2 Corinthians 5:21 is one of most memorable verses in the Bible. In the NIV translation, it reads: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
But it is also one of the most controversial verses in the Bible. Who knew?!
For Martin Luther, the greatest voice of the Protestant Reformation, 2 Corinthians 5:21 succinctly summarizes the heart of the Gospel message, that a “great exchange” has taken place:
“That is the mystery which is rich in divine grace to sinners: wherein by a wonderful exchange our sins are no longer ours but Christ’s and the righteousness of Christ not Christ’s but ours. He has emptied Himself of His righteousness that He might clothe us with it, and fill us with it. And He has taken our evils upon Himself that He might deliver us from them… in the same manner as He grieved and suffered in our sins, and was confounded, in the same manner we rejoice and glory in His righteousness” (Martin Luther, Werke (Weimar, 1883), 5: 608).
Many Protestant theologians argue that 2 Corinthians 5:21 best articulates the concept of imputation, which describes the mechanics of how the doctrine of justification by faith “works” (no pun intended). To “impute” something in common everyday English usage often has a purely negative connotation, as in “to impute guilt to somebody,” but in Christian theology, there is a lot more going with “imputation.” This theological concept of “imputation” comes from a bank accounting metaphor, as in to “credit” something to someone’s bank account. Essentially, every human being has a debt that we can not pay on our own, because of sin. The good news of the Gospel suggests that Christ has paid that debt by means of a credit to our spiritual banking account.
2 Corinthians 5:21 has what has been described as a “double imputation.” First, it says that Christ who had no sin had sin imputed (or credited) to him, when Jesus died on the cross. Secondly, the work of Christ then results in imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer. As a result, a believer in Jesus, who is guilty of sin, has the verdict of guilt exchanged with the very righteousness of Christ, a verdict of “paid in full,” something we do not deserve. In other words, because of this “great exchange,” when God looks at a believer in Jesus, God no longer sees our sin, but rather God sees the righteousness of Christ instead. This is the heart of the Gospel message.
However, not everyone agrees that this concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is being taught in 2 Corinthians 5:21. This is “fightin’ words” in some circles as 2 Corinthians 5:21 is often regarded as THE definitive, “go-to” verse teaching the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, more than any other verse in the New Testament. Christians who look to great historical figures of the Reformation, like Martin Luther and John Calvin, cling to this understanding of 2 Cornthians 5:21 as foundational to our understanding of salvation. Others however are convinced there is no concept of imputation to “go-to” in 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Herein lies the focus of the controversy.
Are you ready to rumble??? Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem is: …. (Read on to learn more about the controversy)
A Deep Dive Into 2 Corinthians 5:21, A Controversial Verse in the Bible in the 21st Century
Let us take a deep dive into 2 Corinthians 5:21. In the last quarter of the 20th century, a scholarly movement revolutionized how New Testament scholars understood the Apostle Paul. This “New Perspective on Paul” has suggested that layers of tradition accumulated over centuries have obscured Paul’s original teaching found in his letters of the New Testament. In an effort to try to get back to what Paul really said, such scholars learned that we need to rethink how we read the great apostle, and do so with fresh new eyes. Those fresh eyes need to have a better appreciation of the Jewishness of Paul. One of the ways some scholars have done this is by rethinking how to interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21. There is a lot to unpack here, so this blog post is only touching on the highlights, but at least it is a start.
N.T. Wright, perhaps the best known New Testament scholar in the world right now, is one of those scholars who thinks that the imputation view of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is an incorrect reading of Paul. Here are a couple of data points that need to be considered in order to make sense of what Wright is saying:
- First, nowhere in this verse is the explicit use of the term “imputation,” or a closely related term “credit,” used in this verse.
- Secondly, the verse does not speak of the “righteousness of Christ.” Instead, it speaks of the “righteousness of God.”
Mmmmm…… When I first learned this, it got the wheels turning in my head. Perhaps N.T. Wright is onto something? What is he talking about?
Well, N.T. Wright would rather you sit down and have tea with him, as opposed to getting into a “rumble.” This is so British, is it not?
Wright has two main arguments to make to press his thesis. First, N.T. Wright is concerned that Protestants, going back to Martin Luther, have misinterpreted the phrase “righteousness of God” in Paul’s letters, which sometimes Paul just shortens to simply “righteousness.” Wright’s argument here is to say that Luther was saying that the “righteousness of God” is a status, something which is transferred to the believer which puts the Christian “in the right” (or “righteous“) position before God. However, N.T. Wright says that Luther was so burdened by his legitimate quarrel with the medieval Catholic church that it caused him to miss Paul’s actual meaning of “righteousness of God.”
