Jesus was made sin for us

JESUS WAS MADE SIN FOR US
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
2 CORINTHIANS5:21 New International Version
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that
in him we might become the righteousnessof God.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
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 away the 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 actualcrime.(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 general humanity 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 ofGod 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 wherewithto 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). "Behold the 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 sinlessnessof
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.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so
that we might become the righteousness ofGod in Him. (NASB: Lockman)
Greek:ton me gnonta (AAPMSA) hamartian huper hemon amartian
epoiesen, (3SAAI) hina hemeis genometha (1PAMS) dikaiosune theou en auto.
Amplified: Forour sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no
sin, so that in and through Him we might become [endued with, viewedas
being in, and examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be,
approved and acceptable and in right relationship with Him, by His
goodness].(Lockman)

Barclay:He made him who had no acquaintance with sin to be sin for us, that
through him we might become the righteousness ofGod. (Westminster Press)
ESV: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
might become the righteousness ofGod. (ESV)
HCSB: He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we
might become the righteousness ofGodin Him. (Holman Christian Standard
Bible - Study notes available online free)
KJV: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might
be made the righteousness ofGod in him.
NEB:Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake Godmade him one with
the sinfulness of men, so that in him we might be made one with the goodness
of God himself. (New English Bible - Oxford Press)
NET:God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him
we would become the righteousness ofGod. (NET Bible)
MH: How did that reconciliationcome about? Christ was totally devoid of sin.
Yet God causedhim to be sin on our behalf and in our place, so that as a
result of being united with Christ we might become righteous before God.
(Murray Harris' expanded paraphrase of 2Corinthians).
NLT: For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin,
so that we could be made right with God through Christ. (NLT - Tyndale
House)
Phillips: For God causedChrist, who himself knew nothing of sin, actually to
be sin for our sakes,so that in Christ we might be made goodwith the
goodness ofGod. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Weymouth: He has made Him who knew nothing of sin to be sin for us, in
order that in Him we may become the righteousness ofGod.
Wuest: He who did not know sin in an experiential way, on behalf of us and
instead of us, was made [the representative of] sin, in order that, as for us, we
might become a righteousness ofGod in Him. (Eerdmans)

Young's Literal: for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin,
that we may become the righteousnessofGod in him.
HE MADE HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN TO BE SIN ON OUR BEHALF, SO
THAT WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESSOF GOD IN HIM:
ton me gnonta (AAPMSA) hamartian huper hemon hamartian epoiesen,
(3SAAI) hina hemeis genometha (1PAMS)dikaiosune theou en auto.:
he: Isa 53:4-6,9-12 Da 9:26 Zec 13:7 Ro 8:3 Ga 3:13 Eph 5:2 1Pe 3:18 1Jn
2:1,2)(who:Isa 53:9 Lk 1:35 Heb 7:26 1Pe 2:22-24 1Jn3:5
we: 2Co 5:17 Isa 45:24,25 53:11 Jer23:26 33:16 Da 9:24 Ro 1:17 3:21-26 Ro
5:19 8:1-4 10:3,4 1Co 1:30 Php 3:9
2 Corinthians 5 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
THE HEART OF THE
GOSPEL
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus'blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetestframe,
But wholly trust in Jesus'Name.
(My Hope Is Built)
C H Spurgeon - See ye here the foundation-truth of Christianity, the rock on
which our hopes are built. It is the only hope of a sinner, and the only true joy
of the Christian, — the greattransaction, the greatsubstitution, the great
lifting of sin from the sinner to the sinner’s Surety; the punishment of the
Surety insteadof the sinner, the pouring out of the vials of wrath, which were
due to the transgressor, upon the head of his Substitute; the grandest
transactionwhich ever took place on earth; the most wonderful sight that
even hell ever beheld, and the most stupendous marvel that heavenitself ever
executed, — Jesus Christ, made sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness ofGod in him! You scarcelyneedthat I should explain the

