2 Corinthians 5:21 — “Made sin for us” — rhetorical, not juridical

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

2 Corinthians 5:21

Context

2 Corinthians 5:11–21 is Paul's doctrinal grounding of his apostolic office as the “ministry of reconciliation” (diakonía tês katallagês, v. 18). The passage unfolds what God does in Christ, not what Christ accomplishes towards God: God is from v. 18 to v. 21 the grammatical subject of the act of reconciliation. Christ appears as means and mode, not as recipient of a penal payment.

V. 19 is the hermeneutical key to v. 21: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them (mê logizómenos autoís ta paraptômata autôn).” The language of accounting (logízomai) is here expressly negated — and indeed as a description of the divine action as a whole, not merely as a description of the conduct towards believers.

The arc vv. 18–21 ends rhetorically in v. 21 with a chiastic twofold image: he made him sin — so that we might become righteousness. This symmetry is the rhetorical climax, not a soteriological theory. Paul argues here pastorally-paracletically (“be reconciled to God,” v. 20), not dogmatically-juridically.

Striking too is what vv. 18–21 do not say: no hilastêrion, no lýtron, no penal metaphor, no “wrath of God,” no satisfaction. The whole passage speaks of renewal (v. 17: kainê ktísis), of message (v. 19c), of embassy (v. 20) and of reconciliation — a relational language into which v. 21 is embedded as rhetorical climax.

Already in early-church exegesis (Origen, Theodoret) v. 21 was not read as proof of penal substitution but as a rhetorical image of exchange. The forensic-imputational narrowing is only a Reformation-era reading, starting from Luther's Galatians commentary and Calvin's Institutes — a reading that systematically underlights the context (v. 19).

The Socinian core thesis

Socinianly v. 21 is read as a rhetorical exchange-image of life-fellowship: Christ enters into our condition (death, ostracism, outward “sinner-shape”), so that we may enter into his condition (righteousness of God, life in the new covenant). It is an image of solidarity and of real transformation in Christ — not a posting in a heavenly ledger.

Sozzini argues on two levels. First, contextually: v. 19 denies any imputation of sins — including any imputation to Christ. If God does “not count” sins, then certainly not to a substitute. A double imputation at this point would in fact be contrary to Paul's own definition.

Second, philologically: the word hamartía “sin” cannot here be meant in its full moral-juridical sense. Three readings are open to discussion — sin-offering (LXX usage), sinner-shape (Semitic metonymy), or a person regarded as a sinner (Sozzini's preferred reading) — yet none of them carries the forensic imputation theory.

In parallel with Galatians 3:13 (“he became a curse”): Christ takes on the outward form of those who stand under sin and death — not a penalty that we should have borne. The “for us” (hyper hêmôn) is relational-metaphorical (“for our benefit”), not juridical (“in our place before the penal judge”).

The consequence “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (genômetha dikaiosynê theou en autôi) speaks of real transformation, not of an attributed quality: genômetha “we become,” not logizómetha “we are counted as.” Righteousness of God here means saving covenant faithfulness, in which believers participate.

Exegesis: key terms and word-field

Four linguistic-philological key terms decide the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21:

hamartía — “sin” / “sin-offering” / “sinner-shape”

In Septuagintal usage hamartía is a strikingly multi-layered term. In Leviticus 4–7 it regularly denotes not the imputation of guilt but the sin-offering itself (Hebrew chattáth, which can mean both “sin” and “sin-offering”). Lev 4:3, 21, 24; 5:6, 9 and many other passages use hamartía in this cultic-covenantal sense. Isa 53:10 LXX names the Servant peri hamartías “for the sin-offering” or “as a sin-offering.”

This Septuagintal meaning was familiar to the Corinthians as Hellenistic Jewish Christians. When Paul in 2 Cor 5:21 uses the word hamartía, it is exegetically compelling to hear this cultic connotation: Christ was made “a sin-offering” — a covenant-theological image of the purification rite, not a penal-juridical image of a sentence of condemnation.

Sozzini argues alongside this a further reading: peccatum here denotes “a person regarded as a sinner” (in the sense of Semitic metonymy). This has the advantage of keeping the rhetorical opposition to “righteousness” symmetric: Christ, who knew no sin, is treated like a sinner; we, who are sinners, are treated like the righteous. Both readings break the forensic narrowing.

mê logizómenos — “not counting” (v. 19)

V. 19 uses the participle mê logizómenos: “not counting.” The verb logízomai is precisely the verb on which forensic imputation theory would like to anchor itself in the Pauline letters (cf. Rom 4:3–8). Paul uses it here — but in negation: God does not count sins.

