ofHimself, "that whoeverbelieves in Him," that means believes that

He's the Sonof God, believes that His death on the cross atonedfor all sin,
believes enough that you surrender your life to Him. Your sins will be
forgiven, your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life, one of these days
you're going to heaven. It's a settledissue with Godwhen you trusted His Son
as your personalSavior. Amen? So we can shout till Jesus comes with
absolute assurance thatJesus is the way, the truth and the life.
And I would say to you this morning that if you've never trusted Him as your
Savior, this is a perfect time. You've heard the simple gospel. Have you ever
said to God, the Father, I've sinned againstYou, I know I have, I'm not
worthy to be saved, but today, I'm asking You to forgive me of my sin. Not on
the basis of renewedconduct. Noton the basis of what I'm going to do. Not on
the basis of all these, I'm asking You to forgive me of my sin on the basis that I
have acceptedthat Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Your Son, went to the cross,
shed His blood for my sins. And I'm trusting You to forgive me of my sins
basedon the shedding of the blood of Jesus, and You said, "Whosoevershall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". That's the basis of it.
Will you be saved? Absolutely. If you come any other way, basing your
forgiveness, your salvationon any other reasonbut what Christ did at the
cross, unacceptable.Godknows what's right, He know what's wrong, He
knows what's true, and He knows how to make saints out of all of us sinners.
None of us will ever be perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say I have to be
perfect in order to be saved. And you can look at the biblical characters,even
following Jesus. Peterwas, he was never perfect. None of those people claimed
to be perfect. They claimed to be examples of the grace, mercy, and love of
God.
Think about this, you and I have the greatestmessage the world will ever
hear. That we have a Heavenly Fatherwho loved us enoughin our sins that
He sent His only begottenSon into the world to die the worstkind of death

that a personcould die. Shed His blood, be acceptedby the Father, and
forgiven of our sins, our name written in the Lamb's Book ofLife, and heaven
our home. That's who God is. We can't boast of anything, all of us are on a
same level when it comes to being a Christian, a followerof Jesus. Butall of us
who are going to heaven are going by the grace of God through the shed blood
of Jesus Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the
Father but by Me". Amen?
And Father, we pray that every personwho hears this message will
understand it is not to be judgmental, it is not to think that we are better than
someone else, it is to simply speak the truth of the love of the Father, that
You're willing to love sinners, and forgive those who're willing to acceptYour
Son as the true way, the only way of life. Thank You for loving us, thank You
for forgiving us, and Thank You that one day we'll stand before You knowing
we're there not by anything we did. But what You did at one moment on the
cross whenYour Son, Jesus, paid our sin-debt in full. And we will praise You
forever for it, in Jesus'name. Amen.
JESUS BEING OUR "SUBSTITUTE" MAY BE THE MOST AMAZING
TRUTH EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY
The fact that Jesus became the "Substitute" for us in paying the penalty for
our sin and rebellion to God is absolutely incredible and in addition to that He
became our "Substitute" in entering the covenantwith God. Let's take a few
minutes and look at what actually occurred. There were actually two parts to
the substitution that Jesus performedon the cross.
Romans 6:23 -- "Forthe wagesofsin is death."

Jesus was our substitute

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was our substitute

Similar to Jesus was our substitute (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was our substitute