2 Corinthians 5.21 – This Imputin’ Ain’t Computin’

He Made Him Sin - The Apostle Paul

Jesus did not literally become sin; sin was symbolically imputed to him. (D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, Updated Edition at 125)

“[God] made Him to be sin for us.” This verse is impossible to explain adequately without understanding the concept of imputation that lies at the heart of Paul’s teaching on justification. Because Scripture repeatedly stresses the utter sinlessness of Christ—including right here in the very verse we are considering. Only if Christ was “made sin” by imputation can the full sense of this text make good sense. (Phil Johnson, Pyromaniacs Blog at Back to 2 Corinthians 5.21) (emphasis supplied)

In the Body of Christ, there has been a vociferous campaign against the “faith teachers” over the literal aspects of 2 Corinthians 5.21 (whether we are “faith teachers” is open for debate). While some teachers have clung to the literal reading of the scripture, the critics have shot back that the verse simply does not make sense and is actually blasphemy unless imputation theory is glossed over it (wearing a scarlet “B” wherever you go is not a whole lot of fun). While some will never give up the glossed imputation shine (or their manic invectives), the question is whether the literal God-breathed text is an orthodox reading.

The God-Breathed Grammar and Vocabulary

τον μη γνοντα ῾αμαρτιαν [ton me gnonta hamartian]

the one not knew [having known] sin

῾υπερ ἡμων [huper hemon]

on behalf of us

ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν [harmartian epoiesen]

sin he made

Him who knew not sin, In our behalf he made to be sin … (Rotherham)

The Greek constitutes Paul’s original God-breathed words (no textual criticism here). For this essay, we earmark just “the one not knew sin … sin he made” which doesn’t do any violence to the original meaning. The first thing to note about these words is their bareness. Paul did not use a lot of flowery adjectives or adverbs in reporting this spiritual reality. The one not having known sin sin God made. There is not a more direct way to say it.

The second thing to note is that “sin” is singular. That gives sin an ontological meaning (“nature”). Some have said that it means sin offering, but that cannot be the case, i.e.:

the one not knew sin offering … sin offering he made.

As even Phil Johnson concedes, the verse should make sense. Sin as a nature is the only way that it does (imputation is a work-around the hard fact of Jesus taking on sin as a nature as set out in the verse).

Mowing in Greek

The third thing to notice about our phrase “the one not knew sin … sin he made” is its grammatical structure. The words “knew” and “made” are in what the Greeks call the aorist (past) tense. This is highly significant for understanding the verse. We can explain the aorist tense in this little example about mowing:

He mowed the grass. (aorist)

In this sentence, mowed would be the aorist tense. What can we say about “mowed?” Not much. We can say that he mowed the grass sometime in the past, but we can’t say when and we can’t say that it took a long time. The sentence doesn’t tell us anything more than “he mowed” and the grass might have grown since then. (“The aorist tense describes an undefined action that normally occurs in the past.” William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek at 194).

He has mowed the grass. (perfect)

In this sentence, “has mowed” would be the Greek perfect. What’s that mean? It means that he mowed the grass sometime ago, but it still looks mowed. In other words, the effects of the mowing are still present. (“The perfect describes an action that was fully completed and has consequences at the time of speaking [writing].” William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek at 224).

So, with the aorist tense, he mowed the grass sometime in the past and it might even be overgrown by now. With the perfect tense, he “has mowed” the grass in the past and it still looks beautiful (this is not one of my lawns).

So what does all that have to do with “the one who knew no sin … he made sin?” Frankly, quite a bit. Since “knew” and “made” are in the aorist tense, that means that at one time in the past Jesus did not know sin and that at one time in the past “sin [God] made.” The big deal about this is that if Jesus had never, ever known sin at the time that Paul penned 1 Corinthians then he would have used the perfect tense. He didn’t do that. Indeed, given that Paul used the aorist tense and not the perfect tense actually clues us in that Jesus could have “known sin” subsequent to “not knew sin” and, indeed, that is what “sin [God] made” is all about.

[This does not render Jesus a “sinner” or even a “demoniac,” but that is for another essay.]

