. . . the repetition of “sin” appearing in 2 Corinthians 5:21
seems to be almost credal in nature, intended to compare concepts, which is
common in Hebraic poetry. This literary technique is often referred to as
Hebrew Parallelism which is the most prominent facet of Hebrew poetry. In this
case, it is comparing the ideas of “sin” and “sin offering” together, due to
their relationship in Levitical sacrifices—paralleling them. This further
proves the aforementioned point—in a Hebraic context, it makes more sense Paul
is referring to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice rather than some form
of metaphysical transformation.
Jesus being made sin causes many doctrinal issues.
How can the sinless Messiah become sin? If He literally becomes sin, then He is
no longer sinless. If He is the incarnate Son of God, He is no longer perfectly
righteous, but corrupted. To believe this to be Jesus ontologically becoming
sin is problematic at best, and heretical at worst. It seems much more reasonable
to take Mounce’s translation and affirm that Jesus was a sin offering
(purification offering) for us. This is not only more coherent, but properly
reflects other scriptures written by Paul, such as Romans 8:3. In this passage,
Paul states that Jesus was sent in “the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering
for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh”. The closest way Jesus was “made sin”
is by taking on the likeness of “our sinful flesh,” because He was like
us “in every respect” (Heb. 2:17). Jesus became a sin offering on mankind’s
behalf by taking on our flesh (complete with its evil desires and weaknesses)
and nailing it to the cross. Jesus possessed the weakness of the flesh, but
unlike all of mankind before Him, He actually ruled over its desires bringing
it under His subjection, defeating it, and crucifying it as the enemy. Through
His victory over the desires of the flesh, we can partake in a restored body at
the resurrection—free from all sinful fleshly desires.
Ironically enough, even PSA proponents tend to avoid the
literalness of this passage, as it would indicate that God made Him to become
sin in some way. This would indeed be strange since we, as sinners, do not even
become sin in any literal sense. Therefore, others will interpret this
passage more figuratively, teaching that Jesus “identified with sin”. As
Kendell Easley said, “Paul’s language is careful. He did not say Jesus became a
sinner, which would be untrue. Rather, Jesus became the representative
sin-bearer. HE identified 100 percent with the sin of the world, when he died
on the cross (John 1:29). God treated Jesus as if he were sin itself”. Personally,
I still find this to be nonsensical, for I cannot see how one can be identified
“100 percent” with sin without them becoming sinful themselves. This seems to
propose a logically contradictory view of God where, on one hand, He can be
holy, while on the other, identifying with sin fully and completely. God does
not identify with sin; He condemns it, and everything He is ever associated with
or identified as is holy, righteous, and pure.
I believe we should view this passage in light of other
passages that indicate Jesus was a purification offering on mankind’s behalf
and avoid any such interpretation that makes Christ become sin, absorb sin, or
identify with sin, as some have proposed. Such interpretations begin causing
multiple issues Christologically. To combine these concepts, as some have
attempted, I believe causes entirely unnecessary contradictions. If there is a
less contradictory interpretation and one that allows for more scriptural consistency,
I believe it would be prudent to take that route. It is for this reason, and others,
I think Paul is simply stating Christ was a purification offering on our behalf
to purify the sins of mankind from the holy space—as was done in the temples of
old. (William L. Hess, Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? [2024],
185-87)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
