God Made Christ to Be Sin by Imputation: A Response to a Misguided Defense of Fortnerian Christology

2 Corinthians 5:21, KJV - 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.

The following link provides access to my high-christological exegesis of the hypostatic union.

Introduction

Historically, many Free Grace Radio constituents lauded Don Fortner as a gifted interlocutor and beloved pastor, praising his firm exposition of the particular death of Christ. Amid these teachings, however, some have overlooked—either intentionally or inadvertently—how Fortner also championed an aberrant Christological view known as "Christ made sin apart from imputation." His interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 centered on the claim that "our Lord Jesus is not here said to have sin imputed to him" (bold emphasis added). In response, let us examine the Greek New Testament (GNT), as the original reads,

τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (bold emphasis added).

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 (bold emphasis added).

It does not require scholarly erudition to comprehend the significance of the parallel above. Clearly, it highlights the doctrine of double imputation. Denying this reveals the subtle sophistry of interpreters. Pastor Fortner ignored the parallel, leading him to the benighted assertion that "...he hath made him to be sin" was "apart from imputation," ultimately suggesting that God also made the elect righteous apart from imputation.

Regarding the parallel in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul's use of "sin" denotes an alien transgression—one that pertains inherently to the elect rather than to the Savior. Through divine imputation, God credits the sins of the sheep to the Son. Conversely, "righteousness" refers to an alien righteousness intrinsic to Christ—which God reckons to His people. Yet, Fortner and his acolytes continue to cite this passage to suggest that Jesus became sin apart from the mechanism of imputation. This is heretical. Such a claim compromises the impeccability of the person of Christ, impugning both the One Divine Essence and His sinless human nature. 

Rather than adhering to the Pauline doctrine of double imputation, certain proponents within the Free Grace Radio movement are attempting to revive the theological tenets of the late pastor Don Fortner, often echoing his idiosyncratic talking points. For instance, in early 2026, pastor Daniel Parks utilized social media to advocate the Fortnerite mantra of Christ being made sin "apart from imputation," a stance that directly echoes excerpts from his previous sermon in 2022. Therefore, although this article is not a personal attack on Pastor Parks, this position paper will demonstrate why parroting Fortner's "Christ made sin" doctrine is futile.

Atonement is Doctrine

Historically,[1] professing Christians have wrestled with varying expositions of Christ’s work. Doctrines of the atonement abound.[2] Without providing a positive exposition of what the idea means, the recent writer Daniel Parks has written two brief posts online asserting this position. Instead of proposing a substantive exegetical defense of the doctrine that Christ was made sin apart from imputation, Pastor Parks opted for two brief online entries. These publications largely reiterated the arguments of Fortner, failing to provide a rigorous exposition to justify the position. In the first post, Parks noted,

Parks, the Rhetor

There is clear chicanery here. First, Parks suggests by his use of passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20, that anyone who does not follow his position is somehow calling God’s Word into question. Parks says, “And Paul wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote when he wrote God “made” Christ to be sin” [Facebook Post, Feb. 5, 2026 at 9:41, AM]. Then, second, with rhetorical flair, Parks notes what Paul did not say, using various buzzwords that are identifiers of differing explanations of Paul’s expression, “God made Christ sin.” Parks discounts these by asserting that “Paul did not write,” the following:

Paul did not write “God infused sin into Christ.”

Paul did not write “God imparted sin to Christ.”

Paul did not write “God imputed sin to Christ.”

Paul did not write “God made Christ to be a sinner.”

The Main Question…. Left Unanswered

Then, as a consequence of Parks’s assured denials, he posits the question that everyone wants answered, as to the way God made Christ sin: “how did God do so?”

Disappointingly, Parks answers his own question like this:

“The text does not explicitly say how God did so.”

There you have it. After all the rant with rhetorical rectitude, dear Parks is left with nothing. Oh, but this will not keep him from one more bold assertion. Parks ends his piece with a genius verbal sleight of hand in pronouncing:

“. . . Christ was ‘made’ to be sin by God supernaturally.”

