2 Cor. 5:21 – Andrew Klager, Michael Hardin, and Brad Jersak
Andrew Klager is an Orthodox historian and theologian who teaches at a number of schools in British Columbia, including the University of the Fraser Valley and Trinity Western University. Among his many other contributions to current scholarship, he offered an article to Stricken by God? Non-violent Atonement and the Victory of Christ (Eerdmans, 2007) entitled “Retaining and Reclaiming the Divine: Identification and the Recapitulation of Peace in St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ Atonement Narrative.”
Michael Hardin and his wife Lorri—Anabaptist teachers par excellence—lead a ministry called Preaching Peace (www.preachingpeace.org). Hardin is a Girardian scholar who co-edited Stricken by God? and whose seminal work, The Jesus Driven Life, has just been released in an expanded 2nd edition.
Brad Jersak teaches New Testament and Patristics at Westminster Theological Centre (Cheltenham) and serves as Associate Editor of The Plain Truth and CWR Journal with PTM.org. Brad is also general editor of Clarion.
* * * * *
Brad Jersak: I frequently field questions about the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:21, especially from those who, like me, initially inherited a particular penal substitutionary lens through which to read it. The text reads as follows:
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (NASB).
In the popular Calvinist interpretation, on the Cross, God the Father imputes the sins of the world onto Christ, such that in bearing our guilt, Jesus literally ‘becomes sin,’ or ‘became a curse’ (Gal. 3:13) on our behalf. Since a holy God cannot look on sin, the Father must turn his face away, forsaking his Son and pouring out all the wrath of God against sin upon him. Sin is thus punished in Christ in our place. Thus the wrath and justice of God are satisfied and God can justly forgive all those for whom Jesus died (i.e., the elect, given Calvin’s limited atonement). I believe this is a fair summary of the traditional Reformed position. Indeed, I once held this precise position (as a careful five-point Calvinist) in my MA thesis, “The Nature of Christ’s Suffering and Substitution” (BBC, 1988).
Of course, penal substitution does not offer the only understanding of this passage. The dominant Eastern Orthodox view, for example, holds to a more restorative view of justice and therapeutic vision of the Cross. In that scenario, the Father is seen in Christ (Zech. 12:10)revealing his love and mercy through the Son (1 John 3:16). Rather than satisfying his wrath through punishment, we see God-in-Christ pouring out forgiveness on the world (the whole world) for our salvation.
18 Now all things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (NASB).
What’s notable for this discussion is that a. rather than forsaking Christ, turning from him or otherwise punishing him, God is located in Christ, actively reconciling the world to himself through Christ. Moreover, far from requiring satisfaction of wrath through violence, the text reveals God letting go of sin, not counting sins against us—freely offering forgiveness vis-à-vis extracting payment.
Now none of this is meant to convince or convert readers to a particular theological point of view. Rather, all of this serves only to set up this question: if penal substitution is not the only way to interpret 2 Cor. 5:21, what else can in possibly mean?
Andrew, let’s start with you.
Andrew Klager: As it pertains to 2 Cor. 5:21, taken in its context, all I can offer is my agreement with the commentators of the Orthodox Study Bible [editor’s emphasis in italics]:
How was Christ made to be sin for us? He, the incarnate Son of God, voluntarily assumed the consequences of our sin—corruption and death—without sinning Himself. And he submitted to unjust suffering because of the sinful passions of men and of angels. This means that salvation is far more than forgiveness of sins. It is a new life; our reconciliation to God (vv. 18-20) and our becoming new creatures (v. 17), participants in the very righteousness of God (v. 21). This means our salvation is not just juridical (the static, legal pronouncement of a judge), but personal and relational; the dynamic, sacrificial love of a father for his child).
I would add, however, that this has to do with the kenotic—or self-emptying—expression or operations (energeia) of the divine essence (ousia). From the pre-existent divine essence, God operates in his creation according to the postlapsarian social dynamics (within which virtues such as compassion, mercy, unconditional love, etc., are allowed to operate and make sense) by identifying with and subjecting himself to our human condition through humility (which is a divine attribute, i.e., his humanity *reveals* his divinity). So, in this sense, his revelation of divinity is made perfect in his self-emptying, in his expression of the divine attribute of humility—including subjecting himself to suffering, death, hades; born into poverty and homelessness; even becoming food to ingest, digest, and ‘eliminate’ to become the very nourishment in the ground that fertilizes the vine and wheat that will again become divine food for us. I.e., to be a model for us to “keep our mind in hell and despair not” (St. Silouan).
Somewhat tangential, but that's my take …
Michael Hardin: I am frequently asked how to interpret 2 Cor. 5:21. So today I will exegete this text so that if others want to know, all I have to do is reference this interview!
