Did the Interpreters of the New Testament Sin in Their Interpretation?

When we think of “sin,” we often think in moral categories—breaking commandments, disobeying laws, or transgressing divine decrees. But the Greek word hamartia, most often translated as “sin,” literally means to miss the mark. It implies falling short of a target, failing to grasp the essence, or losing sight of what is truly real. With this in mind, I pose a question that may feel unsettling at first: Did the interpreters of the New Testament themselves sin—miss the mark—in their interpretation?

To answer this, let us look at a pivotal verse often quoted to affirm traditional doctrine: 2 Corinthians 5:21—“For our sake he made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

The Traditional Interpretation

The majority of interpreters, particularly within orthodox Christianity, have read this verse through the lens of legal categories. They tell us Paul is affirming that Jesus was sinless—morally blameless in thought, word, and deed—and that in his death he took on the guilt of humanity so that our sins might be punished in him. This reading fits neatly with the doctrine of penal substitution: humanity is guilty, divine justice demands punishment, and Jesus stands in our place.

In this framework, the phrase “knew no sin” is taken as a statement of flawless moral character. Jesus, unlike us, is without fault. But this raises a question: if Paul merely wanted to say Jesus “did not sin,” why did he not use the Greek verb hamartanō—the very word for “to sin”? Instead, Paul chose the phrase mē gnonta hamartian—“did not know sin.”

The Greek Nuance

The verb ginōskō, “to know,” carries far more depth than a casual acquaintance with a concept. It refers to experiential knowledge, intimacy, perception, or awareness. To “know sin” would mean to participate in it, to be familiar with it, to have it woven into one’s consciousness. Paul’s claim is not merely that Jesus refrained from committing sins, but that sin was utterly alien to his awareness.

This distinction is crucial. The traditional interpretation reduces Paul’s mystical language to a legal statement about moral innocence. But Paul’s actual wording pushes us into deeper territory. Jesus did not “know” sin because he never entered into the consciousness of separation from God. He lived in continual union, in remembrance of his divine origin, in unbroken awareness of the Father’s love.

Where the Interpreters Missed the Mark

Here, I would argue, the interpreters of the New Testament have sinned—not in the sense of moral failing, but in the sense of missing the mark of Paul’s intended meaning. By filtering the text through the legal and penal frameworks that became dominant in Western theology, they reduced mystical insight into courtroom language.

Paul’s declaration becomes, in their hands, a proof text for substitutionary atonement. But if we attend to the Greek, and to the broader current of Paul’s mystical vision, we hear something different. Jesus did not know sin—not because he was morally perfect in a forensic sense, but because his consciousness was never tainted by the illusion of separation. He walked in the fullness of divine remembrance.

When Paul says that God “made him to be sin,” this too is twisted by interpreters into a grotesque picture of God pouring wrath onto the innocent. But read through the lens of awareness, it means Jesus entered our human condition of forgetfulness. He stepped into our darkness, not to become guilty, but to shine as the light of awakening. He became what we are—lost in forgetfulness—so that we might become what he is: fully alive in divine remembrance.

The Consequence of Missing the Mark

By missing the mark in their interpretation, the church has perpetuated a theology of fear. Generations have been taught that God’s justice demanded blood, that sin was a debt only violence could satisfy, and that the cross was primarily a courtroom where punishment was carried out. This distorts the very heart of the gospel.

Instead of proclaiming the good news of liberation, awakening, and union, the church too often proclaimed condemnation, guilt, and terror. In missing Paul’s mystical language, they built a system that enslaves rather than frees. The very doctrine of penal substitution has become, in many ways, a veil—a continuation of the forgetfulness Jesus came to dissolve.

A Different Way of Hearing

If we restore Paul’s mystical voice, the verse comes alive in a new way. We could paraphrase it like this:

“The one who never entered into the consciousness of sin, who lived in unbroken union with God, stepped into our condition of forgetfulness, so that in him we might awaken to our true righteousness—the divine life we have always shared in God.”

This reading harmonizes with Jesus’ own ministry. He never obsessed over moral infractions; he lifted burdens, forgave freely, restored dignity, and pointed people back to their Father. He saw beyond sin because he did not know it—not as we do. For him, sin was shadow, an illusion to be dispelled by light, not a debt to be punished.

Did the Interpreters Sin?

So we return to the question: Did the interpreters of the New Testament sin in their interpretation? If sin means missing the mark, then yes—they missed it. They mistook mystical depth for legal proof. They translated awakening into guilt, remembrance into punishment, liberation into fear.

And yet, there is grace even here. For missing the mark is not the end of the story. Just as Jesus forgave those who did not understand what they were doing, so too we can forgive the interpreters who passed on a narrowed vision. We can honor the faith they preserved while also daring to move beyond their limitations.

Conclusion

To say Jesus “did not know sin” is not a sterile legal statement. It is a mystical proclamation that the Christ-consciousness never tasted forgetfulness. He did not know separation, because he lived in the fullness of divine union. By stepping into our human condition, he revealed that our sense of separation is the illusion, and our true nature is righteousness in God.

Yes, the interpreters missed the mark. They sinned, in the sense that they diminished Paul’s mystical insight into a doctrine of fear. But we are not bound to repeat their error. We can reclaim the vision, hear Paul’s words afresh, and allow them to awaken us to the truth that was always there: Christ did not know sin, because in Christ there is no separation—only union, remembrance, and the radiant righteousness of God.