1 Peter 2:21-24 — Anaphérein means “to carry away”

“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his footsteps …. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sin, might live to righteousness.”

1 Peter 2:21-24

Context

Peter, in the surrounding passage (1 Pet 2:18–25), exhorts household servants to patience under unjust masters. Verses 21–24 ground this ethic not by a dogmatic theory of atonement but by the example of Christ: he endured wrong without taking vengeance (v.23: “he did not threaten, but entrusted himself to him who judges justly”). The literarily bearing frame is paraenesis, not dogmatics.

V.21 names the keyword that runs through the entire passage: hypogrammon — “pattern,” “tracing-model.” Peter explicitly presents the suffering of Christ as an imitable model. Precisely this, however, logically excludes a penal-substitutionary reading of v.24: what we are meant to follow cannot at the same time be that which only another could endure in our place. Christ's self-giving is example; a penal-substitutionary payment would not be.

In vv.22–24 Peter quotes almost verbatim from Isaiah 53 (LXX): v.22 takes up Isa 53:9, v.23 alludes to Isa 53:7, v.24 cites Isa 53:4, 5, 11, 12 with its own accent. The key to interpretation is therefore not the dogmatic conceptual apparatus of later centuries, but the Greek rendering of the Hebrew verbs — in particular nasa / sabal, which the Septuagint in 53:4, 11, 12 renders by phérein and anaphérein respectively.

Peter deliberately chooses from the LXX vocabulary anaphérein — not hypophérein (“to endure”) or páschein (“to suffer”), which he uses elsewhere in the same passage (vv.19, 20, 21, 23). This terminological differentiation is exegetically decisive: páschein describes the passive suffering of Christ; anaphérein in v.24, by contrast, the active priestly-cultic act of taking away. Whoever equates the two verbs erases the linguistic care peculiar to Peter.

The verse closes with an unambiguous statement of purpose: hina tais hamartiáis apogenómenoi têi dikaiosynêi zêsômen — “so that, having died to sins, we may live to righteousness.” The hina-telos is ethical, not juridical. A penal-substitutionary reading would have led one to expect a different purpose-clause here (for instance: “so that we may be justified before God”). Peter, however, places the accent on the manner of life — that is the point of his citation of Isa 53.

The Socinian core thesis

Socinianly, anaphérein in v.24 does not mean “to endure passively, as one endures a penalty,” but actively “to carry up, to remove, to take away.” The verb belongs to the word-field of sacrificial language: a sacrifice is carried up onto the altar, and that always means at the same time, in the LXX, that the sin is thereby removed (Lev 17:5; 1 Sam 7:9; 2 Chr 35:12 LXX). Hebrews 9:28 uses exactly the same expression in the sense “in order to take away the sins of many” — an inner-NT echo that unmistakably fixes the Petrine meaning.

The Greek preposition en in “in his body” here means instrumentally “through,” not locally “upon / on.” En with the dative is in the NT regularly instrumental (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 12:3, 13; Eph 2:16); the Septuagint likewise uses the preposition instrumentally in sacrificial terminology. Christ carried our sins through his body up onto the tree and away — he removed them, he was not punished on his body.

With this the whole scene shifts its frame: Peter does not present the carrying-out of a penalty upon Christ, but the priestly act of removal of sin through Christ's self-giving. The body is the means, the tree is the place of sacrifice, not the scaffold. This reading is not a Socinian last resort — it arises from the LXX verbal semantics, from the inner-NT parallel Heb 9:28, and from the rhetorical aim of the verse.

The ethical purpose-clause “so that we, having died to sin, might live to righteousness” makes the theological frame entirely clear: Christ does not die in order to settle a penalty-quota, but in order to put a new order of life into force. Sozzini puts it sharply: from the paying of another's debts it does not follow that the pardoned should contract no new debts; but from Christ's taking-away of the sins it follows necessarily that those who have been freed are to die to sin.

Exegesis: key terms and word-field

Five linguistic observations philologically decide the interpretation of 1 Pet 2:21–24:

anaphérein / anénenken — “to carry up, to take away”

The verb anaphérein (aorist form anénenken) is terminologically fixed in the LXX in sacrificial language: the sacrifice is “carried up” onto the altar (Lev 14:20; 17:5; 1 Sam 7:9; 2 Chr 35:14). The meaning here is never merely “passively to bear a burden,” but actively “to bring up to the height, to offer, to remove.” The penal-substitutionary rendering (“he endured our sins”) precisely misses the verbal semantics; it confuses anaphérein with hypophérein (“to bear under, to endure”), which Peter himself uses in v.19 when he means passive endurance.