2 Cor 5:21 is part of the larger context about reconciliation. Verses 14-17 state,
14 The love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: one died for the sake of all; therefore, all died. 15 He died for the sake of all so that those who are alive should live not for themselves but for the one who died for them and was raised. 16 So then, from this point on we won't recognize people by human standards. Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isn't how we know him now. 17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, that person is part of the new creation. The old things have gone away, and look, new things have arrived!” (CEB)
Notice it is the love of Christ that controls; not the fear of God’s wrath, hell or punishment. Why does this love control Paul’s message? He concludes that with the death of Jesus something happened that included all humanity. As the True Human (‘ho huios tou anthropou’ in the Gospel tradition) or the Second Adam (in the Pauline tradition), Jesus is representative of all humanity. His death is the death of all. Even as he was raised, so also his resurrection brings life to all. Inasmuch as he did this for all, all may now live in him, through him and for him. Paul avers that he once judged Jesus ‘kata sarka’ (after the flesh or according to human standards) by which he means as one who was justifiably executed as a lawbreaker. Finally, verse 17 is a first class condition; it is not a conditional ‘if’ but rather ‘since.’ In Christ, the eschatological horizon has been breached and the person whose identity is in Jesus (= all) is part of the new promised creation of God.
Verses 18-20 then form why the theme of reconciliation is announced:
18 All of these new things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and who gave us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 In other words, God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, by not counting people's sins against them. He has trusted us with this message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors who represent Christ. God is negotiating with you through us. We beg you as Christ's representatives, "Be reconciled to God!" (CEB)
Verse 18 states that it is God who has taken the initiative for our salvation by reconciling us to God’s self. Nowhere is there any language of penal substitution or satisfaction, no mention of the wrath of God or the threat of hell. As those who have recognized this reconciliation, God has entrusted this message: “You are reconciled.” From God’s perspective there is no distance, no abyss that must be crossed or bridged. The apostolic message is thus one of recognition. “God has reconciled you to God’s very self. It is a done fact, a fait accompli. It is Reality, capital R. You haven’t heard? Come then, turn and walk into the open loving arms of God.”
How did God do this? “By not counting their sins against them.” Again there is no talk about our sins being laid on Jesus; nowhere does the New Testament ever say this. How does God deal with sin? God forgives sin. It is as though, from God’s perspective, sin never happened. This is the same thing as Jesus’ prayer in Luke 23:32, “Abba, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing.” Or again as Paul says, “Love keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Cor. 13). God is not a record-keeper; there are no books in heaven where some angel is recording all the good and evil things of your life (the Revelation of John 20:12 is dead wrong on this score).
Now to 2 Cor. 5:21. Here are several translations:
CEB 2 Corinthians 5:21 God caused the one who didn't know sin to be sin for our sake so that through him we could become the righteousness of God.
CJB 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God's righteousness."
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
NAS 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
NIV 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
RSV 2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
In every case the translators have made God the subject of the verb ‘poieo’ (to make). Is that the case? In Greek, the noun ‘theos’ does not appear and in Greek the subject is implied in the verb. Some might say that since God is the subject of so many sentences prior to this, that God is logically the subject of this sentence as well. Dunn (Commentary on 2 Corinthians, p. 140) notes that “this is a difficult sentence to explain precisely, because we do not know the background of the expression.” Both Dunn and Furnish (Commentary on 2 Corinthians, p. 340) observe (as have others) that 5:21 is a creedal formula. What does this mean? It means that Paul has taken over a common saying found either in the Jerusalem church or as part of the early Christian preaching. Either way it indicates that we are dealing with a piece of tradition.
Now, can we find anywhere in the tradition that suggests it was God who determined Jesus to be sin? On the contrary, what we find, particularly in the Passion narratives, is that it was the ruling authorities who had determined Jesus to be a sinner (a lawbreaker). In other words, the tradition of Jesus’ death as handed on in the Passion stories (which were early, perhaps as early as 41 C.E. according to Gert Theissen, The Gospels in Context) are our control for determining who it is that “makes Jesus sin.” It is humans who determined Jesus to be sin. That was a wrong judgment as the Gospels make clear and as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead ratifies. We humans who once “knew Messiah ‘kata sarka’” and made a wrong and false judgment about him were the ones who ‘made him out to be a sinner.’ Not God. (Those scholars who want to see an inter-textual echo of Isaiah 53 usually fall into reading this text sacrificially when it is actually a subversive re-reading of the Isa. 53 text).