But we may ask, where does Paul explicitly say this?

Paul did not write, “God made Christ sin supernaturally.”

Parks, Too Good for Himself

The tables have turned. Parks is refuted by his own methodology. This is what happens when you begin with a conclusion in hand and use it as a plough through all the verbal landscape. Parks, it seems, wants to denounce those who maintain that the meaning of “God made Christ [to be] sin” is that God had sin imputed to Him. Parks does not accept this explanation, so he prefers a non-explanation. For the text does not explicitly say “God imputed sin to Christ,” but that He [God] made Christ to be sin.

Words, Words, Come Out to Play

According to Parks, the emphasis falls on the term “made.” He illustrates the term or word-use by saying that “made” is the same word used when Jesus turned the water into wine (cf. John 4:46; 2:11). His assured but miscalculated victory is sensed to occur in the way he ends this assertion: “Rather, we are expressly told Jesus “made” water to be wine supernaturally (John 2:11).” Note also that John does not write “Jesus turned the water into wine supernaturally.”

Rather than embracing the biblical parallel of double imputation (2 Cor. 5:21), Parks prefers a "Fortnerite" parallel, asserting that God made Christ to be sin "supernaturally" in the same manner that the Logos turned water into wine. This parallel fails fundamentally: the water supernaturally transformed was no longer water; it literally became wine. Consequently, if Christ was made sin "apart from imputation" in the same way he turned water into wine, one must logically deduce that He no longer possessed a sinless human nature, but instead literally became a "supernatural sinner." Regardless of how often Parks claims that "Christ is never a sinner," his view—divorced from imputation—leads inevitably to this conclusion.

By repeating, “God made Christ sin” over and over and over again, will not make this empty notion any clearer unless some form of meaning is attached to the words.

Meaning, not Mantras

The Greek word “made” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is the root verb “poieō.” In the GNT, the text is as follows:

τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (bold emphasis added).

The word “made” is an aorist, active, indicative verb. But, more importantly, than its grammatical form is its actual use. The word has a straightforward and normal use in terms of “accomplish” or “to make” that one can see a non-figurative procedure, as in:

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς (Matt. 19:4, bold emphasis added).

“. . . [God ]from the beginning made [created] them, Male and Female, made He them” (My translation of the relevant section).

Yet the word, “poieō” also has a figurative usage in Scripture. For example, in connection with the work of Christ in defeating sin on the cross, God subsequently made Jesus, Christ and Lord. See Acts 2:36, as follows:

ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος ᾿Ισραὴλ ὅτι καὶ Κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίησε, τοῦτον τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε (bold emphasis added).

Clearly, God did not make Jesus into something He was not before the crucifixion. So the term “made” is used figuratively as appointed or revealed, not “literally” made! This figurative use is also found in a statement by Jesus in John 19:7:

πεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι· ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν, καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἡμῶν ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν, ὅτι ἑαυτὸν Θεοῦ υἱὸν ἐποίησεν (bold emphasis added).

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God (bold emphasis added).

Again, it is clear here that Jesus did not “make” Himself into something else. He did not transform Himself from a man into a God.[3] The religious leaders reckon the accusation that Jesus is worthy of death because Jesus claimed to be equal to God or announced Himself as God’s Son. It is not so that Jesus made Himself into something else, supernaturally!

If Pastor Parks were to consult lexicographical resources to understand the contextual meaning of words, rather than echoing Fortner's idiosyncratic interpretations, he would achieve a more robust understanding. While the GNT utilizes poieō hundreds of times, its semantic range varies significantly depending on the context, as noted below:

• to produce someth. material, make, manufacture, produce
  

• to undertake or do someth. that brings about an event, state, or condition, do, cause, bring about, accomplish, prepare,
  

• to carry out an obligation of a moral or social nature, do, keep, carryout, practice, commit

  
  

• to do someth. to others or someth., do someth. to/with

  
  

• do, make, with variations in specialized expressions

  
  

• to be active in some way, work, be active

  
  

• make/do someth. for oneself or of oneself mid[4] 

Both context and common sense should guide us in our exposition of God’s Word. We ought to end our exegetical labels with meaning and not mere mantras.