Context: God, the Apostle, and the People

Sometimes we hear that “the verse doesn’t mean what it is sounds like it’s saying” all because of context. From examining the actual text of the scripture, we understand that there is no word present at all for “imputing,” “imputation,” “accounting,” “treating,” or even “reckoning.” But according to both D.R. McConnell and Phil Johnson, there should be and is from the context. The historical context, however, cuts a wide swath against such a reading.

According to some Bible scholars, the letter of 2 Corinthians was written in approximately A.D. 57. It is addressed specifically to “the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia.” It is a follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians which was also addressed “to the church of God which is at Corinth.” What is significant about this is that the Corinthian church was not comprised of a bunch of New Testament Ph.D.’s who could spend the day sipping their Cafe Americanos at Starbucks and wax philosophically about Paul’s “doctrine of justification.” Rather, the Corinthian church was comprised of “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (1 Corinthians 1.26). Consequently, if the apostle had envisioned an underlying theological gloss about imputation in 2 Cor. 5.21, then he would have needed to have spelled it out, especially since there’s no evidence that the Corinthians possessed any of Paul’s other letters and there is no “see Hebrews 4.15” in the letter.

[This conjures up a scene out of Monty Python (you can imagine the accents):

“Him who knew no sin, sin He made”

“O’, ‘e was made sin, he was?”

“No, of course not!”

“But that’s what you just read. Sin He made”

“Yes, but no. Sin He made, yes. But no, He wasn’t made sin. There’s imputation in there.”

“Amputation? Where was he amputated? The legs? I do remember something about the legs.”

“Imputation! Not amputation! Paul says that he was made sin, but he really wasn’t made sin.”

“But why did he write that? If he wasn’t made sin, then why did he write, “Sin he made?” Maybe it was amputation after all.”

“No, no, no. It’s not in the letter, but we know it to be true.”

“But how do you know? Do you have another letter to us that says so?”

“No, I don’t have another letter that says so. Just accept it. Now I see why he wrote ‘not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble’ in the first one.”

“How do you know that’s right? I mean, if He wasn’t made sin, but it says so, then maybe we really are high and mighty. Ha ha, that’s funny. Hey Marty! Paul says that we’re high and mighty! Isn’t that a laugh?!”

“Oh just shut up! I’m through with you. Now, where did I put that cappuccino?”

Personally, I’ll throw my hat in with the not so mighty and not so noble.]

Some might ask, “Aren’t you supposed to cross-reference scriptures to determine accuracy?” The answer to that is yes, but that is not to say that any Pauline letter, standing alone, connotes falsehood. If that were the case, we could say that Paul (and God, for that matter) propagated blasphemy to the Corinthians by failing to tell them that they needed all of his other letters for proper construction of the verse.

The Galatian Comparison

Another aspect of 2 Corinthians 5.21’s context is actually the letter to the Galatians. Historical scholars say that Galatians was Paul’s first letter and that it was written around A.D. 49, approximately eight years before 2 Corinthians. In Galatians 3.6, Paul writes:

Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned [imputed] to him as righteousness. (NASB) (emphasis supplied)

In this verse, Paul expressly speaks of imputation which tells us that he was quite aware of the term and its use. In light of Galatians 3.6, it is appears more than a just a theological blunder to say that he must have employed imputation in 2 Corinthians 5.21 when the term is completely absent from the text. Moreover, just seven verses down, in Galatians 3.13, Paul writes:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’ - (NASB)

Since Galatians 3.6 expressly refers to “reckoning” or imputation and Galatians 3.13 does not, we must assume that it is absent in 3.13 for a compelling (read: God-inspired) reason. And, as “having become a curse” is a parallel to “sin He made,” imputing the imputation gloss into 2 Corinthians 5.21 appears to contravene both Galatians 3.13 and Paul’s (read: God’s) original intent.

[Note: Technically, “knew” in 2 Corinthians 5.21 is an aorist participle which does not change the analysis. As is shown in Rotherham’s translation, most translators translate the participle as “knew” and not as “having known” (cf. NASB, ESV). And for the Greeksters, it is understood that our mowing example actually speaks more of aspect, but it is faithful to the text and this isn’t a Greek class.]

Popularity: 29% [?]

related post

• Archives
• 2 Corinthians 5.21 - The “Great Exchange” as Newspeak
• Colossians 1.18: The Firstborn of Firstborns
• PSM Podcast: Woman with the Issue of Blood
• Newsweek and Unnatural Affections