The decisive inner-NT parallel is Heb 9:28: ho Christós hapáx prosenechtheis eis to pollôn anenenkein hamartías — “Christ, having been offered once, in order to take away the sins of many.” Verb and object agree verbatim with 1 Pet 2:24; the sense in the Letter to the Hebrews is indisputably “to take away, to remove.” If the NT writers use the same expression in two canonically connected writings, the one passage cannot refute the other. Peter must be read in the sense of Hebrews 9 — and that means: the taking-away of sin.

The LXX model Isa 53:12 is also unambiguous: there the Seventy translate the Hebrew nasa chet by autos hamartías pollôn anênegken. Nasa in Hebrew means both “to bear” and “to carry away, to forgive” (cf. Gen 50:17; Exod 32:32; Ps 32:1, 5); in the sacrificial context plainly the second. Precisely this Hebrew double meaning is rendered by the Greek anaphérein; Peter deliberately loads his choice of word with the whole OT semantic field — and that field is the field of taking-away, not of penal imputation.

en tôi sômati autou — “through his body”

The preposition en with the dative is in the NT to a very large extent instrumental. In Rom 1:4 (“appointed Son of God in power” = through power), 1 Cor 12:3 (“in / by the Holy Spirit”), 1 Cor 12:13 (“baptized in / by one Spirit”), and Eph 2:16 (“in / through his body” — a verbatim parallel), the instrumental reading is exegetically clearly attested. In 1 Pet 2:24 the verbal connection is almost identical with Eph 2:16 — and Eph 2:16 is instrumental.

“Through” rather than “on” is exegetically more correct: Christ's body is the means of the taking-away of sin, not the place of punishment. Sozzini emphasises precisely this question of preposition: “The preposition in, as all have noted in innumerable passages of the New Covenant …, means in this passage nothing other than through.” The Hebrew LXX background of Isa 53 also points in this direction.

The penal-substitutionary reading (“on his body”) suggests itself only because the Latin Vulgate has in corpore suo. The Latin in, however, likewise has an instrumental meaning (“by means of”) which is well attested in classical Latin (“in armis stare”). A linguistically-historically conservative reading is therefore not forced upon us by the Vulgate; it arises only through a later theological pre-decision.

hypogrammon — “pattern, tracing-model” (v.21)

Hypogrammon denotes literally the writing-model over which a pupil traces the letters. Peter thereby coins the image of imitable exemplarity: Christ's suffering is the line we trace over. The term is a hapax legomenon in the NT — Peter chooses it precisely in order to show: Christ's suffering is followable, not substitutionary.

From this it follows logically: what Peter in v.24 describes as “carrying-up of the sins onto the tree” must be read in a sense that does not annul the exemplarity of v.21. A penal-substitutionary reading of v.24 makes v.21 inconsistent: penal substitution precisely cannot be hypogrammon; it happens uno actu and inexceedably to Christ himself, while the taking-away of sin through self-giving conduct of life is what Christians are actually called to (Col 1:24).

Sozzini puts it clearly: “This interpretation sets before the eyes the meekness and patience of Christ, which was the issue there, no less than that other interpretation; for it is said in this one no less than in that one that he patiently endured the death of the cross — which, as a fact known to all, is set forth as an example, in order to imitate him whom the Apostle wishes to place before our eyes.” The ethical point of the verse is preserved; penal substitution shatters it.

tais hamartiáis apogenómenoi — “having died to sins” (v.24c)

The participle apogenómenoi (aorist middle of apogígnomai) means literally “to have come away from,” “to have died out of.” Peter thereby depicts a real, accomplished detachment from sin — not a forensic imputation. The following purpose-clause têi dikaiosynêi zêsômen (“we may live to righteousness”) strengthens this ethical reading: zêsômen is aorist active subjunctive, a real action of life.

This purpose-clause is incompatible with the penal-substitutionary reading. Sozzini formulates the logical problem succinctly: “From the fact that someone has paid the debts of another it does not follow that he wills that this person should henceforth contract no further debts of others.” Penal substitution is forensically concluded; it does not ground an ethical reorientation. The taking-away of sin, by contrast, is constitutively ethical — and precisely this logic governs 1 Pet 2:24c.