The Real Issue Emerges

Let us return to Parks for his second piece on 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Here, it is evident that his sights are clearly turned upon those who explain the clause, “God made Christ to be sin” as an act of imputation. Indeed, the verse has traditionally been taken as a reference to double imputation.[5] But we shall return to the passage with a more detailed examination.

The Five Points of Parksism

Parks states in this second piece, “Made to Be Sin By Imputation . . . Not!” [Facebook post February 16, 2026 at 4:24 AM] that there are some that “. . .say God made Christ to be sin by imputation.” He explains “imputation” as something charged to one’s account. So, Parks maintains, “they say God made Christ sin by charging to His account the sins of others.”

In response, Parks lists 5 main supposed rebuttals. Then adds a sixth, which is really a reiteration of the third. Here they are:

1.   The Scripture says that God made Christ to be sin, not that God imputed sins to Christ.

2.    No Scripture says God imputed sins to Christ.

3.    Imputing something to someone does not make that one to be what was imputed to him.

4.    If God imputed sins to Christ, then Christ was condemned, declared to be a sinful person, a sinner.

5.    Christ is never a sinner.

[6] Really, no. 3, again. Paul’s use of imputation language would make Paul a debtor but not debt itself. For imputation does not make one to be what was charged to his account.

So, now, beyond dispute is the crux of the matter. Parks and others of his ilk are dead set against the notion of sin imputed to Christ. Parks makes these “observations,” as he calls them. In reality, it is more subterfuge and mere verbal misdirection. Let us take these matters one by one.

Five Counter-Points

First, Parks recites the text. We all agree as to what it says. “God made Christ sin.” Yes, but Parks, as already noted, proceeds to tell us what it does not mean, that is, it cannot be imputation because it does not say “God imputed sins to Christ.” But the entire procedure is wrongheaded. To be certain of what the statement does not mean requires a positive affirmation of what it does. This is asking too much. Furthermore, it rules out the possibility that the words may have a non-literal meaning attached to them.

In response, therefore, let it be noted that the Bible nowhere states that “God has not imputed sins to Christ.” Also, there ought to be a positive meaning established due to the parallel structure of the verse in its entirety that comes at the end of a discussion about Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work. Let us quote more fully:

ἡ γὰρ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνέχει ἡμᾶς, ^[15]κρίναντας τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον· καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι. ^[16]῞Ωστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. ^[17]ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε καινὰ τὰ πάντα. ^[18]τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς, ^[19]ὡς ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. ^[20]῾Υπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι᾿ ἡμῶν· δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ Θεῷ· ^[21]τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: ¹⁵ And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

¹⁶ Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. ¹⁷ Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. ¹⁸ And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹ To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. ²⁰ Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 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 (2 Cor. 5:14-21).

To note that the expression at the end of the chapter brings about a dual relationship is seen in the following way:

For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

That [purpose]

We [believers] might be made [to certainly become] the righteousness of God in him [either locative or instrumental].

There is a causal connection. The work undertaken by Christ is in reference to sin and to sinning believers. If the expression “we are [have become] the righteousness of God in Him,” that is Christ, is simply repeated over and over again, it will not explain it. It simply will not do to assert that God has made it so that we become or are the righteousness of God supernaturally. Positive content and meaning must emerge. It is this pivotal point that Paul’s doctrine of salvation is aided by his statement, here implied, that the believer is the righteousness of God by imputation. It is a reference to the declaration of one’s declared status. That is why we need a positive statement and content of the sense of “God made Christ to be sin.” Its bald repetition serves no purpose and leaves God’s people in the dark. But if this carefully crafted doublet is designed to impart information, why is imputation of sin to Christ ruled out of court before any evidence is examined? It makes perfect sense that the words, “God made Christ to be sin,” means that Christ had the sins of His people imputed to Him in a legal sense. This forensic idea is part and parcel of the broader teaching of the New Testament concerning righteousness/justification.[6]