Wright is careful to say that Luther had to do what he did, due to the circumstances of the 16th century: Luther was not wrong in condemning the “works-righteousness” religion of much of the Western medieval church! For years, the young Augustinian monk was terrified that he was never “good” enough to enter into the presence of God. The medieval Catholic church gave the impression that you had to do a ton of good works to achieve one’s salvation, and the young Luther never felt like he measured up. To the young Luther, God was this angry deity who set up this impossible standard of moral perfection which Luther could never meet.
In medieval theology, the Western church had largely appealed to the idea of “infused righteousness,” in which by participating in the sacramental life of the church (penance, going to Mass, etc.) and following Christ’s commands one can receive this infusion of God’s righteousness. However, Luther had fallen into despair, coming to think that chasing after this infusion of righteousness over and over again was always elusive to him. But when Luther began to consider that the “righteousness of God” was something that God freely gave through Christ, in order to give Luther a right standing before God, despite all of his failings, Luther experienced this as the most profound liberation a human being could ever have.
Martin Luther had rediscovered the Gospel.
The Western Christian church would never be same after this.
Nevertheless, despite all of the wonderful intentions behind Luther’s quest for peace with God, N.T. Wright argues that Luther got Paul’s concept of the “righteousness of God” wrong. It would take another blog post (or series of blog posts) to unpack this fully, but essentially N.T Wright says that the “righteousness of God” is not about some status, or position of the believer before God, as though it is a “righteousness from God.” Neither is it some “infusion” of righteousness as medieval Roman Catholicism had wrongly taught. Rather, the “righteousness of God” is God’s “covenant faithfulness.” It is all about God’s faithfulness in keeping God’s covenant with the people of God. The “righteousness of God” is about God “being in the right.”
In other words, when Paul is writing about the “righteousness of God” it is not about the Christian “being in the right.” Instead, it is about God “being in the right.”
What does this mean? If you are puzzled a bit, you are not alone. But here is what is going on with this understanding of the “righteousness of God“: God is in the business of keeping all of his promises, and the coming of the Messiah Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God keeping those promises, foretold long ago in the Old Testament, starting with the people of Israel. With the coming of the Messiah Jesus, a way has been made for Gentiles who believe in Jesus to be among God’s people, without needing the Jewish requirement of circumcision. Since God has kept his promise made hundreds of years before Jesus entered the stage of world history, we can conclude that God’s righteousness is about God “being in the right.” In other words, God was right all along. If you are still puzzled, N.T. Wright would encourage you to read Galatians first, and grapple with that letter, before zeroing in on 2 Corinthians 5:21.
N.T. Wright, the world’s best known New Testament scholar, in his library. Wright thinks that while Martin Luther’s challenge to the medieval church was well-motivated, Luther did not accurately understand what the apostle Paul was saying in 2 Corinthians 5:21
N.T. Wright’s Unique “New Perspective on Paul” Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21
The second main argument Wright uses is to say that the context of 2 Corinthians as a whole is primarily concerned about making a defense for Paul’s apostolic ministry to the Christians in Corinth. If you read 2 Corinthians 1-5, all leading up 2 Corinthians 5:21, you can get the flow of the context which N.T. Wright is appealing to.
Paul had spent about a year and a half in Corinth, establishing the Christian community there. However, after Paul left Corinth, other supposed “apostles” of the church, or their representatives, were coming to Corinth, and they were basically undermining many of the teachings that Paul labored so hard to establish among this young community of Christian believers. In the opening chapters of 2 Corinthians, Paul is taking great pains to make a case to the Corinthians that his apostolic calling and ministry is the “real deal.” Paul is not alone, as he has co-workers with him, but he wants the Corinthians to have confidence, and be proud, that Paul and his co-workers are doing God’s work. We see this theme repeated over and over again in 2 Corinthians, is in 2 Cor. 3:1-2:
“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all” (ESV).
Nevertheless, Paul and his team of co-workers have been experiencing a great deal of opposition to their work, and that opposition has been costly. However, despite the opposition, Paul and his team have been amazed at how much God has kept his promises. God has been faithful to keeping his covenant:
“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:7-9 ESV).
As a result, according to N.T. Wright, the “righteousness of God” is about God’s “covenant faithfulness.” Specifically in the context of 2 Corinthians, God has kept his promises to enable Paul and his team to endure despite the difficulties, and Paul wants the Corinthians to know that. The best way to show how Wright puts his case together for reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 the way he puts it is by quoting from and commenting on his translation of the New Testament, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation.