This negation is absolute, not restricted: not “he did not count them to people, but to Christ,” nor “he did not count them against believers, but against a substitute.” Paul omits the possible restriction — that is exegetically decisive. Whoever reads v. 21 as double imputation must implicitly qualify v. 19, which the text itself does not do.

Sozzini formulates this pointedly: if God does not count sins to people, then with that the whole mechanism of imputation is set aside. A later double-imputation theory stands in logical conflict with Paul's own definition of the reconciliation event.

genômetha — “we might become / we should be”

In the closing clause Paul uses the verb gínomai “to become, to come into being” in the aorist subjunctive (genômetha), not logizometha “we should be counted as.” This word-choice is exegetically highly significant. Gínomai in Greek denotes real transformation, coming-into-being, becoming — not a forensic status-assignment.

The imputation theory would have to paraphrase the subjunctive here as “we would be counted as if we were righteousness.” But Paul says: we become the righteousness of God — an ontological, not a forensic statement. This corresponds to the kainê ktísis-language Paul himself takes up in v. 17: “Whoever is in Christ is a new creation.”

Calvin had to use exegetical force here and read the subjunctive as a forensic positing. But that is a theological, not a philological reading. The Socinian interpretation simply follows the Greek grammar.

dikaiosynê theou — “righteousness of God”

Dikaiosynê theou “righteousness of God” is a Pauline key term (Rom 1:17; 3:21–22; 10:3, etc.). Understood forensically it means the righteousness God imputes. Covenant-theologically — and that is the Socinian and now also in Protestant exegesis (E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, N. T. Wright) again widely represented reading — it means the saving covenant faithfulness of God itself, in which believers participate.

In 2 Cor 5:21 Paul does not say that we are credited with righteousness, but that we become the righteousness of God. This phrase is unique in the NT and highly significant: believers become bearers, a manifestation, of the divine covenant faithfulness itself — they are incorporated into the saving action of God.

Hence dikaiosynê theou here is no imputed penal payment of Christ but the saving presence of God himself, becoming concrete in the believers. This fits Pauline talk of the kainê ktísis in v. 17 and the talk of kainotis zôês “newness of life” in Rom 6:4.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to Fausto Sozzini

Sozzini treats 2 Corinthians 5:21 extensively in the second and fourth parts of On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore). For him v. 21 is the most important Pauline touchstone against the doctrine of imputation — precisely because it is traded by the orthodox tradition as its chief proof-text. Sozzini's argument: the immediate context (v. 19) of itself dismantles the forensic reading.

“But you will say: to us indeed he did not impute them, but to Christ he did impute them, and he willed in any case that satisfaction be made to his righteousness. That this is a fiction, and moreover even impious — yes, even to say it or to think it — will become clearer further on. … You see in what way God has reconciled us to himself through Christ, namely by graciously remitting to us our crimes, just as he had foretold through Jeremiah.”

Fausto Sozzini, Second Part · On Reconciliation / 2 Cor 5

Sozzini's argument in §1 of the reconciliation treatise begins immediately from the context: Paul says in v. 19 twice expressly that God did not impute the trespasses. The orthodox interpretation must supplement this statement with an implicit clause: “not to people, but to Christ.” Precisely this supplement Sozzini calls a fiction — a late-theological reading that the text itself does not yield and that contradicts its rhetorical arc.

In a second argumentative step (cf. the same passage) Sozzini shows that the word peccatum in v. 21 cannot stand in its usual sense of “sin,” because otherwise the elegant rhetorical contrast of “sin” and “righteousness” would be lost: “Add to this that by that interpretation the obvious and most beautiful and elegant contrast of sin and righteousness is wholly destroyed and dissolved. … For if this is Paul's meaning: God loved us so much that he willed that his Son, who was innocent, should be reckoned for our sake as guilty and die as a guilty one, so that we, who were sinners, might be regarded as innocent and reckoned righteous before God.”

Sozzini also expressly considers the cultic reading (hamartía = sin-offering) and holds it possible, but has reservations: the sin-offering had to be “unblemished and most pure,” which would predestine Christ rather to be the spotless sacrificial victim — not the sinner. He therefore prefers the metonymical reading: Christ was “regarded as a sinner,” that is, he bore the outward condition and fate of a condemned one — not the inner imputation of guilt of a sinner.