Parks’s second point is that “no” Scripture says that God imputed sins to Christ. Again, no scripture says that “God did not impute sins to Christ.” This is like asking for the expression: “Jesus said, I am God Incarnate,” otherwise I won’t accept your claims that Jesus is God. Islamists often use this ploy. It is a sly approach to undermine what is, in other ways, a clear biblical doctrine. The double imputation is in 2 Corinthians 5:21, and this idea is upheld and supported by other scriptures. We will return to this.

The third claim made by Parks is the detachment from imputation to being something. Having sins imputed to Christ does not make Christ to be sin. Here, Parks is still assuming what can and what cannot be a priori.

The Fourth response from Parks makes a converse statement from the prior point. According to Parks, if God imputed sins to Christ, then Christ was condemned, declared to be a sinful person, a sinner. This is a bit tricky to untangle. Is Parks’s intent on denying Christ’s vicarious condemnation? This seems to follow. At this point, again, I will beg your patience as we await a more careful examination and analysis of the main text and its theological contours. If Christ was not condemned and punished in the stead of His elect, then there is no hope for any eternal forgiveness. Of course, Christ needed to be treated as a sinner to undergo such a wrath-absorbing encounter on the cross.

Parks affirms that the Bible says that Christ was never a sinner. This, his fifth rebuttal against imputation, maintains that Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26). One is not suggesting otherwise. Christ was tempted in all ways yet without sin. That is what the part in 2 Corinthians 5:21 means when it says, “He Who knew no sin . . .” Indeed, Jesus Christ was, is, and ever shall be sinless.

Scholarship

Regarding Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Pastor Parks remarked in a 2022 sermon, "I do not understand it," adding, "I cannot explain to you how God made Christ to be sin." This section of the paper aims to provide theological clarity on this passage, to show Parks why the unconventional Christology previously championed by Don Fortner is heresy. To provide a robust alternative, one may look to the exegesis of Scott J. Hafemann.[7] What will follow is a selection of Hafemann’s comments on this epistle with additional insights gleaned from other writers, and my own observations on the emergent theology of the passage.

The Text

The Text from the Application Commentary:

14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.[8]

Exposition of the Theme

Here, we begin with a general statement concerning the passage. Hafemann introduces us to the theme:

In 5:11–6:2, this same awareness leads to an equally courageous commitment to persuade others to join him in living in a way that pleases God (5:11a, 14–15, 21). . .

Thus, the reference to Paul’s persuading others in 5:11–12 unpacks his earlier thesis-like statements in 2:17 and 4: 2 that he speaks his message in Christ before the judgment of God (cf. 12:19). Knowing the fear of the Lord, the apostle remains true to the gospel himself and seeks to persuade others of the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry in order that they too may be saved.[9]

Effectual Atonement

In an important section, Hafemann explains the effectual work of Christ while he exposits the statement about Christ’s death “for all.” Specifically,

Christ’s death “for all” brings about the “death” of “all” for whom he died (cf. the “therefore” of v. 14c). Together with Christ’s death as a model for his own behavior, this accomplished fact concerning the consequences of Christ’s death “compels” Paul in his ministry. The “all died” of 5:14 must therefore be limited to God’s people, otherwise Christ’s death would mean that all people are now a new creation in Christ, living for him rather than themselves (5:15–17). For Christ’s love-motivated death for all is not merely an example of what his people should do, but also the very means by which his followers are impelled and enabled to do it. Nor is the death of all in 5:14c merely a potential to be actualized by all people, but the compelling cause that leads those for whom Christ has died to follow him in their lives. Thus, the striking feature of Paul’s statement is that all those who died in 5:14 are then identified in 5:15 as those who now live, which is surely limited to those who actually participate in God’s salvation in Christ (cf. 5:21–6:1). Christ died for his people.[10]