The parallel to Rom 6:2–11 is plain: there “dying to sin” is explicitly unfolded as the baptismal grounding of the new life. The theological ground of the taking-away is the dying of Christ with us, not in place of us. Peter and Paul agree in this: Christ's death effects a new mode of existence — not an altered penal balance-sheet.

iaomai and môlôps — “by his stripes you have been healed” (v.24d)

The expression hou tôi môlôpi iáthête (“by whose wound / stripes you have been healed”) cites Isa 53:5 LXX. The verb iaomai is healing terminology, not criminal-law terminology. Where a forensic logic would say “pardoned,” Peter says “healed.” The image of salvation is medical-personal — the damage of sin is not punished through Christ's wound, but healed.

Healing not only does not include penal substitution, but excludes it. A wound that heals lets damage recede; a penal judgement that is carried out lets the debt-claim be covered. The two logics are categorially different. Peter clearly chooses the first — and the cited Isaiah-verse does so too.

In Mt 8:17 Isa 53:4 (“he bore our diseases”) is expressly applied to Jesus' healing activity, not to the death on the cross. This inner-NT interpretation of Isa 53 speaks strongly against the penal-substitutionary narrowing of the Servant Song. Peter cites Isaiah on the same line on which Matthew also understands him.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to Fausto Sozzini

Fausto Sozzini treats 1 Pet 2:21–24 extensively in “On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore).” This passage is taken by his opponent Jacobus Covet as the “strongest foundation” of the doctrine of penal substitution — Sozzini therefore devotes to it a whole stretch of argument and dissects it philologically, syntactically and theologically.

The Greek word which the translators have rendered as ‘endured’ is anénenken, which should not have been translated as ‘to endure’ but as ‘to take away’ — just as in the Letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9, the last verse, where exactly the same expression occurs. … It is then to be considered that the preposition ‘in,’ as all have noted in innumerable passages of the New Covenant, in this passage means nothing other than ‘through,’ and that Peter should have been translated as follows: ‘Who himself carried our sins away through his body up onto the tree.’

Fausto Sozzini, “On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore),” Part One · 1 Peter 2:24

Sozzini stresses: the penal-substitutionary translation “he endured” is linguistically wrong. Anénenken is the aorist of anaphérein and means, in Septuagint usage, throughout “to carry up, to remove, to offer.” Heb 9:28 is the inner NT proof on which the meaning is canonically fixed — and the proof is unambiguous: “in order to take away the sins of many.”

With this the whole scene changes its frame: Peter does not present the carrying-out of a penalty upon Christ, but the act of removal of sin through Christ's self-giving. That fits the aim of the verse: “so that we may live to righteousness” — ethical, not juridical. Sozzini argues: “From the fact that Christ died for this reason, that he might die to sin, it follows quite rightly and necessarily that he wills that we should leave sins behind and take up righteousness.” From a mere payment of penalty, by contrast, this ethical consequence does not follow.

Sozzini at the same time refers to the wider context (vv.20–21): “for you” in Peter does not mean “in place of you,” but “on your account” or “for your benefit.” Otherwise the ethical exhortation to follow Christ's footsteps would be meaningless: one cannot follow a substitutionary penalty; one can however very well follow a self-giving movement of life. The preposition hyper in Peter regularly bears the causal, benefit-directed meaning — not the substitutionary one.

Overview of Sozzini's writings

Logical arguments

From 1 Pet 2:21–24 the following logical and linguistic-philological arguments arise against the penal-substitutionary reading:

1. Argument from Septuagint verbal semantics. Anaphérein is in the LXX sacrificial and taking-away language (Lev 14:20; 17:5; 1 Sam 7:9; 2 Chr 35:12). It never means “passively to endure a punishment,” but actively “to carry up, to remove, to offer.” Peter writes in this linguistic tradition — not in that of a classical criminal law.
2. Argument from the parallel Heb 9:28. Heb 9:28 verbatim uses the same expression as 1 Pet 2:24: anenenkein hamartías pollôn — and the sense there is unmistakably “to take away.” Two canonically connected writings must be interpreted compatibly; Heb 9:28 fixes 1 Pet 2:24.
3. Argument from the word-difference anaphérein / hypophérein. Peter uses in the same passage two different verbs: hypophérein in v.19 for “to bear, to endure” and anaphérein in v.24 for what happens on the cross. A careful reading respects the terminological differentiation; the penal-substitutionary translation flattens it.
4. Argument from the prepositional semantics of en. En with the dative is in the NT regularly instrumental (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 12:3, 13; Eph 2:16). The parallel Eph 2:16 (“en tôi sômati autou”) is instrumental. A strictly local reading in 1 Pet 2:24 would have to be specifically justified — and the context (sacrificial terminology) does not support that.
5. Argument from the hypogrammon concept in v.21. Peter expressly presents Christ's suffering as a model for following. A penal-substitutionary reading of v.24 bursts this frame: what only another could perform in our place is precisely not followable. The ethical logic of v.21 demands a compatible reading of v.24.
6. Argument from the hina-telos in v.24c. The aim of the taking-away is ethical (“so that we may live to righteousness”), not forensic (“so that we may be justified before God”). From a penal payment no ethical obligation follows logically; from a real taking-away of sin, however, it does. Sozzini's analogy: whoever pays another's debts does not oblige the pardoned to future debt-freedom; but whoever takes away sins calls into a new life.
7. Argument from the healing-language in v.24d. “By whose stripes you have been healed” (iáthête) is medical-personal, not juridical. Healing and the carrying-out of a penalty are categorially different acts; Peter clearly chooses the healing category. A forensic narrowing alienates his choice of words.
8. Argument from the Hebrew background. The LXX model Isa 53:12 has autos hamartías pollôn anênegken; the Hebrew nasa chet means, in the sacrificial and forgiveness language of the OT (Lev 16; Ps 32:1, 5), “to take away, to forgive,” not “to be punished in someone's place.” Peter translates this sense into the Greek word-field.
9. Argument from 1 Pet 1:18–19. Peter himself, in the same letter, says from what redemption proceeds: from the “futile conduct” (mataiás anastrophês) of the fathers, not from God's penal intention. The Petrine perspective of redemption is liberation from real bondage, not penal substitution — and 1 Pet 2:24 must be interpreted in the light of 1 Pet 1:18.
10. Argument from internal consistency. A penal-substitutionary reading of v.24 contradicts v.21 (model), v.23 (Christ did not threaten, but committed himself to the just judge — not: he received the penalty), and v.24c (the ethical telos). The taking-away reading fits seamlessly into the whole passage.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages are essential for the correct understanding of 1 Pet 2:21–24 and deepen the interpretation in the light of the whole biblical witness:

Hebrews 9:28 — anaphérein as “to take away”

“So also Christ was offered once, in order to take away the sins of many” (eis to pollôn anenenkein hamartías). Verb, object and context agree verbatim with 1 Pet 2:24; the sense in the Letter to the Hebrews is unmistakably taking-away. This is the canonically decisive parallel for the interpretation of the Petrine verse.

Isaiah 53:4–5, 11–12 — the LXX model of Peter

The LXX translates the Hebrew nasa chet in Isa 53:12 by anaphérein — precisely the expression Peter takes up. In the Hebrew sacrificial context nasa means “to take away, to forgive” (cf. Lev 16:22; Ps 32:1, 5). The Servant Song does not teach penal substitution but the vicarious suffering-with of the Just One, which works healingly through the taking-away of sin.

Ephesians 2:16 — en tôi sômati autou instrumental

Paul writes: “and reconciled both in one body to God through the cross.” The expression en tôi sômati is here unambiguously instrumental — Christ's body is the means of reconciliation. This Pauline parallel decides the question of preposition in 1 Pet 2:24 in favour of the instrumental reading.

1 Peter 1:18–19 — from futile conduct, not from wrath

Peter specifies the “from what” of redemption: ek tês mataiás humôn anastrophês — “from your futile conduct.” Not from God's penal intention. Thereby 1 Pet 1 supports the reading of lytróô as a real liberation from bondage — and gives the sign under which to read the Petrine soteriology, in which 2:24 is also to be read.

Matthew 8:17 — Isa 53:4 as an act of healing

“That what was spoken through Isaiah might be fulfilled: He took our diseases and bore our infirmities.” Matthew expressly applies the verse to Jesus' healing activity, not to the death on the cross. This is the inner-NT interpretive decision: Isa 53 is a healing-text, not a penal-execution-text — and the standing background-logic for 1 Pet 2:24d.

Romans 6:2–11 — having died to sin with Christ

Paul unfolds the paraenetic logic of 1 Pet 2:24c in the baptismal context: Christians are “dead to sin” and are to live to it no longer. Dying with Christ is co-dying into a new form of existence — not a forensic imputation of Christ's penal suffering. Peter and Paul agree in this ethical-existential logic.