In the fourth part (imputation of righteousness) Sozzini expressly connects v. 21 with 1 Cor 1:30: “Christ has been made for us from God wisdom and righteousness.” The “in him” (en autôi) denotes the real life-fellowship with the Risen One, not a forensic imputation. Sozzini writes: “Christ therefore atoned for our sins, not by making satisfaction to any righteousness, but by granting us life according to God's will and rescuing us from eternal death.”

Book overview of Sozzini's writings

Logical arguments

From 2 Corinthians 5:21 the following logical and linguistic-philological arguments arise against the forensic-imputational reading:

1. Argument from the context (v. 19). Paul defines the reconciliation event in v. 19 expressly as not-counting of sins. A double-imputation reading in v. 21 stands in open contradiction to this definition. Whoever takes v. 19 seriously cannot read v. 21 forensically.
2. Argument from the verb gínomai. Paul says genômetha “we become,” not logizometha “we are counted as.” That is ontological, not forensic language. Whoever respects Paul's own word-choice arrives at the reading of real transformation in Christ.
3. Argument from LXX usage. Hamartía regularly denotes in Lev 4–7 LXX the sin-offering itself, not imputation of guilt. In this linguistic tradition stands 2 Cor 5:21. A forensic-juridical reading must first be grounded in the context — and the context does not ground it.
4. Argument from rhetorical contrast (Sozzini). The elegant opposition sin/righteousness is destroyed by the cultic reading: someone-become-sin-offering does not correspond to someone-becoming-righteousness. The metonymical reading (“regarded as a sinner” vs. “regarded as righteous”) preserves the rhetorical symmetry.
5. Argument from the Galatians 3:13 parallel. “Became a curse” in Gal 3:13 is likewise rhetorical-Semitic (curse on the tree per Deut 21:23), not juridical. Whoever does not read Gal 3:13 as “Christ was made one cursed because God transferred the curse onto him” should treat 2 Cor 5:21 analogously.
6. Argument from the subject of reconciliation. God is throughout vv. 18–21 the grammatical subject of the reconciliation. The forensic reading reverses the direction (Christ reconciles God by penal payment). This reversal of direction is not textually justifiable.
7. Argument from the absence of penal terminology. In vv. 18–21 there is no penal vocabulary: no orgê (wrath), no poinê (penalty), no timôria (retribution), no hilastêrion (place of atonement). A penal-substitution theory would have to leave traces in such a prominent passage — it leaves none.
8. Argument from imputation theology elsewhere. In Rom 4:3–8 Paul uses logízomai positively: God credits the believer with righteousness out of grace. But this nowhere refers to an underlying penal payment of Christ. Socinianly: yes to imputation, but as pure grace from God's covenant faithfulness — not as the result of an exchange transaction.
9. Argument from the early-church exegetical tradition. Origen, Theodoret and Greek patristic theology did not read v. 21 imputationally. The forensic reading is a late-medieval-Reformation narrowing, not the early-church standard reading. The Socinian interpretation thereby stands in a long exegetical tradition.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages are essential for a correct understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and show that Pauline reconciliation language is not to be read forensically:

2 Corinthians 5:18–20 — God as subject of reconciliation

The immediately preceding context makes God the consistent subject of the act of reconciliation: ek tou theou tou katalláxantos hêmás hautoí “from God who reconciled us to himself.” It is not a question of Christ appeasing a wrathful God — but of God reconciling people to himself. This direction is hermeneutically decisive.

V. 20: “Be reconciled to God” (katallágête tôi theôi) — the imperative is directed to people, not to God. Reconciliation is already accomplished from God's side; believers have only to enter into what God has effected.

Galatians 3:13 — “he became a curse,” parallel to “he became sin”

Gal 3:13 is the closest parallel to 2 Cor 5:21: genomenos hyper hêmôn katára “he became a curse for us.” Both verses use the rhetorical-Semitic idiom “he became X” with the verb gínomai and the hyper-pronoun.

Socinianly and linguistically consistently: Christ “became” curse / sin by taking on the outward form of one cursed / condemned (curse on the tree per Deut 21:23, crucifixion as a death of shame). It is about solidarity in ostracism, not about a forensic imputation of penalty.

Romans 4:7–8 — “whose sin the Lord does not count”

Paul cites Ps 32:1–2 LXX: “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count (hou ou mê logisêtai kyrios hamartían).” This passage is the exact parallel to 2 Cor 5:19: righteousness by faith means that God does not impute sins — not that he imputes them to a substitute.

If Paul uses non-imputation positively as definition of justification, then a double-imputation theory is a constructive overshooting of this statement, not a sound interpretation.