So if it is humans who ‘made Jesus sin’ and not God, how then shall we understand this verse? I would translate it this way:
The one who was innocent was deemed guilty by humanity (who judge ‘kata sarka’), therefore, inasmuch as we made a wrong judgment about the innocent Jesus, God is right to make a ‘wrong’ judgment about us and declare us, who are guilty, to be in right relationship to God.
This fits admirably with the Pauline emphasis on what theologians have referred to as ‘the marvelous exchange’ whereby what happens in and to Jesus happens on behalf of all. We are included in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension. Our identity is to be found in Him, and in him alone. Atonement therefore, has nothing to do with Jesus placating the wrath of God. Instead, the Cross is the event where our unrighteous judgments are unmasked, where our capacity to make righteous judgments is exposed as futile, where we see that we cannot determine right from wrong, not only in relation to Jesus but also in relation to one another. And so we are called to live in the only new reality that is truly Real with a Capital R: the eschatological horizon of the Risen Jesus where everyone is ultimately restored and where we all are forgiven and have forgiven. This is true at-one-ment. This is truly ‘euangelion’ (good news)!
Andrew Klager: I think all I can offer is a different reading than the PS interpretation, because otherwise I’d be arguing against something that I simply don't think is there – another case of asking different questions, East and West. I don’t see anywhere in that verse where the Father is meting out his wrath on his Son, especially when only two verses before it states clearly that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.”
So, if I read that verse for the first time with no inculcation in the PS tradition, someone would need to perform some pretty wicked theological gymnastics to convince me that it is a PS-supporting verse. That said, I know that many use this verse to defend PS, but it’s honestly difficult for me to see how this is the case unless it’s read through a prefabricated PS lens.
Brad Jersak: Verse 21 nevertheless needs an explanation that addresses why the text refers to Christ ‘being’ sin(or ‘becoming a curse’ in Galatians 3, with which this verse is often conflated) versus simply 'enduring' or ‘suffering’ sin. Frequently, such texts are read in a literalistic way, as if somehow Jesus somehow magically and ontologically turned into a piñata of transgression for the Father to flog to his satisfaction. Yes, that’s a gross caricature, but one that even the most ardent Calvinist would now hope to set straight.
More nuanced theologians realize this is a metaphor, seen as a fulfillment of Jesus’ identification with and experience of the curse of the Law, as in Paul’s reference to Deut. 21:23: “Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.”
To me, you are both right to say that verse 19 must guide our interpretation of verse 21.
But in terms of the phrase, ‘to be sin,’ I think each of you is offering something important, though I’m not sure if can (or need) to integrate them. In Michael’s exegesis, I hear the emphasis is on violent men wrongly deeming Christ guilty, whereas Andrew’s approach emphasizes the kenotic self-emptying of Christ such that he assumes the fullness of the human condition in order to overcome it.
Andrew Klager: Yes, to become sin is simply to empty himself and reveal his divinity through his humanity (and all that entails). A key component of PS is the Son’s experience of the Father's wrath, but I don't see this anywhere in these verses and in fact, I see the opposite.
But, yes, kenosis is exactly what explains ‘became’ instead of ‘endured.’ To me, this kenotic spirit is what distinguishes Christianity from other monotheistic and pagan representations of God (sovereignty, distance, appeasement, etc.).
Michael Hardin: And from my perspective, if in fact this is a piece of the tradition and if it can be translated back into Aramaic, then ‘became’ might also indicate ‘determined,’ ‘perceived,’ ‘was constituted as,’ etc.
Brad Jersak: In Kathryn Tanner’s Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity and also Christ, the Key, she uses the language of ‘assumption’ … actually, this is a brilliant little pun that ties together your variant approaches. On one hand, those who judged Jesus according to the flesh, wrongly assumed he was a sinner (and worse, a blaspheming sorcerer, leading Israel astray) worthy of death. And on the other hand, through kenosis, Jesus was in fact assuming the likeness of sinful flesh in order to overcome sin:
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh … (Rom. 8:3).
So we assume he’s cursed as he assumes (bears) the curse (including the curse of death) to overcome the curse?
Andrew Klager: Yes, ‘trampling down death by death’ (from the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom). The incarnate Son's humanity allows him access to death in order to conquer death by his divinity (cf. Irenaeus), but it’s only through his self-emptying that he can access death (the curse and effects of sin) in order to conquer it. This is why the incarnation – and thus the Feast of the Nativity (also going back to the Annunciation / conception on Mar. 25th, and thus Mary's role) – is so central to Orthodoxy. As the Chalice is the tree of life / the Cross (as Archbishop Lazar said this past Sunday), there’s a Eucharistic import here too (again involving both the incarnate Son and the Theotokos who gave him his flesh / blood that we ingest), where Christ experiences the effects of the curse / death / sin in order to conquer it through the power of his divinity.