Leviticus 16:21–22 — carrying away of guilt

The goat on the Day of Atonement carries the sins of Israel “into a solitary land” — it is not substitutively punished. The OT image of the taking-away of sin through a sacrificial animal that is led away is the cultic root of the Petrine anaphérein-language. The goat is not paid as punishment, but sent away for the sake of removal.

John 1:29 — Lamb of God who takes away the sin

“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (ho aírôn tên hamartían). The verb aírein is a synonym of anaphérein in the sense of taking-away. The Johannine opening defines the work of Christ not as the rendering of a penalty but as taking-away — and thereby orders the whole NT usage.

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “But anaphérein can also mean ‘to endure’!”

For the NT, Septuagint usage is the primary horizon of reference, not classical Attic usage. In the LXX anaphérein is predominantly sacrificial language (Lev 14:20; 17:5; 1 Sam 7:9). Peter writes, as an apostle of Jerusalem Christianity, in this linguistic tradition.

Within the NT the meaning is canonically fixed by Heb 9:28 (same expression, unambiguously “to take away”) and Jas 2:21 (Abraham carried Isaac “up” onto the altar). Both passages exclude the reading “to endure.”

Peter himself differentiates in 1 Pet 2 between hypophérein (v.19, “to endure”) and anaphérein (v.24). A reading that levels this distinction disregards the Petrine linguistic care. The penal-substitutionary interpretation confuses two word-fields that the apostle himself cleanly distinguishes.

A strictly literal reading of the classical meaning would also interpret the Petrine language anachronistically. Sozzini writes: “Anénenken … means, in Septuagint usage, throughout ‘to carry up, to remove, to offer.’” This semantic narrowing is not a Socinian construction but the standard meaning of the verb in the Christian biblical-Greek tradition.

Objection 2: “‘On his body’ should be read locally — Christ was punished there”

The assumption that en with the dative is to be read primarily locally is false. In the NT the instrumental reading clearly predominates: Rom 1:4 (“through power”), 1 Cor 12:3 (“through the Holy Spirit”), 1 Cor 12:13 (“baptized through one Spirit”), Eph 2:16 (“through his body”). The instrumental reading is in NT prepositional semantics the normal case.

The closest verbal parallel Eph 2:16 (en heni sômati) is unambiguously instrumental: Christ's body is the means of reconciliation. The same word-combination must have the same function in 1 Pet 2:24 — anything else would be an arbitrary semantic shift.

The Septuagint also regularly uses en instrumentally in sacrificial contexts (Lev 4:4; 5:15; Num 18:17). Christ's body in 1 Pet 2:24 is the means of taking-away — analogously to the OT sacrificial animal, which was the means of the carrying-up. The image is priestly, not forensic.

Sozzini argues linguistically with precision: “The preposition in, as all have noted in innumerable passages of the New Covenant — and the Hebrews agree with the Greeks in this —, means in this passage nothing other than through.” The instrumental reading is thus the philological consensus of biblical linguistic usage, not a Socinian last resort.

Objection 3: “Isa 53 itself implies penal substitution”

The Hebrew verbs nasa and sabal in Isa 53 initially mean neutrally “to bear,” then in sacrificial contexts regularly “to take away, to forgive” (cf. Lev 16:22; Ps 32:1, 5; Mic 7:18). They are not juridical penal terminology. The LXX consistently renders them by anaphérein or phérein — likewise in the meaning “to take away.”

Mt 8:17 expressly cites Isa 53:4 in the context of Jesus' healing activity (“he took our diseases”). That is the inner-NT interpretive decision: Isa 53 is not a penal-substitutionary text, but a text of healing and taking-away. Peter cites on the same line on which Matthew also understands him.

The rabbinic tradition, too, does not consistently know Isa 53 as a penal-substitutionary text, but as a solidarity-image of the suffering Just One whose self-giving heals Israel. The Christian-juridical narrowing is a late-medieval reading, not the original sense. Cf. the detailed entry on Isaiah 53:5.

Sozzini makes it clear: “The Hebrew verbs nasa and sabal in Isa 53 mean ‘to bear, to take away’ — not ‘to be punished in someone's place.’ Precisely this meaning Peter renders here through anaphérein into Greek.” Penal substitution must therefore first be read into Isa 53 — it cannot be drawn philologically out of the text.

Objection 4: “‘Suffered for you’ in v.21 plainly means substitutionary suffering”

Hyper with the genitive has in the NT a broad spectrum of meanings: “in favour of,” “because of,” “for the sake of,” “on behalf of,” occasionally also “in place of.” Which meaning takes hold is always decided by the context — not by the vocabulary as such.