1 Corinthians 1:30 — Christ become for us righteousness

“From him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us (hos egenêthê hêmín) wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Again the verb gínomai in a soteriological context: Christ becomes for us righteousness, not: Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

This parallel passage strengthens the Socinian reading of 2 Cor 5:21: it is a matter of real life-fellowship with the Risen One, in which believers become righteous — not of a forensic imputation of a foreign payment.

Isaiah 53:10–12 LXX — the Servant peri hamartías

Isa 53:10 LXX names the Servant peri hamartías, which in the LXX regularly means “for the sin-offering.” When Paul in 2 Cor 5:21 takes up the word hamartía, this cultic line is a probable background — not the juridical-penal one.

Socinianly Isa 53 is a text of solidarity and self-giving, not a penal-substitution text (cf. the entry on Isa 53:5). Both texts together form a covenantal-cultic configuration, not a juridical-forensic one.

Jeremiah 31:31–34 — the new covenant with forgiveness without penal payment

“I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer 31:34). The new covenant, to which Paul alludes explicitly in 2 Cor 3 and through the ministry of reconciliation in 2 Cor 5, rests on pure forgiveness — not on a penal payment to a substitute.

Sozzini refers expressly to Jer 31: God has graciously remitted our trespasses, just as he had promised through Jeremiah. That is the reconciliation model of 2 Cor 5: divine initiative of forgiveness, not juridical mechanism.

Romans 3:25–26 — hilastêrion as place of encounter

The nearest Pauline atonement terminology (hilastêrion) is to be read from the kapporôt in the temple (Lev 16) — as place of divine encounter and demonstration of righteousness, not as payment. Cf. the detailed entry on Rom 3:25–26.

Both passages together form the Pauline picture of reconciliation: God acts, Christ is the place and mode of this action, believers are drawn into the saving event — a cultic-covenantal, not a forensic-penal logic.

Colossians 2:13–14 — the bond of debt not paid but cancelled

“He has cancelled (exaleípsas) the record of debt that stood against us and has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” Again: dissolution of the debt by forgiveness, not settlement of the debt by penal payment.

Exaleíphein “to wipe out, to obliterate” is the language of forgiveness, not of payment. Here too the Pauline reconciliation model shows itself: God destroys the debt, he does not pay it off.

Objections and Socinian responses

Objection 1: “Made for us” is precisely the imputation

The preposition hyper with the genitive has in Koine a broad semantic range: “for the benefit of,” “in the interest of,” “because of,” occasionally also “in place of.” Which sense applies is always decided by the context, not by the vocable as such. In vv. 18–21 the context is reconciliation, not the execution of penalty.

Christ dies for our benefit — that fits the reconciliation terminology. That he stood instead of us before the penal judge cannot be derived from hyper alone without disregarding the context.

Comparably in 2 Cor 5:14: “Christ died for all (hyper pántôn).” Paul draws from this the conclusion: “If one died for all, then all have died.” That is representation- and solidarity-language, not substitution-language: all have died with Christ in him, not been juridically represented by Christ.

When finally v. 20 gives the exhortation to let oneself be reconciled, that presupposes that reconciliation is not already mechanically accomplished, but requires acceptance by faith — a movement that does not fit penal substitution.

Objection 2: We become “righteousness of God” only through imputation

Paul says grammatically unambiguously genometha “we become,” not logizometha “we are counted as.” The imputation reading must read this word-choice against the grain — a theologically motivated, not philologically grounded reading.

Becoming is not crediting but transformation. Socinianly the believer becomes really a member of the new covenant (Jer 31; 2 Cor 3:6) — and in this covenant-belonging consists the “righteousness of God” in the Pauline sense: participation in God's saving covenant faithfulness.

The “in him” (en autôi) denotes the real life-fellowship with the Risen One, not a forensic connection. The Pauline en Christôi-formula is incorporation-, not representation-language: we are in Christ, not juridically represented by him.

Today's Protestant exegesis (E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, N. T. Wright, Michael Gorman) increasingly reads dikaiosynê theou in 2 Cor 5:21 transformatively-participatively and thereby approaches the Socinian position. The simul iustus et peccator-formula is a specifically Reformation-era narrowing that Paul at this point does not meet.

Objection 3: “His Son, who was innocent” implies penal substitution

Sozzini has reversed precisely this argument: if hamartía here meant “sin-offering,” the mention of Christ's innocence would not be especially pointed — the sacrificial animal had to be unblemished anyway. The point unfolds only when hamartía here means “a person regarded as a sinner”: the righteous Christ is treated like a sinner (death on the cross, shame, abandonment).

