2 Corinthians 5:21

21. For Giving a reason for the beseech of the previous verse, one of the tersest statements of the atonement ever uttered. A different side of the same subject is given 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. But there it is part of the apostolic statement, here it comes in to the consequent appeal. He Referring to God.

Sin This word some commentators have interpreted to mean a sin-offering, by a Hebraism, as in Exodus 29:14 the Hebrew word for “ sin-offering” is literally sin. But here, as the antithetic word righteousness signifies righteous persons, it is clear that sin signifies a sinner. It is very possible that the above Hebraism may have suggested the antithesis. It is a very concentrated expression to make Christ conceptually the very embodiment of sin. It can only mean that Christ, in our stead, endured a suffering (not a punishment to him) so morally equivalent to our punishment, that it may take its place and we be exempted.

Who knew no sin A beautiful description of perfect innocence. The Greek negative for no implies a no under the estimation or opinion of some one; and the question is, in whose opinion does the word imply that Jesus was sinless. Alford says in Jesus’ own; but we rather agree with Meyer, that God’s opinion is meant. It was the divine view that the innocent one should suffer, and that Christ was that sinless one. It was a sinless one who was to suffer, in order that his sufferings go not to expiate his own sin, but accrue for the sins of others.

Righteousness The embodiment of God’s righteousness. This means not, that Christ’s righteousness of character is imputed to us as if it were ours. Such a transfer could not take place. One man cannot be literally guilty of another’s sin, nor innocent by another’s goodness. One man indeed may be pardoned because another has suffered. Damon may be released because Pythias suffers for his crime; but it would be only as emotional, and not literal, language that we would then say that Pythias became a criminal, or became treason, and that his innocence was imputed to Damon. So it is not literal but emotional or conceptual language when we say, that Christ became sin for us, or that his righteousness is imputed to us. The language used by some religionists in describing Christ as a sinner is repulsive to any reflective mind. Thus Luther uses words which seem not blasphemous purely because the blasphemous intention was wanting. “The prophets did foresee in spirit that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever was or could be!” “Whatsoever sins I, thou, and we, all have done, or shall do hereafter, they are Christ’s own sins, as verily as if he himself had done them.” Surely it is absurd to say this. It was because of Christ’s very innocence that, his sufferings being accepted in lieu of our punishment, God is pleased to pardon us. And when it is then said that we are righteousness, it is not meant that we are literally innocent, never having committed sin, for that cannot be: it is meant that we are held constructively righted, and judicially treated as never having sinned; as every pardoned person is.

In him Antithesis to for us.