So, in this exposition to this point, what becomes evident to the careful reader is that the ministry of Christ centered on the cross-work is the highlight of the section. In the express connection with the Old Testament background, Hafemann notes:

. . . . the Old Testament and Jewish understanding of atonement with God by means of a substitutionary sacrifice is the essential background for understanding both “reconciliation” in 5:18–20 and Christ’s being made “to be sin” in 5:21. This backdrop is brought into view through Paul’s reference to Christ’s being “made … sin” in 5:21. Like its parallel designation “concerning sin” in Romans 8:3 (cf. Isa. 53:10), this description reflects the LXX rendering of being made a “sacrifice for sin” or “sin offering” in Leviticus 4:13–14, 20–21, 24; 5:6–7, 10–12; 6:18; 9:7; 14: 19; 16:15. Accordingly, this portrayal of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin indicates that the death/ blood of Christ is the means by which God fulfills the need for atonement prefigured in the sacrifices of the Sinai covenant (cf. Rom. 3:25–26; 4: 25; 5:8; 8:3; 1 Cor. 6:11; 11:23–26; 15:3–5; Col. 1:19– 20 against the backdrop of Lev. 10:17; 16; 17:11). The explicit link between the Old Testament sacrificial system and the death of Christ is found in the fact that Jesus, as the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12, bears the sins of God’s people as their ransom (cf. Mark 8:36–37; 10:45; 14:24 against the backdrop of Isa. 43:1–4; 53:4–8, 10–12). Paul’s reference to Christ as the One who “had no sin” (lit., “did not know sin”), whom God nevertheless “made … to be sin,” thus recalls the death of the “righteous servant” who did not sin in Isaiah 53:9, 11. So, without a doubt, “it is to be inferred that the efficacy of his death arises from the sinlessness of his life.” In his sacrificial death as the sinless Son of God, Jesus pays the penalty for our sin.[11]

Substitution and Imputation

Charles Hodge brings in the theological sense by examining the original text. He conveys the importance like this:

Had he not been free from sin, he could not have taken the place of sinners. Under the old dispensation the sacrifices were required to be without blemish, in order to teach the necessity of freedom from all sin in him who was to bear the sins of the world. See Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5. He was made sin, may mean either, he was made a sin-offering, or, the abstract being used for the concrete, he was made a sinner. Many of the older commentators prefer the former explanation; Calvin, and almost all the moderns adopt the latter. The meaning in either case is the same; for the only sense in which Christ was made sin, is that he bore the guilt of sin; and in this sense every sin offering was made sin. Hence in the Hebrew Scriptures the same word is used both for sin and a sin-offering. This is the principal ground on which the explanation of αμαρτια here in the sense of a sacrifice for sin is defended. The reasons, however, against this explanation are decisive.

1. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word for sin, when it means a sin-offering, is always rendered by αμαρτια in the genitive. It is always “of sin,” or “for sin,” (περι αμαρτιας), Leviticus 5:9, 14, 19; Numbers 8:8, and never simply “sin,” as here.

2. The use of the word in the ordinary sense in this same clause, ‘He made him to be sin who knew no sin.’ It must have the same meaning in both cases.

3. The antithesis between “sin” and “righteousness.” He was made sin, we are made “righteousness.” The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which he was made sin, is that he was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with his being in himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly.

In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. . . . In Galatians 3:13, the apostle says that “Christ was made a curse for us,” which is equivalent to saying that he was made sin for us. In both cases the idea is that he bore the punishment of our sins. God laid on him the iniquities of us all. His sufferings and death were penal, because inflicted and endured in satisfaction of justice. And in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person they were a perfect satisfaction; that is, a full equivalent for all the law’s demands. In Romans 8:3, it is said, “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Here again we have precisely the same doctrine. What in one passage is expressed by saying that Christ was made sin, in the other is expressed by saying, he was sent “for sin,” i.e. as a sin-offering (περι-αμαρτιας).