Sozzini analyses this in detail in “De Iesu Christo Servatore”: “If you assert that the word pro in those passages signifies only a causal sense, then by what has gone before it has already been sufficiently answered. For that Christ suffered and died on our account we have learnt in a fitting and most certain way.” The causal (“on our account”) and benefit-bringing (“to our advantage”) meaning is exegetically correct.

Sozzini's decisive counter-argument: Peter himself connects v.21 with the exhortation hina epakolouthêsête tois íchnesin autou — “so that you should follow in his footsteps.” If Christ had suffered as a substitute in our place, we could precisely not follow in his footsteps; a substitution is not followable. The call to discipleship logically excludes penal substitution.

1 John 3:16 too (“he laid down his life for us; so we also ought to lay down our lives for the brothers”) shows: hyper in the suffering of Christ has the same sense as in the exhortation to Christians — and Christians are not to be substitutively punished, but to die self-givingly for the brothers. The Petrine meaning is therefore causal and benefit-bringing, not substitutionary-juridical.

Objection 5: “Without punishment there can be no forgiveness — and v.24 explains this punishment”

The premise “without punishment, no forgiveness” is unbiblical. In the OT God frequently forgives without the carrying-out of a penalty upon a substitute: David in Ps 51 (after adultery and murder, God forgives upon repentance and confession), Manasseh in 2 Chr 33:12–13, the prodigal son in Lk 15 (the father punishes no one, he embraces).

Heb 9:22 actually says schedón “almost all is cleansed by blood” — the “almost” breaks the universal validity. The Letter to the Hebrews also knows exceptions (cf. Lev 5:11–13: in poverty, an offering of flour suffices); forgiveness is not universally bound to the shedding of blood. “Righteousness” in the OT sense (tsedeq) is not penal justice, but covenant-faithfulness and saving faithfulness (cf. Romans 3:25–26).

Sozzini writes sharply: “From the fact that someone has paid the debts of another it does not follow that he wills that this person should henceforth contract no further debts of others. But from the fact that Christ died in order to die to sin, it follows quite rightly and necessarily that he wills that we should leave sins behind and take up righteousness.” The logical telos of v.24c (ethical life) is incompatible with the logic of payment.

The dogmatics of penal substitution is a late-medieval construction (Anselm: Cur Deus homo, 11th c.). The biblical language of forgiveness is much broader (mercy, covenant-faithfulness, healing, taking-away, renewal) and does not support the forensic model as a universal doctrine. Peter himself in his second letter (2 Pet 3:9) does not demand a prior penal payment, but repentance and conversion.

Theological consequences

Connected verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast with the interpretation presented here:

• Isaiah 53:5 — a text of solidarity, not penal substitution; linguistically the model for Peter (LXX anaphérein in Isa 53:12).
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 — Hamartían epoíêsen as a priestly-cultic linguistic image, not a forensic imputation.
• Romans 3:25–26 — Hilastêrion as a place of encounter with grace; dikaiosyne theou as saving covenant-faithfulness.
• Hebrews 10:10 — sanctification through Christ's obedience, not through a quantum of punishment; ephapax as definitiveness.
• Matthew 26:28 — covenant-blood after Exod 24:8, not penal-blood; confirms the OT covenant-language.
• Mark 10:45 — Lýtron as a means of liberation, not a penal sum; the same soteriological linguistic frame.

Summary

1 Peter 2:21–24 speaks of the taking-away of sin through Christ's priestly self-giving, not of its punishment upon Christ. The verb anaphérein means “to carry up, to remove” (so unambiguously in Heb 9:28), and the preposition en in “in his body” is instrumental, “through” (so unambiguously in Eph 2:16). The ethical purpose-clause (v.24c: “so that we may live to righteousness”) and the model-concept (v.21: hypogrammon) logically exclude the penal-substitutionary reading.

The penal-substitutionary interpretation must be read against the LXX verbal semantics, against the inner-NT parallel Heb 9:28, against the Pauline parallel Eph 2:16, and against the ethical telos of v.24c. It also requires that Christ's suffering be at once unfollowable (substitutionary) and followable (model) — an open self-contradiction of the text.

Understood Socinianly, 1 Pet 2:21–24 is a key text of the soteriology of liberation and healing: Christ carries the sins through his body up onto the tree and away, heals through his wound the damage of believers, and calls them into a new existence that lives to righteousness. The point of the verse is preserved: example, removal, liberation, healing — and call to following.