“We aren’t trying to recommend ourselves again! We are giving you a chance to be proud of us, to have something to say to those who take pride in appearances rather than in people’s hearts. If we are beside ourselves, you see, it’s for God; and if we are in our right mind, it’s for you. For the Messiah’s love makes us press on. We have come to the conviction that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all in order that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised on their behalf” (Wright, The Kingdom New Testament, 2 Corinthians 5:12-15, bolding emphasis added).
Notice the use of the pronouns. Make note of the “we” Paul uses. In the original context of the letter, Paul is primarily thinking of the “we” as Paul and his team of co-workers…. but not always. Consider that as you read the following:
“Thus, if anyone is in the Messiah, there is a new creation! Old things have gone, and look—everything has become new! It all comes from God. He reconciled us to himself through the Messiah, and he gave us the ministry of reconciliation. This is how it came about: God was reconciling the world to himself in the Messiah, not counting their transgressions against them, and entrusting us with the message of reconciliation” (Wright, 2 Corinthians 5:17-19, bolding emphasis added)
Frankly, I am still puzzled as to what is going on with the pronouns in this passage. In the first part, all about “a new creation,” versus the “old things,” it would seem like this is a description about every believer, an important part of Paul’s message. So when Paul then says that God “reconciled us to himself,” the “us” here seems like it would be a reference to all believers. But then when he says that God “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” and then “entrusting us with the message of reconciliation,” the “us” here seems like this is a reference, not to all believers, but instead to Paul and his team of co-workers.
Mmmm. I am still scratching my head on this one. But it gets more interesting with the next three verses:
“(20) So we are ambassadors, speaking on behalf of the Messiah, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore people on the Messiah’s behalf to be reconciled to God. (21)The Messiah did not know sin, but God made him to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant. (6:1) So, as we work together with God, we appeal to you in particular: when you accept God’s grace, don’t let it go to waste!” (Wright, 2 Corinthians 5:20-6:1).
Over the past few months, I have heard several sermons preached from verses 20-21. In each case, we tended to miss the original context of the passage, situated in this letter, as it would appear that the “we” in “we are ambassadors” and “we implore people” are references to Paul and his team. However, there is nothing wrong with applying the text to say that the “we” are also “we” as in all believers in Christ, in every generation, past and present and future. Most preachers I have heard rightly say that “we” (as in you and I, and other Christians) are to be ambassadors for Christ. However, I have never heard a preacher comment that the original context was about Paul and his team, with respect to the identity of the “we.”
The tendency to gloss over the original context of 2 Corinthians and jump as soon as we can to application is an easy temptation. But it is a temptation we should probably steer away from. We should let the original context of any passage in Scripture sink into our hearts and minds, before reaching for an immediate application. Otherwise, we risk misunderstanding what we are actually reading in the Bible, which can lead to all kinds of foolishness.
Nevertheless, it would be utterly bizarre to say that the only ambassadors for Christ described in the New Testament would be Paul and his first century ministry team, and no one else! To limit Paul’s teaching about being “ambassadors for Christ” to strictly only Paul and his companions would effectively render the New Testament incapable of having anything to say to modern readers.
Here is a better way to approach this: Since Paul is exercising his apostolic authority here in this inspired letter of the New Testament, it would make sense to say that all believers, at all times and places, are called to be ambassadors for Christ, and not just Paul and his gang of co-workers, even though the original context simply had Paul and his company in mind, with respect to dealing with the Christians of Corinth. I can return to this observation in a moment.
Read again the controversial verse as N.T. Wright puts it:
“The Messiah did not know sin, but God made him to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant.”
Compare with how the ESV puts it (including the prior verse for more context):
“(20) Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (21) For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”.
N.T. Wright’s translation of the phrase “we might become the righteousness of God” (ESV) is “we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant.” Considering all that Paul and his team have gone through, all of the persecution and opposition, Paul has seen the covenant faithfulness of God at work through him and his team. Therefore, the “we” in both of these verses, within the original context of Paul’s letter, is Paul and his team. Even the following verse (2 Corinthians 6:1), in the next chapter repeats the use of the “we,” as in Paul and his team.
I must admit, it is a reasonably coherent thesis. Wright would argue that verse 21 is simply part of a sustained argument for defending his apostolic ministry to the doubting Christians of Corinth. In one sense, it would be odd for Paul to break up the logic of his sustained argument in order to interject a summary of the heart of the Gospel message. In Wright’s view, a brief review of Paul’s Gospel message in verse 21 just seems out of place. The oddity of Luther’s view is reinforced by the artificial placement of chapter divisions, giving the impression that verse 21 is the conclusion to Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 5. Yet the chapter divisions we have in our Bibles today were the creation of a 13th century Anglican archbishop, Stephen Langton, centuries removed from the first century context of Saint Paul. For N.T. Wright, verse 1 of chapter 6 is a more fitting conclusion to Paul’s argument for defending his apostolic ministry.