The apostle says Christ: was made sin for us, ὐπερ ἠμων, i.e. in our stead, because the idea of substitution is involved in the very nature of the transaction. The victim was the substitute for the offender. It was put in his place. So Christ was our substitute, or, was put in our place. This is the more apparent from the following clause, which teaches the design of this substitution. He was made sin, that we might be made righteous. He was condemned, that we might be justified. The very idea of substitution is that what is done by one in the place of another, avails as though that other had done it himself. The victim was the substitute of the offerer, because its death took the place of his death. If both died there was no substitution. So if Christ’s being made sin does not secure our being made righteousness, he was not our substitute. . . . There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated than in this. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed in his righteousness. Imputation conveys neither pollution nor holiness. Christ’s bearing our sins did not make him morally a sinner, any more than the victim was morally defiled which bore the sins of the people; nor does Christ’s righteousness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of our souls. This is what is not meant. What is meant is equally plain. Our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice; and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice.[12]

Hafemann transitions to practical insights drawn from his exegetical labors. Note his important contribution. In a section entitled, “Bridging the Contexts,” he notes,

This is why in 5:21b Paul can summarize the outcome of Christ’s atoning death in terms of the “righteousness of God.” As pointed out in relationship to 3:9, God’s righteousness is his just character as demonstrated in the consistency of his actions toward his creation in accordance with his covenant promises. Specifically, those actions derive from his unswerving commitment to glorify himself by maintaining his moral standards in judgment, revealing his sovereignty in election, and showing his grace through meeting the needs of his people. God’s righteousness thus includes his acts to redeem and transform his people in the midst of this evil age and culminates in the judgment of the wicked and the restoration of the righteous in the age to come (cf. 3:9, 18; 5:10, 17). Given the sinfulness of the very people God seeks to redeem, his righteousness is revealed most dramatically in his sending his Son to be a sinless sacrifice for the sins of this people (5:21). The cross of Christ thus meets the ultimate need of God’s people, that is, their need for mercy from a righteous God. On the cross, Christ takes on their sin; because of the cross, they take on God’s righteousness. The “righteousness of God” is thus both a legal quality describing his just character and a dynamic concept describing his way of acting in the world. . . . ^[13]

Scott Hafemann identifies the cross as the place where Christ was made sin. The legal and forensic characteristic of this double imputation is found in these pregnant intimations. In a later section, Hafemann speaks of this gospel in God-exalting terms. He states quite categorically:

What makes this news so good, of course, is that all of this is accomplished not by our efforts, but by God’s sovereign act of creating anew. God reconciles us to himself not because of our distinctives or accomplishments, but because of the unique distinctives of the one who was made sin even though he knew no sin (5:21). We do not reach up to God, but God reaches out to us. We are not called to make great declarations to God; rather, God has declared a word of reconciliation to us, a word of his own redeeming love, a love that stretches from the crossing of the sea to the cross of the Son of God. In Paul’s words, “all this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (5:18). The God-centered focus of Paul’s gospel is the gospel. We do not save ourselves; indeed, we cannot. God saves us as the only One who can. “It is the very heart of the gospel that it both gives everything and requires everything. . . . [quoting Leslie Newbigin]”[14]

Conclusion

The parallel that we find in Paul’s letter to the Galatians is very similar in its figurative and substitutionary affirmation. There, Paul says,

Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα· γέγραπται γάρ· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree (Gal. 3:13).

It is the same occasion, the cross, it is the same person, Jesus Christ, and it is the same figurative expression, being made into something. In 2 Corinthians, Christ is made sin; in Galatians, Christ is made a curse. The only way to make sense of these statements, as well as those that depict the Son as absorbing the wrath of His Father as in “the Lord was Pleased to Crush him [Christ]” (Is. 53:10), rendered in the KJV as “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him” is to speak of vicarious atoning redemption and forensic or legal imputation.[15]

---

[1] As a disclaimer, while I have cited numerous scholars—some with whom I agree and others with whom I disagree—these citations do not constitute an endorsement of their work nor an agreement with all of their theological presuppositions.