words when the sense is so plain. A spotless Saviorstands in the room of guilty
sinners. God lays upon the spotless Saviorthe sin of the guilty, so that he
becomes, in the expressive language ofthe text, sin. Then he takes off from the
innocent Savior his righteousness, andputs that to the accountof the once-
guilty sinners, so that the sinners become righteousness, — righteousnessof
the highestand divinest source — the righteousness ofGod in Christ Jesus.
(2Cor5:21 Christ Made Sin)
John MacArthur - With a concisenessand brevity reflective of the Holy Spirit,
this one brief sentence, only fifteen words in the Greek text, resolves the
dilemma of reconciliation. This sentence reveals the essenceofthe atonement,
expresses the heart of the gospelmessage,and articulates the most glorious
truth in Scripture—how fallen man’s sin-sundered relationship to God can be
restored. 2Cor5:21 is like a cache ofrare jewels, eachdeserving of a careful,
reverential examination under the magnifying glass ofScripture. It yields
truths about the benefactor, the substitute, the beneficiaries, and the benefit.
(MacArthur, J: 2Corinthians. Chicago:MoodyPress)
William MacDonald- This verse gives us the doctrinal foundation for our
reconciliation. How has God made reconciliationpossible? How can He
receive guilty sinners who come to Him in repentance and faith? The answer
is that the Lord Jesus has effectivelydealt with the whole problem of our sins,
so now we canbe reconciledto God.
Phillip Hughes states that regarding 2Co 5:21...Inthese few direct words the
Apostle sets forth the gospelof reconciliationin all its mystery and all its
wonder. There is no sentence more profound in the whole of Scripture; for
this verse embraces the whole ground of the sinner’s reconciliationto God
and declares the incontestable reasonwhy he should respond to the
ambassadorialentreaty. Indeed, it completes the messagewith which the
Christian ambassadorhas been entrusted.
He - God the Father. Do not miss that this was the Father's plan, the Father's
heart to make His sinless Son to be sin on our behalf! Reconciliationis His
plan. He initiated it. It flows out of His love (Jn 3:16, Ro 5:8-note, Ro 5:10-
note, Eph 2:4, 5-note)Obviously the Father, Son and Spirit were in perfect

unity and full agreementwith the Crucifixion of Christ. Spurgeon reminds us
that since the Triune God
did it, it is welldone. I am not careful to defend an act of God: let the man
who dares accuse his Makerthink what he is at. If God Himself provided the
sacrifice, be you sure that He has acceptedit.
And so as we study this profound passage,we do well to keepthe words of
Kruse in mind when he states that...
We obviously stand at the brink of a greatmystery and our understanding of
it can only be minimal.
Made (4160)(poieo)means to make or to do and can express actioneither as
completed or continued, in this context clearlyexpressing past completed
action(which is also seenin Paul's use of the aoristtense).
Murray writes that when we try to expound on God making Christ sin...
Although poieo (made) can mean “make something into something (else),” the
meaning in 2Co 5:21 is not “Godmade the sinless one into sin” (as in the
JerusalemBible), but “God causedthe sinless one to be sin,” where poieo
denotes causationor appointment and points to the divine initiative. But we
should not forget that matching the Father’s set purpose to deliver Christ up
to deal with sin (Acts 2:23; Ro 8:32) was Christ’s own firm resolution to go to
Jerusalemto suffer (Mk 8:31; Lk 9:51). Jesus was notan unwilling or
surprised participant in God’s action. (International Greek Testament)
Him Who knew no sin - The sinless Lamb of God Christ Jesus. This was an
absolute requirement for Jesus to qualify to bear the full wrath of God against
the sins for others. Paul is referring specificallyto the time of Jesus'
incarnation, not to His pre-existent state.
The UBS Handbook says that...The words who knew no sin are a Hebraic
expressionwhich means “to have no personalexperience with sin.”
Hughes adds that...Only He who was entirely without sin of His own was free
to bear the sin of others. And only God-become-Mancould achieve this

unblemished victory over Satanand death for our fallen and rebellious race.
Such a Mediatorwas absolutely essentialforour reconciliationto God.
Guzik notes that...
The idea that any man could be sinless was foreignto Jewishthinking
(Ecclesiastes 8:5). But when Jesus claimedto be sinless, no one challenged
Him (John 8:46). Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul carefully
chooseshis words. He does not sayJesus was made to be a sinner. Jesus never
became a sinner, but He did become sin for us. Even His becoming sin was a
righteous act of love, not an actof sin. Jesus was nota sinner, even on the
cross. But on the cross, the Fathertreated Him as if He were a sinner. Yet all
the while, sin was "outside" ofJesus, not "inside" Him, and a part of His
nature (as it is with us).
Spurgeonwrites that in regard to Jesus being made to be sin...Christwas not
guilty, and could not be made guilty; but He was treatedas if he were guilty,
because He willed to stand in the place of the guilty. Yea, He was not only
treated as a sinner, but he was treated as if He had been sin itself in the
abstract. This is an amazing utterance. The sinless One was made to be sin.
Sin pressedour greatSubstitute very sorely. He felt the weightof it in the
Garden of Gethsemane, where he “sweatas it were greatdrops of blood
falling to the ground.” The full pressure of it came upon him when he was
nailed to the accursedtree. There in the hours of darkness he bore infinitely
more than we cantell. (The Heart of the Gospel)
Criswellwrites that...This verse is a beautiful and concise summation of the
gospel, a gospelof reconciliation. "To be sin" could mean "to be a sin-
offering," but this gives the word "sin" two different meanings in the same
breath, and it weakens the contrastwith "righteousness."Pauldoes not say
that Christ was made a sinner; indeed, His sinlessnessis clearlyaffirmed.
What Paul says is that Christ was made "to be sin." The meaning is shown by
the similar statement that Christ became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). He bore
the sins of believers so that in the sight of God they might be righteous.
Knew (1097)(ginosko)means to acquire information usually by experience
(rather than by intuition), and thus describes a knowledge that goes beyond

the merely factual. Generally, the knowledge ofginosko goesbeyond the
merely factualand in some contexts was used of a specialrelationship between
the personwho knows and the objectof the knowledge. In the present context
ginosko signifies that Jesus did not know sin through direct personal
experience. Sin never blemished God's perfect Lamb of Godas He was being
prepared for the sacrificialoffering on the Cross.
Paul uses ginosko in the descriptionof his experience with sin asking...
What shall we saythen? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I
would not have come to know (ginosko)sin exceptthrough the Law; for I
would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not
covet.” (Ro 7:7)
Comment: In this passagein Romans Paul's use of ginosko supports the idea
of knowledge whichis gainedby personalparticipation. Here in 2Co 5:21 Paul
is stating that this was never the experience of Jesus Christ. Clearly Christ
was aware ofthe reality of sin and He also observed sin in others (cf. Heb
12:3), Paul emphasizes that Christ Himself never had personalinvolvement in
sin.
Murray explains that...Paul’s main focus is on Christ’s freedom from sin as a
human being during His whole earthly life, rather than on His pre-incarnate
sinlessness. Neitheroutwardly in act nor inwardly in attitude did Christ sin,
and at no time was His conscience stained by sin.
The other New Testamentwriters repeatedly testify to the sinlessnessof
Jesus...
The most powerful testimony is found in the Gospels...
(God the Fatherspeaking)and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is
My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” (Mt3:17)
The writer of Hebrews expressesemphasizedthe blemish free characterof
Jesus...