Paul in prison, by Rembrandt (credit: Wikipedia). For the past 50 years or so, New Testament scholars have been wrestling with understanding what the Apostle Paul was really saying in his letters. How should the average church-goer respond to this “New Perspective on Paul?”
Thinking Through A Better Way to Understand 2 Corinthians 5:21
However, even though Wright’s thesis is reasonably coherent, there are still problems that leave me unconvinced. For example, even in Wright’s own translation, we find various fragments of what can only be described as Paul’s preaching message throughout what has been highlighted here in 2 Corinthians 5. There is Paul’s “conviction that one died for all. and therefore all died” in verse 14. There is also in verse 17: “if anyone is in the Messiah, there is a new creation!” This is surely not just about Paul and his team. Paul is highlighting particular aspects of his preaching message. There are other fragments throughout chapter 5 just like these others. Then we have Wright’s translation of the last part of verse 20: “We implore people on the Messiah’s behalf to be reconciled to God.”
This call to “be reconciled to God” is directed to “people,” meaning everyone, even in Wright’s translation. It would be fitting for Paul to remind the Corinthians exactly what his message was, as part and parcel of his defense of his apostolic ministry. Why would Paul not want to remind his readers about the very message he is trying spread? Nevertheless, this message is not just for the Christians in Corinth alone. We can also apply this to believers today and in every age. Even the NRSVUE translation marks out this specific universal call. Just note the colon in that translation:
“So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ: be reconciled to God.”
Back to the pronouns issue we go. When we get to Wright’s translation of verse 21, where Paul says “God made him to be sin on our behalf,” it is hard to believe that the “our” in this phrase is only limited to Paul and his companions. Why would Paul limit Christ’s being made “sin” to be just about himself and his companions? At best the contextual basis for all of the pronouns found in 2 Corinthians 5 lacks sufficient clarity to pin down each and every referent to Paul’s use of pronouns. It is better to allow Paul on the basis of his apostolic authority to speak about all Christians at all times in all places, instead of just limiting Paul’s use of “we” and “our” to either Paul and his companions, or the Corinthian believers, where there is some reasonable doubt. Therefore, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul seems very much like he is summarizing what the message of reconciliation is all about, and that part of this means that God made Christ to be sin on behalf of everyone, not just Paul’s apostolic party.
The other sticking point is Wright’s insistence that the “we might become the righteousness of God” of the NIV and ESV translations should be about Paul and his team “embodying” God’s covenant faithfulness. While technically “embody” might work in this passage, the idea of “becoming,” as in to “become the righteousness of God,” seems less forced and more natural. Frankly, it comes across that N.T. Wright is so convinced that the “righteousness of God” must mean “covenant faithfulness” in each and every instance, that it feels like he is jamming a square peg in a round hole in this passage in order to make everything fit his thesis. Or to use another analogy, once someone discovers how wonderful a hammer is at pounding nails into wood, it is very tempting to try to use a hammer on just about anything…. but using a hammer to drive screws into wood is to defeat the purpose for screws!
But to N.T. Wright’s credit (pardon the pun on this one!), it is difficult to see any explicit reference to imputation here. But before anyone pulls out Martin Luther’s bible commentaries or John Calvin’s Institutes, we should consider this: Rather, the idea of “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” as we have in the NIV translation, carries the sense of participation; that is, the “in him” part. Furthermore, this is a participation in Christ that has a “becoming,” a sense of transformation to it. The righteousness of God therefore carries with it this sense of transformation. It might be better to say that our union with Christ, where we participate “in Christ,” one of Paul’s favorite phrases throughout his letters, speaks of a mysterious union that believers have with Christ. One does not need to give up on Martin Luther’s idea of a “great exchange” in order to best interpret this most wonderful verse in the New Testament. So while the idea of imputation is not explicit in 2 Corinthians 5:21, a more implicit sense of imputation, or something close to it, can be appropriately drawn from this text.
This is not just some reading limited to the times since the Reformation. The great early church preacher of the late 4th and early 5th centuries, John Chrysostom, has a commentary on this passage. While this translation below of Chrysostom is not the easiest to follow, it is quite evident that Chrysostom has no knowledge of the “righteousness of God” being about God’s “covenant faithfulness” as N.T. Wright would translate it, at least in this passage:
“‘For the righteous,’ says he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.”