[2] For example, see James Bielby & Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006).

[3] See John 5:18; 8:53; and 10:33.

[4] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th Ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2021), pp. 744-747.

[5] See Jerry Bridges & Bob Bevington, The Great Exchange: My Sin For His Righteousness (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007) and George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1870), passim, and esp. pp. 221-232.

[6] See George Ella, The Covenant of Grace and the People of God (Cumbria, UK: Go Publications, 2020), 293-309.

[7] See Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000).

[8] Scott Hafemann, 2 Corinthians (Scott J. Hafemann (Kindle Locations 4212-4221). Kindle Edition. All subsequent references will be from the Kindle edition.

[9] Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, Locations 4231-4233, and Locations 4227-4228 (bold emphasis added).

[10] Hafemann, 2 Corinthians , Locations 4332-4341 (bold emphasis added). Hafemann adds in a later section the following Comments: “The ‘therefore’ of 5:14c reflects Paul’s conviction that the consequences of Christ’s death are not a potential that we actualize by our faith, but a reality that God brings about in the lives of his people. Paul’s point is not that Christ really died for all, therefore all potentially die. Paul assumes that the consequences of Christ’s death are personal, powerful, and effective, not general, possible, and contingent. The power of the cross is good news. The death of Christ accomplishes what it was intended to do. ‘Christ is a Redeemer who really does redeem.’ As a result of his death on their behalf, all those in Christ are a new creation!” (Locations 4562-4568).  

[11] Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, Locations 4458-4470 (bold emphasis added). In his commentary, J. H. Bernard offers these insights: “[made sin] is best understood if we recall the Jewish ritual on the Day of Atonement, when the priest was directed to ‘place’ the sins of the people upon the head of the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21)” [The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol.3, ed. W. Robertson Nicol, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990)], 73. David Garland refuses this connection with the sin offering of the Old Testament, suggesting that the word “sin” must have the same meaning in both mentions in this verse. Yet he is assured of the figurative and substitutionary character of Christ’s death. See David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1999), 299-302. Curiously, Fred Fisher claims “that “Paul [the Apostle] had no theory of the Atonement,” but does insist on the following statement concerning 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He made him to be sin: cannot be taken literally. It must be taken to mean “made him to suffer the consequences of sin.” Made is not to be taken as if God exerted force on Christ. His redemptive sufferings were his own choice. If the expression were taken literally, it would mean that Christ and sin became the same thing. This, of course, cannot be true” (see Fred Fisher, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1975)], 348. Thus, once again, note the serious objection to any ‘literal’ notion of the expression “God made Christ to be Sin.”  Along with Fisher, one must declare, “this cannot be true!!!”

[12] Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians. Geneva Series of Commentaries (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000; [1857]), pp. 524-527, passim, bold emphasis added. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1986) says, “ ‘righteousness’ is here used in a way different from Paul’s attested usage. The Pauline clause in v 19, however, we may submit, has recast the setting of what follows. It has introduced the framework of justification and so ensured, from Paul’s perspective, that the ‘double imputation’—our sin is borne by Christ/Christ’s holy status is transferred to us—is understood in categories that Paul’s teaching regarded as central, . . .” [pp. 149., bold emphasis added]. Others that adhere to a form of exchange or imputation include, C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1973), 179-80; Philip Edcumbe Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973 [1962]), 211-216; and the very able divine, Hugh Martin, The Atonement (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, nd), 206-216.  

[13] Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, Locations 4524-4533.

[14] Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, Locations 4752-4759 (bold emphasis added).

[15] For more theological work on these issues, see William Rushton, A Defense of Particular Redemption (Choteau, MT: Old Gospel Press, 1831).