Peter Smythe

While we’ve dealt with the text and some of the historical context of 2 Corinthians 5.21, but in order to see the full texture of Paul’s writing, we need to head back to the Old Testament. The writer of Hebrews states that the Law stands as a shadow of “the good things to come” so we can gauge the verse by the OT’s shadow. Specifically, we look at the concept realities of sacrifice, but in doing that we should bring in D.R. McConnell’s OT reference in his criticism of taking 2 Corinthians 5.21 at face-value.

This Faith teachers’ belief that Jesus became sinful indicates a gross misunderstanding of the Old Testament concept of substitutionary sacrifice. The Levitical concept of substitution, which is the background of Christ’s atonement, was based on the perfection and holiness of the sacrificial victim. The sacrificial animals chosen for the sin offering were to be a bull “without defect” (Lev. 4:3), a goat “without defect” (Lev. 4:23), and a lamb “without defect” (Lev. 4:32). The person presenting these holy offerings would lay his hand on the animals to symbolize the transfer of his sin and guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33). This transfer of sin was symbolic, not literal. Kenyon’s doctrine of Identification would claim that at the moment of transference of sin, these animals became unholy, that they became sin. Just the opposite was true. At the moment of transference, the offering became holy to the Lord; anybody who touched or ate the sin offering also became holy (Lev. 6:25-27, 29). The sacrificial animal did not become sin, sin was symbolically imputed to it. It was a substitute for sin: a holy offering that atoned for sin by virtue of its perfection and consecration to the Lord.

These Levitical concepts of substitution and imputation are the background of 2 Cor. 5:21. Jesus did not literally become sin; sin was symbolically imputed to him. (D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, Updated Edition, at 125).

We use McConnell’s criticism because it is touted to be some of the best scholarship refuting the “He Made Him Sin” doctrine (“based on careful historical and biblical analysis,” at least according to Amazon), and, frankly, he is about the only well-studied source that we can find that refers back to the Old Testament sacrifices in his treatment of 2 Corinthians 5.21 (kudos to him for that). In reading McConnell’s piece on the faith teachers’ “gross misunderstanding” of the Old Testament, there are four things that stand out: his analysis of the sacrifices, his lack of reference to the Day of Atonement offering(s), the lack of scripture directly underpinning his claim of symbolism, and his subjugation of New Testament realities to Old Testament shadows.

Ordinary Sin Offerings

In his lambast (he did say “gross misunderstanding”), McConnell states that the Levitical sacrifices were based upon “the perfection and holiness of the sacrificial victim.” The “He Made Him Sin” doctrine really isn’t inconsistent with that. 2 Corinthians 5.21 reads, “the one having known no sin” which is completely consistent with the Levitical animal “without defect,” whether it be a bull, a goat, or a lamb.

Where we diverge from McConnell is that while he mentions “consecration to the Lord,” in the last sentence of the paragraph, his analysis seems to skip over the sacrificial ritual to get to the eating. McConnell rightly says that a person would lay hands on the animal, confess the sins at issue, and that sin was transferred to the animal (we’ll deal with symbolically later). But then he says, “At the moment of transference [of sin], the offering became holy to the Lord; anybody who touched or ate the sin offering also became holy (Lev. 6:25-27, 29).” The big gap that McConnell leaves out between the laying on of hands and the eating is the sacrifice ritual itself.

Tanks, Padre.

Hey, come back here! Where do you think you’re going?

Padre, you just laid your hands on me goat. So, now I’m taking me ‘oly goat ‘ome and I’m eatin’ ‘im there. I gots to eat ‘im at ‘ome. We gots company comin’.

You can’t do that! We haven’t killed it or sacrificed it yet.

That’s okay, Padre. You got lots to do and that sacrifice stuff looks something awful, all bloody and all. I just take ‘im ‘ome. Hey, how ’bout comin’ over for dinner? This ‘ere ‘oly goat is gonna be plumb good.

Leviticus 6.25-27, 29 (the eating and touching part) speaks only of those animals that have been “offered for sin.”

Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is slain the sin offering shall be slain before the Lord; it is most holy. The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Anyone who touches its flesh will become consecrated . . . Every male among the priest may eat of it; it is most holy.” (NASB) (emphasis supplied)

McConnell’s claim that “at the moment of transference, the offering became holy to the Lord” cuts the ritual of sacrifice off at the knees. That’s not to say that the animals weren’t separated to the Lord upon presentation, but it does show a flaw in McConnell’s criticism. The Word only calls holy the animals that went through the entire ritual (no “can I have a bite of that?” before the sacrifice). Consequently, the animal is deemed holy by virtue of the entire sacrificial ritual, not just by its own perfection.

Why is this important? It is important because McConnell cuts out the action of God in the sacrifice (where is the blood man?). Scripturally, hands are laid on animals for the transference of sin, the animal is sacrificed, God atones (or covers) the sin, and then the animal is deemed holy and everyone that eats (partakes) of it is holy. There is no scriptural support to say that the animal is deemed holy after only the laying on of hands with no sacrifice. That might make for an Eddie Murphy movie, but it’s a cloud without rain.

[Note: This presents a shadow sequence for Jesus: presentation w/o defect --> laying on of hands --> death --> [scapegoat] –> blood on Mercy Seat]

Day of Atonement

While McConnell rightly goes back to the Old Testament for the underpinnings of 2 Corinthians 5.21 (again, kudos), it is quite a wonder why he does not link the Day of Atonement as the verse’s OT backdrop (see Lev. 16). The Day, as the writer of Hebrews calls it, was a once-a-year ritual and the only day that the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies (behind the Temple veil) to sprinkle the sacrificial blood on the Mercy Seat itself. It is such a compelling and direct shadow of 2 Corinthians 5.21 and Jesus’s own sacrifice (cf. Hebrews 10.20 – veil of his flesh) that we want to flesh it out in a stand-alone essay.

Symbolically Imputed

McConnell makes quite the deal about sin being symbolically imputed on the sacrifices. In fact, the foundation of his entire invective against the literal reading of 2 Corinthians 5.21 is based upon a theory of imputation. The first thing to note, however, about his “[t]his transfer of sin was symbolic, not literal” is that there is not a single direct scriptural reference supporting this all-important claim, doctrine, or whatever you want to call it. Instead, McConnell assumes that imputation is there and the priests knew it, the people knew it, the sinners knew it, maybe even the goats knew it, so we should know it.

As the priests killed the animals (real), emptied their blood (real), and offered their blood (real) there’s a real good question of whether McConnell is square-on with the God-created sacrificial realities. While we can’t go back and interview the Levitical priests of the period on whether everything was just symbolic, we do know from tradition that people were so scared of running into the scapegoat, who sometimes wandered back to town ((cf. Lev. 16.22 – “the goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land”), that they began making the goat’s handler throw it off a cliff . As for me and my house, count us in with the terrified Israelites.

But even if one clings white-knuckled to the idea of imputation in the OT, that doesn’t mean that OT imputation translates directly into the New. The NT adamantly states that the Law served only as a copy and “shadow” of the real thing:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form [image] of things – (Hebrews 10.1, NASB) (emphasis supplied)

Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things – (Hebrews 8.4, NASB) (emphasis supplied)

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have no occasion sought for the second. (Hebrews 8.7, NASB)

NT realities cannot be subjugated to OT shadows. So, at least for this writer, if someone wanted to argue ad nauseum about symbolic imputation on the lambs, bulls, and goats in the OT, yeah, okay, it’d be a yawner. 2 Corinthians 5.21 and the rest of the NT is all about the real deal.

[Note: Joseph Rotherham says this in his Emphasized Bible:

One of the most striking and significant facts in the language of Leviticus and of the O.T. generally is that the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are in the Hebrew called simply "sin" and "guilt" - the victim being called by the name of the offence which it bears and for which it dies. . . . The ancient usage was intensely dramatic; it led the offerer, as he viewed his substitute, to exclaim, "There goes - there dies - my Sin!" (Appendix at 920)

This language speaks more to identification than it does imputation.]

You might also like:

• The Resurrection and the Blood – Part 3
• 2 Corinthians 5.21 – A Tale of Two Goats – Part 3
• The Resurrection and the Blood – Part 5
• 2 Corinthians 5.21 – A Tale of Two Goats – Part Catorce
• 2 Corinthians 5.21 – A Tale of Two Goats – Azazel