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses,
but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
(Hebrews 4:15)
For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent,
undefiled, separatedfrom sinners and exalted above the heavens;Who does
not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, firstfor His own
sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when
He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:26, 27)
Peteradds that Jesus...
COMMITTEDNO SIN (KJV = "did [poieo] no sin"), NOR WAS ANY
DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; (1Pe 2:22)
(Redemption was by or) with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and
spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pe 1:19).
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just (dikaios = just, righteous)for
the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the
flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1Pe 3:18)
John testified...
And you know that He (Jesus)appearedin order to take awaysins; and in
Him there is no (absolute negation= absolutely no) sin. (1Jn 3:5)
(Jesus speaking)He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who
is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no
unrighteousness in Him. (Jn 7:18).
(Jesus speaking)“Whichone of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why
do you not believe Me? (Jn 8:46).
Even the betrayer Judas Iscariot
admitted that "I have betrayed innocent (athoos = free from guilt) blood"
(Matthew 27:4)

Pilate, the agentwho pronounced Jesus'deathsentence was forcedto admit
(to his great, eternalshame and condemnation!) that Jesus was innocent...
Pilate, who judged and condemned Him, said, "I find in him no fault at all
(aitia = a legaltechnical term for a formal charge or ground for accusation)"
(John 18:38)
The Roman centurion who witnessedJesus dying on the Cross...
Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God,
saying, "Certainly this man was innocent (dikaios = just, righteous)." (Lk
23:47)
C. H. Spurgeon- If our Lord's bearing our sin for us is not the gospel, I have
no gospelto preach.
Made...to be sin - The words "to be" are not in the Greek text but are added
by the translators. Note Jesus was notmade sinful but sin. Paul is not saying
that Jesus became a sinner or that God made Him commit sins. The NT (see
passagesabove)repeatedtestifies to our Lord's sinless state which definitively
excludes the possibility that He was evera sinner. He was not a sinner and He
did not become one on the Cross!On the Cross, Christ was not personally
guilty of sin. Nor was He punished for ANY SIN OF HIS OWN.
James Smith - He was made sin for us. He was not made a sinner—or He
could not have been an acceptable sacrificefor sin. Sin was not transfusedinto
Him, though it was laid upon Him (1Pe 2:24). He was made an offering for
sin, or a sin offering, and therefore He was treated as a sinner. The sins of all
He represented, of all for whom He became a substitute—were placedto His
account. He became answerable forthem. He voluntarily undertook to
become responsible for them (He 10:7, 9). The whole debt became His (Ro
3:23). Our breaches ofthe law—were to be answeredfor by him. Therefore as
sin was imputed to Him, or placed to His account, it was punished in His
person. All that it was necessaryto inflict, in order to satisfydivine justice,
and present an example of God's hatred to sin, to the universe, was inflicted
on Him. The whole curse of the law (Gal 3:13), the whole desert of sin, the
whole of the wrath of God for sin, was put into one cup, and presented to Him.

He lookedinto it and trembled, crying out, "Now is my soultroubled, and
what shall I say?" He took it, and fell to the ground, blood oozing from every
pore of his body, he cried in bitter agony (Lk 22:44), "If it is possible—letthis
cup pass from me!" (Mt 26:39)He drank of it, and exclaimed, "My God, my
God, why have you forsakenme?" (Mt 27:46) But it pleasedthe Lord to
bruise him, Jehovahput him to grief, when he made his soul an offering for
sin (Isa 53:10KJV). O the tremendous agonywhich He endured! O the depths
of woe through which He waded! O the waves and billows of divine wrath,
that went over Him! (From The Marvelous Exchange - James Smith)
RelatedResource:
Christ Made Sin - Stephen Charnock
Spurgeon- Christ was not guilty, and could not be made guilty; but he was
treated as if He were guilty, because He willed to stand in the place of the
guilty. Yea, He was not only treated as a sinner, but He was treatedas if He
had been sin itself in the abstract. This is an amazing utterance. The sinless
one was made to be sin.
Isaiahspeaks ofhow Jesus was made to be sin...
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried, yet we
ourselves esteemedHim stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was
pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities The
chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are
healed. 6 All of us like sheephave gone astray, eachof us has turned to his
own way; But the LORD has causedthe iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
(Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6)
Comment by John MacArthur: The Father treatedJesus as if He were a
sinner by charging to His accountthe sins of everyone who would ever believe
(Ed: Some would saythe sins of everyone for all time). All those sins were
chargedagainstHim as if He had personally committed them, and He was
punished with the penalty for them on the Cross, experiencing the full fury of
God’s wrath unleashedagainstthem all. It was at that moment that

