„On to dla nas grzechem uczynił tego, który nie znał grzechu” (2 Kor 5,21a): Rozumienie Pawłowej wypowiedzi w historii egzegezy

TL;DR

This article traces how 2 Cor 5:21a ("God made Christ a sin") has been interpreted across the history of exegesis, from the patristic era through medieval, Reformation, and modern scholarship. It identifies three persistent interpretive tendencies: reference to the incarnation, to Christ's death as a sacrifice for sin, and to the reality of sin that Christ confronted.

Key findings

• Three main interpretive tendencies recur throughout the history of exegesis: (1) "making Christ sin" refers to the incarnation of the Son of God; (2) it refers to His death understood as a sacrifice for sin; (3) it refers to the reality of sin that Jesus Christ faced.
• In patristic exegesis, following L. Sabourin, three directions are distinguished: sin in the ordinary sense (Christ bore our sins like the Suffering Servant of Isa 53); making-sin referred to the incarnation (via Rom 8:3, "likeness of sinful flesh"); and sin meaning "sacrifice for sin" or what is offered in such a sacrifice. Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Augustine are treated; Cyril is credited with first identifying "sin" with "sacrifice for sin" in the Greek exegetical tradition.
• Medieval theologians (especially Anselm of Canterbury) concentrated on the idea of sacrifice for sin and linked it to Christ's saving work; Thomas Aquinas added little, listing three opinions (sin as sacrifice for sin; incarnation; being regarded as a sinner).
• Reformation theologians (Luther, Calvin, and successors such as Beza, Hugo de Groot, Turretin, Quenstedt) focused on Christ's death, read 2 Cor 5:21 together with Gal 3:13, and emphasized the juridical/penal aspect; Catholic polemicists (Salmeron, Bellarmin, Cornelius a Lapide, Willem Hessels van Est) responded, with Van Est first explicitly linking the scapegoat of Yom Kippur to 2 Cor 5:21 and Isa 53:11.
• Modern exegetes continue to draw on earlier theologians; the author judges the third tendency (ἁμαρτία as the reality of sin) to be the main current, as it most strongly relies on literary and structural analysis of 2 Cor 5:21 and is compatible with some Fathers such as John Chrysostom.

Methods

• Design: a chronological survey of the history of exegesis of 2 Cor 5:21a, organized into four stages — patristic, late medieval, Reformation, and modern.
• Data: the article works from primary texts (Origen, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Van Est, and others) and from modern secondary scholarship (e.g., Sabourin, Bieringer, Hooker, Aletti, Stuhlmacher, Thrall, Minor).
• Analysis: comparative and historical-theological exposition of interpretive positions rather than new empirical or statistical analysis; the author also notes the grammatical structure of 2 Cor 5:21 (asyndeton, double accusative with ἐποίησεν) as background.

Limitations

• The paper does not state explicit limitations. (Not stated in the paper.)
• Evident from the text: the survey is selective rather than exhaustive — it concentrates on a set of named patristic, medieval, Reformation, and modern figures, and the author explicitly sets aside questions of the verse's origin (Pauline or not) and its function in context.
• Evident from the text: the modern section relies heavily on a small number of secondary discussions (notably Sabourin and Bieringer) for its classification of interpretive options, and the author's judgment that the "reality of sin" reading is the main current is presented as an assessment rather than a demonstrated consensus.