I had to read that a few times to get what is going on. But here is a summary: We have the profound mystery of God the Son becoming incarnate in the human body of Jesus of Nazareth, who when he died on the cross took our sins upon himself (or became a “sin offering,” another blog post for another time). Along with that mystery, in Christ we have a transformation of the believer, bringing the believer into fellowship with God. This in many ways expresses a great Reformation doctrine, taught nobly by such luminaries like John Calvin and Martin Luther, of that union that we as believers have in Christ. Perhaps this is the key for understanding this verse, as a way of expressing a kind of implicit doctrine of imputation, or something close to it, while still acknowledging the original context of 2 Corinthians, as a sustained argument for defending Paul’s apostolic ministry.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), by Cranach (credit: Wikipedia). The man who made the phrase “justification by faith alone” a household world for millions over the past 500 years.
Learning From Both Sides in the Debate Over 2 Corinthians 5:21
In saying all of this, we need not be wholly dismissive of N.T. Wright’s definition of “the righteousness of God” as God’s “covenant faithfulness.” While this might not be what Paul had in mind here in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul might have easily used Wright’s understanding of “the righteousness of God” in other passages. In other words, we can still read 2 Corinthians 5:21 in a more Luther-like way without tossing out N.T. Wright’s insights into the covenant faithfulness of God found elsewhere in Paul’s letters. Without going down too far another rabbit trail, there is a good example of where N.T. Wright might very much be correct in his particular translation of “righteousness of God.”
In Romans 10:3-4, the ESV translation addresses the Jews who have so far rejected Paul’s message of reconciliation, which is grounded in confessing Jesus as the Messiah:
“Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes”
Wright translates this passage as:
“They were ignorant, you see, of God’s covenant faithfulness, and they were trying to establish a covenant status of their own; so they didn’t submit to God’s faithfulness. The Messiah, you see, is the goal of the law, so that covenant membership may be available for all who believe”
The word “righteousness” shows up three times in this passage. Without commenting on the last two references to “righteousness,” it would seem reasonable to accept Wright’s first translation of “righteousness of God” as “God’s covenant faithfulness.” Paul easily could have had in mind that the Jews had forgotten God’s faithfulness to the covenant; that is, God’s promise to make Abraham not only as the father of a particular people, the Israelites, but also as being a blessing to the Gentiles. Score one for N.T. Wright to highlight this!
Paul wants people to know that was God’s plan all along. Paul was keenly aware of his Jewish heritage, but that this Jewish heritage was about making the God of Israel known among the other nations. What might seem obvious today was not so obvious among first century Jewish Christians, who all probably expected Gentile Christians to undertake circumcision in order to be true followers of Jesus…. that is, until the Apostle Paul came along and threw a theological wrench into their worldview.
The purpose of God’s covenant to begin with was to provide some means of including the Gentiles, with respect to the salvation message revealed in Jesus. Paul was designated as Christ’s man to do the job, to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and announce that the time had come for Gentiles to be brought in among God’s people, through the Messiah, without insisting on circumcision as the fundamental requirement. God remained and remains faithful to the covenant. God has kept his promises. Though not the only part, this is still a key part of the “righteousness of God” in action. This is an idea that N.T. Wright is most definitely correct in emphasizing — an idea that many Christians today are sorely lacking as part of their theology. We owe a debt of gratitude to the scholarship of N.T. Wright for bringing this point out to a new generation of Christians.
Step back for a moment: What is the big picture behind taking a deep dive into 2 Corinthians 5:21? Three reasons come to mind: First, the controversy over the “New Perspective on Paul,” far from being a distraction, helps us to go back and read Scripture anew, to help us see things we never saw before…. and that is always a good thing to do. Secondly, our study of the Apostle Paul, grounded in a better appreciation of Paul’s Jewish heritage, along with a look back at key Reformation thinkers, like Martin Luther, should lead us to a better, clearer understanding of the Gospel, as opposed to some confusing movement away from the heart of the Gospel message. Thirdly, a fresher look at Paul might offer a new path towards healing some of the divisions over the past 500 years between Protestants and Roman Catholics, over the meaning of the doctrine of justification.
So, is 2 Corinthians 5:21 about expressing the heart of the Gospel message or is it a defense of Paul’s apostolic ministry? Based on the evidence analyzed in this blog post, the best answer to this question is “Yes.” One does not need to pick one answer over the other. Both are found in 2 Corinthians 5:21, along with the context we find in 2 Corinthians as a whole.
Veracity 
What do you think?