As Fr. Michael Gillis also notes, any time you see the tree mentioned, the fathers always interpret this as the Cross; and Irenaeus takes this further by equating the wood of the cross and iron of the nails to represent the wood and iron of the plough and ploughshares, which is Christ's refusal to fight back when subjecting himself to the effects of sin, of human passions and violence – this is kenosis.
Brad Jersak: Thank you Andrew and Michael. Once again you’ve modeled the type of thoughtfulness that boldly wades into the so-called ‘problem passages’ rather than avoiding or minimizing them. Much appreciated. I would also encourage readers who read Michael’s proposals here in the broader context of The Jesus Driven Life, where you’ll find him discussing 2 Cor. 5 on p. 235-240.
e. 2Cor 5:21 The correct translation and interpretation is: For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin because of / through / for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus bore our sins in His body. If we see Him pierced and crushed, we see sin, what sin is, what it does, how evil, devilish and inexcusable it is – hurting and killing our own Father! On the cross we see sin to be the murderer of our God!! So the cross totally exposes and condemns sin in us – that we might confess it and die to it, that God can forgive and deliver us and that we can become righteous and holy in Jesus. It is in perfect harmony with everything else in the Scriptures and written in this article.
Posted by: Faan | January 03, 2014 at 03:04 PM
Brad, the same day as you posted this discussion on 1.Cor.5:21, I read and prayed over the same scripture. Here is what I can share. First a quote from someone a bit further ahead than myself:
'The word of God, Jesus Christ, on account of his great love for mankind, became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.' - Irenaeus
Christ's identity changed for that moment on the cross: he became the inherited sin. Until that time everyone had been living with the inherited sin (as Richard Rohr is calling it). From then on no one has to live with that inherited sin anymore. A new choice was give to be chosen: righteousness!
//1.Peter 2:24
My choice to identify myself with Christ in his death will seal that my life is no longer affected by inherited sin. 1.John 3:5b ...and in him is no sin. From now in I am in him, therefore there is no longer sin in me.
Posted by: Werner Klotz | December 23, 2013 at 08:26 AM
Thanks for this ... vs 21 is, I think, rightly spoken of as a creedal statement: I have often used it as such. I have used it too quickly and too often though. It is such a completeness of Christ's action - God's Grace; HIS activity and none of mine. This is at the very solid core of my faith. Christ Alone.
Having said that, I am realizing that I have poorly drawn the OT prophetic images into my hermeneutic of reading vs 21. As I am reading through Isaiah I am struggling immensely with navigating the flagrant judgment images that are violent and wrathful. I struggle because I refuse to simply say, "Well, that is the Old Testament God."
The Holy Spirit, I believe, is beginning to show me the starkness and the contrast of the images of judgment and salvation (which can easily, at first glance, make God to seem mentally unstable). Right now Isaiah 34 into 35 are key. Absolute and utter devastation is imaged in 34, i.e. - generation after generation of the desert screech owl and the home of generations of Jackals ... Could there be any hope whatsoever? Then Isaiah reveals the crocus - bursting into bloom in surprise fashion, unexpected (even before spring has come) --- this is God's grace!
So I wrestle to satisfy the images transferred from the Old Testament to the new without negating or misrepresenting truth ...
This discussion is extraordinarily helpful in this journey - thank you Brad and Michael and Andrew
Highlights: we assumed; He assumed ... thank-you for this!
Ted
Posted by: Ted Hill (@ptedward) | December 19, 2013 at 08:38 AM
Very quickly a facebook acquaintance who read this commented with surprise on Michael's statement that "God is not a record-keeper; there are no books in heaven where some angel is recording all the good and evil things of your life (*the Revelation of John 20:12 is dead wrong on this score*)."
I personally would have said 'Reading Rev 20:12 that way (literally) is dead wrong,' but I didn't edit Michael's wording because he doesn't have to agree with me. If I didn't want his unique perspective, I shouldn't have asked him to weigh in. The fact is that a good number of the Fathers would agree with him, even ascribing Revelation to the hand of Cerinthius the gnostic heresiarch. Those who received it as canonical did so conditionally, based on a symbolic reading. Michael's point: is there literally an angel writing all your sins down in a book? Love keeps no record of wrongs!
One such symbolic reading of this text is that the final judgment will require us to look into the book of our lives as in a mirror (this too is symbolic), such that we truly see and understand our sin without denial or self-deception, the harm that we have caused, and our need for mercy. In so doing, we experience this judgment as a kind of God-sponsored self-assessment by one's own conscience, magnifying the Gospel of Christ's all-forgiving love and welcoming us into the Father's embrace.
Posted by: Brad | December 18, 2013 at 08:15 AM