This reading underscores the love of God without a juridical mechanism: God let the wholly innocent one die the shameful death of criminals — not because he executed a punishment on him, but because he sent him into full solidarity with the ostracised. The “he made him sin” is the description of the outward fortunes of Christ, not of the inward penal imputation of God.

Heb 4:15 too emphasises the innocence of Christ (“tempted in every respect, yet without sin”), without inferring an imputation theory from it. The innocence of Christ is the condition of his self-giving, not the precondition of a penal imputation.

The imputation reading furthermore leads into the problem that God would have to treat and punish an innocent one as guilty — which would be a plain crime against righteousness (Prov 17:15: “Whoever justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous, both are an abomination to the Lord.”). The Socinian reading spares this theological aporia.

Objection 4: Without imputation Christ's death would be meaningless

This reduction is a polemical caricature. Christ's death has in the Socinian reconciliation model several constitutive functions: it seals the new covenant (Mt 26:28; 2 Cor 3:6); it reveals God's love (Rom 5:8); it conquers the power of death through the subsequent resurrection (Heb 2:14–15); it shows God's saving faithfulness (Rom 3:25–26); it founds the real life-fellowship in which believers become “righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

None of these functions requires a penal payment. Together they yield a complete, multidimensional saving event. The Reformation reflex that without imputation everything is “mere example” overlooks the theological depth of the Socinian doctrine of redemption.

Moreover, a truly juridical penal execution upon an innocent one would not be a saving but an unjust act. If God could satisfy his righteousness only by such an act of injustice, that would be an aporia in the very concept of God. The Socinian reading relieves the picture of God from this inner tension.

Sozzini formulates: “Christ has died for our sins, and we have obtained forgiveness — but this does not mean that he reconciled God with us or made satisfaction to any divine righteousness; but because there was no other way except through his death to take us into his friendship and fellowship.” Christ's death is way, not payment.

Objection 5: The Reformers cannot all have been mistaken

Arguments from authority are not exegetically decisive; the textual evidence is. A broadly carried reading remains open to testing — and 2 Cor 5:21 proves on closer examination (v. 19, genometha, LXX usage) to be a poor proof of the doctrine of imputation.

Furthermore, the statement is historically imprecise: Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom and large parts of Greek patristics did not read v. 21 imputationally. The forensic reading is a specifically Latin-Anselmic line that Luther and Calvin strengthened — but it is not the early-church standard position.

Today's New Testament scholarship (New Perspective on Paul, participatory soteriology, narrative theology) has largely given up the forensic narrowing or at least strongly relativised it. Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Hays, Gorman read dikaiosynê theou covenantally-participatively. The Socinian reading thereby shows itself to be exegetically viable, not a historical curiosity.

Finally: the Reformation has many merits, but it also strengthened late-medieval narrowings (Anselm's satisfaction theory) instead of breaking them open. Where this goes against the text, the text is the rule, not the tradition.

Theological consequences

Related verses

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

• Romans 3:25-26 — Hilastêrion as place of encounter of grace; dikaiosyne theou as saving covenant faithfulness — closest Pauline parallel.
• Matthew 26:28 — covenant blood after Exod 24:8 — reconciliation through covenant-founding, not through penal payment.
• Mark 10:45 — liberation metaphor in the OT gô'el-tradition — analogy to the Socinian reconciliation reading.
• Luke 23:34 — “Father, forgive them” — forgiveness as prayer, not as result of a penal payment.
• Acts 2:23 — “according to the definite plan of God” — plan of salvation, not penal mechanics.

Summary

2 Corinthians 5:21 is linguistically, contextually and rhetorically not a proof of forensic imputation theory but of a participatory-covenantal reconciliation model. The key is v. 19: God does not count sins. This definitional statement does not permit a double-imputation theory in v. 21 without introducing implicit clauses that the text does not yield.

Sozzini offers two alternative readings for hamartía epoíesen: cultic (“made a sin-offering” in the sense of the LXX) or metonymical (“regarded as a sinner” in the sense of a Semitic idiom). Both break the forensic narrowing. Sozzini himself prefers the metonymical reading, because it keeps the rhetorical contrast “sin / righteousness” symmetrical.

Socinianly understood, 2 Cor 5:21 is a key text of participatory soteriology: Christ enters into our outward condition so that we may enter into his condition and become real bearers of the divine covenant faithfulness (genometha dikaiosynê theou en autôi). Reconciliation happens through incorporation into Christ, not through juridical exchange — and it stands in the line of the Jeremianic new covenant (Jer 31:31–34), in which God graciously remits sins.