Jesus criedout with a loud voice, saying,...'MyGod, My God, why have You
forsakenme?’(Mt 27:46).
It is crucial, therefore, to understand that the only sense in which Jesus was
made sin was by imputation. (Ed: Websteron to impute = to lay the the
responsibility or blame for often falselyor unjustly; to reckon, accountor
credit to one what does not belong to him; to charge something to a person's
account). He was personally pure, yet officially culpable; personally holy, yet
forensicallyguilty. But in dying on the cross Christ did not become evil like we
are, nor do redeemed sinners become inherently as holy as He is. God credits
believers’sin to Christ’s account, and His righteousness to theirs.
(MacArthur, J: 2Corinthians. Chicago:MoodyPress)
“Oh, hear that piercing cry!
What can its meaning be?
’My God! my God! oh! why hast thou
In wrath forsakenme?’
“Oh ’twas because our sins
On him by God were laid;
He who himself had never sinn’d,
For sinners, sin was made.”
Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary adds: In addition to guilt imputed
from Adam’s sin, all people are also chargedwith guilt for their personalsins.
This Paul describes as “imputing their trespassesto them” (2Co 5:19). The
Lord Jesus, whose supernaturalconceptionand birth freed Him from guilt
from Adam’s sin and who committed no personalsin, had no sin counted
againstHim. But when He died as our substitute, God “made Him who knew
no sin to be sin for us” (2Co 5:21) so that He “bore our sins in His ownbody
on the tree” (1Pe 2:24). This is made explicit in the Book ofIsaiah, where the
prophet says of the Lord Jesus, “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us

all” (Is 53:6). (Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas
NelsonPublishers. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
MacDonaldadds...Wemust beware of any idea that on the Cross ofCalvary
the Lord Jesus Christactually became sinful in Himself. Such an idea is false.
Our sins were placedon Him, but they were not in Him. What happened is
that God made Him to be a sin-offering on our behalf. Trusting in Him, we
are reckonedrighteous by God. The claims of the law have been fully satisfied
by our Substitute. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible
Commentary: Thomas Nelson)
Hughes makes a goodpoint reminding us that...Notfor one moment does He
(Jesus)ceaseto be righteous, else the radicalexchange envisagedby the
Apostle here, whereby our sin is transferred to Him and His righteousness is
transferred to us, would be no more than a fiction or an hallucination.
Sin (noun) (266)(hamartia) literally conveys the sense of missing the mark as
when hunting with a bow and arrow (in Homer some hundred times of a
warrior hurling his spearbut missing his foe). Later hamartia came to mean
missing or falling short of any goal, standard, or purpose. Ryrie adds that
"this is not only a negative idea but includes the positive idea of hitting some
wrong mark." Hamartia is a deviation from God's truth or His moral
rectitude (righteousness). It is a deviation from the straight line (and the strait
gate), clearlymarked off by the "plumb line" of God's Word of Truth (Col
1:5-note, 2Ti2:15-note, Jas 1:18-note). As someone has wellsaid ultimately sin
is man's declarationof his independence from God -- the "apostasy" ofthe
creature from his Creator!
From a Biblical perspective hamartia describes the missing of the ultimate
purpose and personof our lives, that purpose being to please God Who is also
the Personthe sinner misses in time and in eternity, unless they receive by
faith the messageofreconciliation.
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And shut his glories in,
When God, the mighty Maker, died

Jesus was made sin for us

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was made sin for us

Similar to Jesus was made sin for us (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was made sin for us