- Discussion:
-Catholic Nick wrote an article in which he attempted to refute the standard "Protestant" interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. He throws in a few diversions as to the meaning of Jesus being made sin and us becoming righteous. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:
"First, the text does not suggest we become righteousness in the same way Jesus becomes sin, i.e. by a double imputation, because Paul uses two different Greek words here, "made [sin]" and "become [righteousness]."
Just because someone references Greek, does not mean that his argument is valid or convincing. There is nothing in the two different words that necessarily rule out imputation.
If the Roman Catholic view of grace as infused into the soul is correct, then should we conclude based on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (i.e. "Christ was made sin") that the essence of Jesus was corrupted? Was evil infused into Christ?
"Second, the curious phrase "made sin for us" cannot be presumed to include Christ's perfect obedience to the Law, especially since the Protestant says this phrase refers specifically to having our sins imputed to Christ."
"First, the text does not suggest we become righteousness in the same way Jesus becomes sin, i.e. by a double imputation, because Paul uses two different Greek words here, "made [sin]" and "become [righteousness]."
Just because someone references Greek, does not mean that his argument is valid or convincing. There is nothing in the two different words that necessarily rule out imputation.
If the Roman Catholic view of grace as infused into the soul is correct, then should we conclude based on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (i.e. "Christ was made sin") that the essence of Jesus was corrupted? Was evil infused into Christ?
"Second, the curious phrase "made sin for us" cannot be presumed to include Christ's perfect obedience to the Law, especially since the Protestant says this phrase refers specifically to having our sins imputed to Christ."
The phrase "made sin for us" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 should be understood to include both Jesus taking on our sins and His perfect obedience to God's Law. While some may argue that it only refers to our sins being placed on Him, this view misses a key point: Jesus had to be sinless and obey the Law perfectly to be the right sacrifice for our sins. His ability to bear our sins comes directly from His flawless life, making both aspects essential to the Christian understanding of salvation. Ignoring this connection separates His work and does not reflect the fullness of how He redeems us.
"Third, the Bible never speaks of imputing sin from a sinner onto an innocent substitute, such that guilt is transferred from one person to another, so to say “made sin” refers to imputation has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Thus, Christ being “made sin” must be assumed to refer to something other than imputation."
This point is invalidated because of the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which is all about the transfer of guilt. Look at Genesis 22, Leviticus 16, and Exodus 12. In all three instances, there is an innocent substitute provided. The lamb died in the place of a person, etc. Further, the very idea of forgiveness (i.e. not counting people's trespasses against them) is legal in nature.
This point is invalidated because of the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which is all about the transfer of guilt. Look at Genesis 22, Leviticus 16, and Exodus 12. In all three instances, there is an innocent substitute provided. The lamb died in the place of a person, etc. Further, the very idea of forgiveness (i.e. not counting people's trespasses against them) is legal in nature.
"Fourth, the meaning of “made sin” need not only refer to Imputation or Infusion, for that’s a false dilemma fallacy. The Church Fathers shed valuable light on what “made sin” refers to."
The meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is crystal clear. Jesus took our sin and gave to us His righteousness. We do not deserve His righteousness, anymore than He deserved to bear our punishment. That is the legal, binding transaction which takes place in the "court" of God. He has voluntarily paid an infinite sin debt on our behalf because of His love for us. He saved us because He is gracious. He is our sin offering.
The meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is crystal clear. Jesus took our sin and gave to us His righteousness. We do not deserve His righteousness, anymore than He deserved to bear our punishment. That is the legal, binding transaction which takes place in the "court" of God. He has voluntarily paid an infinite sin debt on our behalf because of His love for us. He saved us because He is gracious. He is our sin offering.
"Fifth, the context clearly explains the goal of God the Father sending His Son was to bring about our reconciliation, thus undermining the whole presumed forensic-imputation theme Protestants project onto verse 21."
Why would a context speaking of reconciliation with God be inconsistent with a forensic-imputation theme? If we are to be reconciled with God, then it requires that the questions of sin, righteousness, and judgment be addressed. The text of 2 Corinthians 5:21 specifically addresses how man can be reconciled to God.
Good job Jesse. Your argument is further corroborated by 1Peter 2:24: "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 2Cor tells us of the imputation. Peter tells where and when it happened. Isaiah 53 also substantiates your argument as Peter quoted at the end.
ReplyDelete