Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 5:21 - 5:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_5:21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one side of it being the previous prayer), for this must logically have preceded the prayer (in opposition to Hofmann); but the inducing motive, belonging to the δεόμεθα κ . τ . λ ., for complying with the καταλλ . τῷ θεῷ , by holding forth what has been done on God’s side in order to justify men. This weighty motive emerges without γάρ , and is all the more urgen.
τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτ .] description of sinlessness ( τὸν αὐτοδικαιοσύνην ὄντα , Chrysostom); for sin had not become known experimentally to the moral consciousness of Jesus; it was to Him, because non-existent in Him, a thing unknown from His own experience. This was the necessary postulate for His accomplishing the work of reconciliation.
The μή with the participle gives at all events a subjective negation; yet it may be doubtful whether it means the judgment of God (Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, Winer) or that of the Christian consciousness (so Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p 279: “quem talem virum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit”). The former is to be preferred, because it makes the motive, Which is given in 2Co_5:21, appear stronger. The sinlessness of Jesus was present to the consciousness of God, when He made Him to be sin.[242] Rückert, quite without ground, gives up any explanation of the force of μή by erroneously remarking that between the article and the participle ΜΉ always appears, never Οὐ . See e.g. from the N. T., Rom_9:25; Gal_4:27; 1Pe_2:10; Eph_5:4; and from profane authors, Plat. Rep. p. 427 E: τὸ οὐχ εὑρημένον , Plut. de garrul. p. 98, ed. Hutt.: πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἀκούοντας , Arist. Eccl. 187: ὁ δʼ οὐ λαβών , Lucian, Charid 14: διηγούμενοι τὰ οὐκ ὄντα , adv, Ind. 5, and many other passage.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ] for our benefit (more precise explanation: ἕνα ἡμεῖς κ . τ . λ .), is emphatically prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling the prayer in 2Co_5:20; hence also ἩΜΕῖς is afterwards repeated. Regarding ὙΠΈΡ , which no more means instead here than it does in Gal_3:13 (in opposition to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 134, and older commentators), see on Rom_5:6. The thought of substitution is only introduced by what follow.
ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε ] abstractum pro concreto (comp. λῆρος , ὄλεθρος , and the like in the classic writers, Kühner, II. p. 26), denoting more strongly that which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Pind. pp. 145, 476), and ἐποίησε expresses the setting up of the state, in which Christ was actually exhibited by God as the concretum of ἁμαρτία , as ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛΌς , in being subjected by Him to suffer the punishment of death;[243] comp. κατάρα , Gal_3:13. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 437, thinks of Christ’s having with His incarnation received also the principle of sin, although He remained without παράβασις . But this is not contained even in Rom_8:3; in the present passage it can only be imported at variance with the words ( ἁμ . ἐποίησεν ), and the distinction between ὁμαρτία and παράβασις is quite foreign to the passage. Even the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentially in the fact that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 83 ff.), does not fully meet the sacrificial conception of the apostle, which is not to be explained away. For, taking ἁμαρτίαν as sin-offering ( àÈùÑÈí , çÇèÌÈàú ), with Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Ewald, and others,[244] there is no sure basis laid even in the language of the LXX. (Lev_6:25; Lev_6:30; Lev_5:9; Num_8:8); it is at variance with the constant usage of the N. T., and here, moreover, especially at variance with the previous ἁμαρτ .
γενώμεθα ] aorist (see the critical remarks), without reference to the relation of time. The present of the Recepta would denote that the coming of the ἡμεῖς to be ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (to be ΔΊΚΑΙΟΙ ) still continues with the progress of the conversions to Christ. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Crit. p. 43 B: “id, quod propositum fuit, nondum perfectum et transactum est, sed adhuc durare cogitatur;” see also Hermann, ad Viger. 850.
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ] i.e. justified by God. See on Rom_1:17. Not thank-offering (Michaelis, Schulz); not an offering just before God, well-pleasing to Him, but as δωρεὰ θεοῦ (Rom_5:17), the opposite of all ἸΔΊΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (Rom_10:3). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of 2Co_5:20 are then those, who Τῇ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝῌ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΟὐΧ ὙΠΕΤΆΓΗΣΑΝ , Rom_10:3.
ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ] for in Christ, namely, in His death of reconciliation (Rom_3:25), as causa meritoria, our being made righteous has its originating ground.
[242] Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 100.
[243] It is to be noted, however, that ἁμαρτίαν , just like κατάρα , Gal_3:13, necessarily includes in itself the notion of guilt; further, that the guilt of which Christ, made to be sin and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was not His own ( μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ), and that hence the guilt of men, who through His death were to be justified by God, was transferred to Him; consequently the justification of men is imputative. This at the same time in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 329, according to whom (comp. his explanation at our passage) Paul is held merely to express that God has allowed sin to realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him, while it was not in Him as conduct. Certainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it lay upon Him as the guilt of men to be atoned for through His sacrifice, Rom_3:25; Col_2:14; Heb_9:28; 1Pe_2:24; Joh_1:29, al.; for which reason His suffering finds itself scripturally regarded not under the point of view of experience befalling Him, evil, or the like, but only under that of guilt-atoning and penal suffering. Comp. 1Jn_2:2.
[244] This interpretation is preferred by Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863, p. 249, for the special reason that, according to the ordinary interpretation, there is an incongruity between the end aimed at (actual righteousness of God) and the means (appearing as a sinner). But this difficulty is obviated by observing that Christ is conceived by the apostle as in reality bearer of the divine κκτάρα , and His death as mors vicaria for the benefit ( ὑπέρ ) of the sinful men, to be whose ἱλαστήριον He was accordingly made by God a sinner. As the γίνεσθαι δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ took place for men imputatively, so also did the ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν αὐτόν take place for Christ imputatively. In this lies the congruity.