Peter. How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him?
James. Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word αμαρτια (sin) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[[46]] though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition between the sin which Christ was made, and the righteousness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was made, and that which he knew not, I am inclined to be of the doctor’s last opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means sin itself; and the righteousness which we are made, means righteousness itself. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law; but not to its being made a sacrifice. Let me be a little more particular. There were two things belonging to the sin-offering. First: The imputation of the sins of the people, signified by the priest’s laying his hands upon the head of the animal, and confessing over it their transgressions; and which is called “putting them upon it.”[[47]] That is, it was counted in the divine administration as if the animal had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. Secondly: Offering it in sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement.”[[48]] Now the phrase, made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the first step in this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ’s suffering death rather than of the thing itself, just as our being made righteousness expresses what was preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term made is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ’s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a divine constitution, by which our Redeemer with his own consent, stood in the sinner’s place, as though he had been himself the transgressor; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people “put upon its head,” with this difference; that was only a shadow, but this went really to take away sin.
Peter. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and properly PUNISHED?
James. I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?
Peter. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality.
James. Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.
Peter. Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the latter should have been committed by the party—Criminality is supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed.
James. This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to him, but suffering only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate union between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.
Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all?
James. Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase “He shall bear his iniquity,” which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity.