The Reconciliation

By John Murray

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

The term “reconciliation” occurs in the New Testament four times (Rom. 5:11; 11:15; II Cor. 5:18, 19).[1] In Romans 5 and II Corinthians 5 it obviously refers to that which is spoken of in the contexts by means of the corresponding verb “reconcile” (Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:18, 19, 20).[2] The verb used by Paul in other passages (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 22) is to the same effect though the form is slightly different.[3] In speaking of “the reconciliation”, therefore, we must take into account that which is denoted by both substantive and verb in the usage of the New Testament. The term, thus understood and applied, may be used actively or passively according as we think of the act of reconciling or of the status resulting from the accomplished action. When Paul says: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to him self” (II Cor. 5:19), he refers to the action or process involved (cf. Rom. 5:10). When he says: “we have received the reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11), what is particularly in view is the relation established and bestowed in virtue of the reconciling action. These observations respecting the active and passive denotations, though necessary and helpful, do not resolve the questions that arise respecting what is involved in the reconciling action or in the resulting status and, more specifically, the questions pertaining to the relation of the objective, once-for-all action to the application and subjective realization of that which was once for all wrought in the death of Christ. It would be over-simplification to say, for example, that when the verb is used in terms of action, it refers exclusively to the historical, finished accomplishment wrought through the cross of Christ, even though there can be no doubt that this finished work is frequently in the forefront in such instances.

One of the questions that arises in connection with the biblical teaching is the scope or extent of the reconciliation. This question applies to the debate respecting limited or unlimited atonement, particular or universal redemption. But it is not restricted to the intent of the reconciliation in reference to mankind. One text is sufficient to remind us that the reconciliation may have much broader proportions. In Paul’s word again we read: “it pleased the Father that in him [Christ] all the fulness should dwell and through him to reconcile all things unto himself … through him whether they be things upon the earth or things in the heavens” (Col. 1:19, 20). The more inclusive scope of the “all things” reconciled is suggested, to say the least, by the additional specification, “the things upon the earth” and “the things in the heavens”. Furthermore, in the preceding context the scope of these “things” is indicated by the extent of Christ’s agency in creation and providence and by the preeminence that belongs to him in the economy of redemption. “By him were all things created in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible” (vs. 16). “And he is before all things and in him all things consist” (vs. 17). He “is the beginning, the firstbegotten from the dead, in order that in all things he might be preeminent” (vs. 18). It is with this perspective that the apostle proceeds forthwith to speak of God’s reconciling action through Christ. And since this action embraces “all things … whether they be things upon the earth or the things in the heavens” (vs. 20), we could scarcely think of these “things” as less inclusive than the “all things in the heavens and upon the earth” referred to in verse 16 as the things created by Christ. We are compelled to ask: how can the cosmos be conceived of as the object of the reconciliation?

No one passage in Scripture throws light on this subject more than Romans 8:18–23. When Paul here speaks of “the creation” (vss. 19, 20, 21) and “the whole creation” (vs. 22), he is using the term in the cosmic sense. It is obvious, however, that not all of created reality is included. There is delimitation by the terms of the passage itself.[4] It is of nonrational creation, animate and inanimate, that the apostle speaks. Thus the material heavens and earth are one day to be “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (vs. 21). It is of the same prospect that Peter writes: “We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which dwells righteousness” (II Pet. 3:13). Our interest now is the relation of the reconciliation wrought by Christ to this cosmic regeneration and restoration.

It should be apparent that the vanity to which the creation was subjected (Rom. 8:20) is the result of sin and corresponds in more cosmic proportions to the curse pronounced upon the ground in connection with Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17–19). Vanity and the bondage of corruption are the way or ways in which the estrangement introduced by sin is reflected in that creation which is man’s habitation and of which he is the crown. The gravity of man’s sin as revolt against God is hereby emphasized. Sin cannot be isolated in its effect; it is the contradiction of God and the wrath it must evoke has its cosmic repercussions. For this reason release from the curse and from the bondage of corruption cannot be wrought, any more than can sin itself be remitted, by an act of mere sovereignty. It is only the removal of sin that can release from the consequences emanating from it. We thus see how integrally related to the reconciliation accomplished by Christ is the hope even of the creation. In the reconciliation Christ dealt with sin and, more particularly, with the alienation which sin entails. Reconciliation as action and result brings within its scope the furthest reaches of the curse and so “the creation itself also will be delivered”.

The cosmic relations of the reconciliation require us to pursue the question of scope still further. There is no difficulty in discovering how the reconciliation bears upon the removal of the vanity, the bondage of corruption, and the curse to which the heavens and the earth, viewed in terms of Romans 8:18–23; II Peter 3:13, are subjected because of man’s sin. But do not the “all things … whether they be things upon the earth or things in the heavens” (Col. 1:20) include more than the material heavens and earth? The preceding context, in defining “all things in the heavens and upon the earth”, mentions “things visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” (vs. 16). And must we not, therefore, bring the invisible principalities within the embrace of the reconciliation?

It may be difficult to conceive of the holy angels as becoming the beneficiaries of fruits accruing from the reconciliation and in this way embraced in the “all things” reconciled. These angels have not sinned and in the strict sense in which the reconciliation is applicable to men they have no need of reconciliation. Yet it is not impossible to think of the angelic host as being affected by the liabilities devolving upon men particularly and also upon the created order because of man’s sin. According to Scripture angels have played and still play an important role in God’s manifold ministrations to men. This ministry of angels brings them into contact with sin and its evil effects. If, as Peter says, “the angels desire to look into” the sufferings of Christ and the glories that were to follow (I Pet. 1:11, 12), it is surely reasonable to believe that they look forward to the consummation of this glory when their ministry will no longer require this contact with sin and its evil consequences, when no longer will it be necessary for them to guard the heirs of salvation in the assaults of the hosts of darkness. We do not know what all the occupations of angels are. But in their ministry to men the sphere is one conditioned by sin and evil. From the necessity of ministering in such a sphere they will finally be released. It is the consummation proceeding from the reconciliation once accomplished that will provide this release. Surely this will be consummated bliss for the angelic host as well as for the saints. But, as indicated, it is the fruit of the reconciliation. Thus there are lines of thought that may properly be entertained whereby even the holy angels may be brought within the scope of the reconciliation.

Furthermore, though the term “to sum up” in Ephesians 1:10 is difficult to interpret and is perhaps not definable, yet the action denoted is effected in Christ and is embracive of “all things … which are in heaven and upon the earth”. These must include the angelic host just as the exaltation of Christ iii the heavenly places is one “far above all principality and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph. 1:21). But this summing up in Christ and the exalted lordship over all which he exercises are the result of his redemptive accomplishment (cf. Phil. 2:8–11) and this is but another way of referring to his reconciling action. So again the final status of angels is conditioned by the reconciliation.

If the relevance of the reconciliation to the holy angels is intelligible along such lines as have been proposed, what of the principalities of iniquity, “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies” (Eph. 6:12)? These must be included in the principalities and authorities, powers and dominions over which Jesus is highly exalted (Eph. 1:21). Otherwise he would not be exalted above every name that is named both in this age and the age to come. And, to say the least, it would be difficult to exclude these powers from “the things in the heavens and upon the earth” of Ephesians 1:10, or from the scope of the virtually synonymous expression in Colossians 1:20, and it would be impossible to exclude them from the “all things in the heavens and upon the earth” of Ephesians 1:16. How could the evil angels be included in the reconciliation? Does not reconciliation have soteric import? Are we to posit the restoration of the fallen angels?

The reconciliation is that which has been wrought by the cross of Christ. This is common in all the Pauline passages (cf. Rom. 5:8–11; II Cor. 5:18–21; Eph. 2:11–17; Col. 1:20). It is significant and particularly germane to our present question that, when Paul speaks of God as reconciling all things upon the earth and in the heavens, he proceeds to state the relationship which that same cross of Christ sustains to the principalities and the powers of evil. “Having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2:15).[5] This is the language of conquest and subjugation. It might be argued that conquest and subjection are not incompatible with a saving result. It should be borne in mind, however, that reconciliation when soterically conceived has always in view the harmonious fellowship resulting, the removal of enmity and the establishment of peace with God. Any suggestion of such an outcome for the fallen spirits is wholly absent from Paul’s teaching. His assessment of their role in the present age is in the opposite direction. In the companion epistle he writes: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies” (Eph. 6:12). Their role is one of unrelenting hostility to the kingdom of God and therefore affording no omen or promise of soteric reconciliation. And when Paul reflects on ultimate destiny their identity is still that of enemies and their end that of being brought to nought and placed under Christ’s feet. “Then the end, when he delivers over the kingdom to God and the Father, when he will bring to nought all principality and all authority and power. For he must reign until he places all the enemies under his feet” (I Cor. 15:24, 25). It is then that the victory of the cross (Col. 2:15) and the lordship inaugurated by the resurrection and ascension (Eph. 1:20–23) will be consummated in the final subjugation of all alien powers.

To this outlook the rest of the New Testament offers no dissident witness. The place of woe to which the impenitent are consigned is, according to our Lord’s verdict, “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Jude tells us that “angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he [the Lord] hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6; cf. Rev. 20:10).[6]

If, therefore, the New Testament and Paul in particular give no support to the thesis of restitution for fallen angels and, on the other hand, teach the opposite, how are we to interpret Colossians 1:20? Must we conclude that the “all things” upon the earth and in the heavens said to be reconciled are to be understood in a restrictive sense so as to exclude the fallen angels? It is a well-established canon that universalistic expressions do not always imply distributive universalism; they are to be understood restrictively in terms of the context, or in terms of the universe of discourse, or in accord with the analogy of Scripture. If this principle were applied in this case, there could be no objection from the standpoint of general hermeneutics. The argument might be that since “reconciliation”, when denoting the action of God through Christ, has distinctly soteric connotation and since this meaning cannot belong to the fallen angels, therefore they do not come within the scope of Colossians 1:20.

This solution does not, however, commend itself in terms of the context and of closely related passages. We cannot overlook the inclusiveness of the preceding context, especially of verse 16. The angels that kept not their first estate, though now fallen from their original integrity, must be included in the “all things in the heavens and upon the earth” created by Christ. They must likewise belong to the “all things” that consist in him (vs. 17). They are among the “all things” which find their final goal in Christ (vs. 16). They are embraced in the “all things” over which Christ is preeminent (vs. 18) and over which he is head to his body the church (Eph. 1:22). Likewise, the summing up of all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and upon the earth (Eph. 1:10), is all-inclusive. We are thus led to the conclusion that the reconciliation referred to in Colossians 1:20 must be regarded as inclusive of the fallen spirits and that the bringing to nought and subjugation of these (I Cor. 15:24, 25) must be conceived of as an aspect of “the reconciliation”.

We cannot think of the summing up of all things in Christ and the attainment of the goal that all things were created for him apart from the final triumph over all enemies. The latter is an essential ingredient of the final end. But the summing up belongs to the economy of the fulness of the times

(Col. 1:18). This economy is redemptively conditioned and oriented; it is the economy of redemption. This is but to say that only in virtue of all that Christ achieved in fulfilment of his redemptive mission and commission will the final goal appointed for him be realized. This helps us to understand how in the passage with which we are concerned the subjugation of evil principalities and powers call be represented as all aspect of the reconciliation.

Reconciliation is one of the categories in which the atonement is to be defined, coordinate with obedience, expiation, propitiation, and redemption. We may well ask: why is the subjugation of enemies brought within the scope of the reconciliation when it is not brought within the scope of the others? It is easy to detect the discrepancy if we tried to construe such subjugation under obedience, or expiation, or propitiation; there would be no congruity. With redemption it could be said that it involves redemption from our enemies and subjugation of enemies is the way of insuring deliverance. But even here redemption is not appropriately applied to the subjugation so that the latter might be regarded as an aspect of redemption; redemption must be defined as release by the payment of a price. Release in no sense applies to the subjugation of the powers of darkness. This points up all the more forcefully the question respecting reconciliation. How call this category be applied to the subjugation of alien principalities?

If we were not able to answer the question or suggest the line along which the answer might be sought, we should be content to leave it unanswered without denying the premise that provokes the question. We cannot answer all questions which the teaching of Scripture or even its language may prompt. In this case, however, the situation that reconciliation presupposes and that imparts meaning to it is such that it may not be improper to find in the specific character of reconciliation the justification for its use in the text concerned (Col. 1:20). Reconciliation presupposes enmity. The other categories of the atonement have particularly in view other aspects from which the liability of sin is to be viewed. But what creates the need for reconciliation and determines its meaning is our alienation from God. What is brought into focus is our enmity against God and, as consequence, his holy alienation from us. No indictment exposes the true character of sin more than that “the carnal mind is enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7). The essence of sin is to be against God and the liability of sin is no more adequately expressed than in the fact that God is, therefore, against us. The marvel of grace is that God removes this “against”. It is by and in “the reconciliation” that this is done. Hence no category is more basic to the gospel; it is essentially the message of the reconciliation (cf. II Cor. 5:18–20).

In this central consideration, the disharmony and disruption arising from sin, may well reside the explanation of Colossians 1:20 as it applies to the fallen angels. As already noted, it is not that they are to be restored. They are to be subjugated, brought to nought, and placed under Christ’s feet. It is this finale that stands in sharp contrast with their present activity. They are now intensely active within the realm of the kingdom of God in the heavenlies (cf. Eph. 6:12) and upon earth. The church is constantly in conflict with them and they war against the saints. Since redemptive history has not reached its goal, this history is to a large extent conditioned by this conflict. It is one of warfare. The spiritual hosts of wickedness are the epitome of that enmity which constitutes the essence of sin. But redemptive history will one day be consummated and the new heavens and the new earth, the eschatological kingdom of God, will be established in righteousness. We may properly apply the words: “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:41–43). This consummated order, however we may describe it in the various designations Scripture provides, is one from which all conflict, enmity, disharmony, warfare will be excluded; it will mean the final triumph of righteousness and peace, in a word, of reconciliation. The powers of darkness will be cast out and by the judgment executed made to “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). Bowing the knee in compulsive submission, this will be the reconciliation as it bears upon them; it will constitute the ultimate unconditional surrender, the confessed defeat of age-long assault upon the kingdom of God. We can and must see in this grand climax of victory the fruit of the blood of Christ’s cross. It was by his cross that he despoiled the principalities and powers and triumphed over them (cf. John 12:31; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; I John 3:8). The last judgment upon them is integral to the undisturbed bliss of the new heavens anti the new earth. And so we may the better understand how Paul, with this subjugation in his purview, could say that it pleased the Father through Christ “to reconcile all things unto himself … through him whether they be things in the earth or things in the heavens” (Col. 1:20).

The burden of Paul’s teaching on the subject of reconciliation is not, however, the cosmic implications; it is concerned with the reconciliation as it has respect to men. Thus in the same passage he proceeds: “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now did he reconcile in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:21, 22).

1. Here and in the close parallel from the companion epistle (Eph. 2:12, 13) we have the clearest indication of the aspect of our need arising from sin to which the reconciliation is directed. It is summed up in the term “alienated” (Col. 1:21; Eph. 2:12; 4:18). It would not be proper to discount or suppress the hostility to God which the alienation involves. This is expressed in the coordinate description, “enemies in your mind by wicked works” (Col. 1:21). The alienation is conditioned by our enmity and this connection is stated by Paul when he says: “alienated from the life of God, on account of the ignorance that is in them, on account of the hardening of their heart” (Eph. 4:18; cf. also vss. 17, 18a, 19). But it is a mistake to construe the alienation as consisting in the hostility to God on the part of men. The various expressions point to the exclusion of the “alienated” from the status, institutions, and relationships which betoken and certify God’s favour. “At that time ye were without Christ; alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). The thought of being “afar off” in the succeeding verse (cf. also vs. 17) is to the same effect. It is this same emphasis that must apply to the term “alienated” in Colossians 1:21. Hence the alienation, thrust into the foreground in these passages as constituting the liability to which the reconciliation is directed, is misinterpreted when it is construed simply or even mainly in terms of mail’s subjective hostility. As is apparent from the various expressions used by Paul, what comes into focus is exclusion from the divine favour and blessing and, with that precise force, our alienation from God. In a word, it is to be “without God”.[7] This determines, likewise, what the reconciliation as both action and result contemplates.

2. The liability to which the reconciliation is directed is the unmistakable index to that which constitutes the reconciliation both as action and result. As action it is the removal of the alienation characterized as exclusion from the favour of God and from the privileges which his favour insures and bestows. As result it means that those who were at one time far off, separated from God and his fellowship, are brought nigh to God and are at peace with him (cf. Eph. 2:13, 14, 17; Col. 1:20). Liability, action, and result all converge to establish the basic concept of alienation removed and peace constituted.

3. The subject of the verb “reconcile” (Col. 1:22) and therefore of the action denoted thereby is God the Father. We must go back to verse 19 to discover who the subject is. “It pleased the Father that in him [Christ] all the fulness should dwell.” It is apparent that the same subject is in view in verse 20 where the term “reconcile” occurs for the first time in this passage: “and through him to reconcile all things unto himself”.[8] This fact that God the Father is the agent requires proper recognition and emphasis. It is one of the characteristic notes of Paul’s teaching on the subject of reconciliation. Perhaps it is most prominent in II Corinthians5:18–21, where this appears distinctly on at least three occasions and is implicit in the coordinate expressions. “All things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (vs. 18). The distinction of persons in the titles “God” and “Christ” demands that “God” refers to the Father and he is clearly the subject of the action denoted in the verb “reconciled”. As if this were not enough there is the reiterated emphasis in verse 19: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”. And no less eloquent of God the Father’s action is verse 21 where Paul defines for us more specifically the kind of undertaking involved in the reconciling action: “him who did not know sin he [obviously God taken over from the preceding clause] made to be sin on our behalf”. Likewise in the correlative expressions — “and hath given to us the ministry of the reconciliation” (vs. 18); “not reckoning to them their trespasses, and hath given to us the word of the reconciliation” (vs. 19) — the agency of the Father is unquestionable. So the whole passage is permeated with the thought of the Father’s agency. The initiative is with the Father, the reconciling action is the Father’s, the permanent ministry is by the Father’s commission.

In accord with this stress upon the Father’s action or agency is the frequency with which Christ’s own action is represented in terms of mediacy. As will be observed later, Christ is directly stated to be the subject of the reconciling action. But it is necessary to take account now of the way in which the action of the Father is mediated through the action of Christ, in other words, to observe how the Father is represented as accomplishing the reconciliation. It pleased the Father “through him [Christ] to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him whether they be things in the earth or things in the heavens. And you … did he now reconcile in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:20–22). “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometime were afar off have been brought nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). “All things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (II Cor. 5:18). “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor. 5:19). “God commends his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. How much more then being now justified in his blood shall we be saved through him from the wrath. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more being reconciled shall we be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom now we have received the reconciliation” (Rom. 5:8–11). It is, therefore, through Christ, by Christ, in Christ that the Father acts in his reconciling accomplishment and the latter cannot be conceived of apart from Christ in his person, office, and doing. In this case the reason consists in that which the reconciliation demands and contemplates. It has in view an exigency for which the Father by his action alone could not provide. Paul becomes specific in enunciating the kind of agency on Christ’s part which meets this exigency and constitutes the reconciliation. It is in the body of Christ’s flesh through death that God reconciles (cf. Col. 1:22). Those afar off “have been brought nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “We were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10). We are pointed to that which is predicable of Christ alone — the body of his flesh, his blood, his death. All the emphasis that necessarily and properly belongs to the Father’s action is not allowed to obscure the true character of reconciliation. It is not a sovereign act of clemency. It demands and is wrought by the shedding of blood and in the economy of salvation only God’s own Son had such blood to shed and such life to lay down in death.

For this reason it should not surprise us that Christ is also represented as the subject and agent in the reconciling action. The most explicit statement to this effect is Ephesians 2:16. Here Paul has a particular facet of reconciliation in view, namely, the bringing together in one fellowship of Jew and Gentile so that both constitute one body and have access in one Spirit unto the Father. But it is the same reconciling action of which Paul speaks when he says of Christ specifically, as the one who is our peace (cf. vs. 14), that he destroyed the enmity in order that “he might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross”. The formula used here to signify Christ’s own reconciling action, namely, “reconcile to God”, is the same in its import as that used in II Corinthians 5:18, 19 when the Father is represented as the reconciling agent in reconciling us to himself. Hence the efficiency predicated of Christ’s own agency is not to be regarded as falling short in any respect of that of the Father. In Romans 5:10 when the same formula is used passively — “we were reconciled to God” — we would naturally expect that, as in Ephesians 1:16, the action is to be understood as that of Christ.

We naturally raise the question: if only that which Christ could perform in the body of his flesh through death would be effective unto reconciliation, why does such emphasis fall upon the agency of the Father himself in the reconciling action? No death, no blood-shedding belongs to the Father.

Much that pertains to this question may elude us. We should not be surprised that this is so. But we may not and cannot overlook what is central to all thought respecting Christ’s office and ministry. All that Christ is and does in his mediatorial offices and accomplishments is the fruit of the Father’s love, design, and gift. It is with this note the most characteristic passages begin. “God commendeth his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “And all things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (II Cor. 5:18). “It pleased the Father that in him all the fulness should dwell” (Col. 1:19). Our conception of the economy of redemption is deflected from the outset if we do not appreciate the primacy of the Father’s counsel and action. Wherever we turn in the Bible’s witness this is what confronts us. “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (John 3:16). “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for Our sins” (I John 4:10). “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him tip for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of its all” (Isa. 53:6).

4. Having surveyed the data bearing on the relation of the Father’s action to that of the Son, we are now in a better position to deal with the import of the expression, so much debated, “God was in Christ” (II Cor. 5:19). The question is whether we have in verse 19a what are virtually two propositions, namely, that “God was in Christ” and that, as such, he was “reconciling the world unto himself” or one proposition that “God was reconciling the world unto himself in Christ”. In terms of punctuation the question is: are we to place a comma after “Christ” or are we to omit the same? A formidable list of exegetes call be cited in support of either alternative.

If the former alternative were adopted, no issue of theological significance would necessarily be at stake.[9] For, in the event that this was Paul’s intent, the accent would fall either upon the deity of Christ or, preferably, upon the close cooperation of the Father and the Son in the reconciling action, that it was in virtue of the indwelling of the Father in Christ that so great a work could have been wrought (cf. John 5:19, 20; 10:37, 38; 14:10).

The considerations in support of the second alternative are, however, preponderant.

(a) The formula “God was in Christ”, as a way of affirming the deity of Christ, is without parallel in Paul or in the New Testament generally. A survey of the usage will demonstrate how contrary to all analogy it would be to reflect on Christ’s deity in this manner. Hence it would be grossly arbitrary to impose such an interpretation upon the expression unless compelling reasons could be pleaded for departure from usual patterns.[10] As we shall see, no such reasons exist.

(b) The title “God” in this instance must be taken as referring specifically to God the Father.[11] This is apparent from the preceding verse. God and Christ are distinguished and when this is done, particularly in Paul, the name “God” is the personal title for the Father. The same is true in verse 20. It is equally patent in Romans 5:8–11. And in Colossians 1:19 as observed earlier, it is God the Father echo is represented as the agent in the reconciliation. Thus, exegetically, there is no warrant whatsoever for the supposition that the title “God” in the instance concerned has any reference to the deity of Christ himself. It denotes the Father and it is not the person of the Father who constitutes Jesus’ deity.

(c) As commentators have observed, the “in Christ” of verse 19 should be most reasonably interpreted as having the same force, or at least the same general import, as “through Christ” of verse 18. The strength of this argument is enhanced when the relation of the two verses is duly noted. Verse 19 is a reiteration and expansion of verse 18 as is made clear by the introductory terms. Verse 19 is a further definition of the subject announced in verse 18. But the conclusiveness of this interpretation is established when we consider all of Paul’s teaching on this topic. The thought that the Father’s action in reconciliation is through the mediation of Christ is pervasive. Sometimes this is expressed simply in terms of “through Christ” as in II Corinthians 5:18 (cf. Col. 1:20). But more frequently Paul is more specific and states how Christ exercised this mediation. It was “in his blood” (Rom. 5:9), through his death (Rom. 5:10), “in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13), “in his flesh” (Eph. 2:14), “through the cross” (Eph. 2:16), “through the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20), “in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:22). Thus, when Paul says “through Christ”, there is always in view the way in which it is through him. And it should be noted that the way in which Christ accomplished this mediation is expressed by the instrumental dative, “in his blood”, “in his flesh”, “in the body of his flesh”, as well as by “through the blood of his cross”. But perhaps most significant of all is the fact that this same truth is stated explicitly to have taken place “in Christ Jesus”. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometime were far off were brought nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). The language differs and the voice is passive, when in II Corinthians 5:19 it is active. But surely the same act Of reconciliation is in view in both instances. The situation is, therefore, that pervasively and with eloquent reiteration the reconciliation is stated to be wrought through Christ’s mediation and, more specifically, through his death on the cross. This mediacy is expressed in the formula “in Christ Jesus” as well as by such expressions as “in the body of his flesh” and “in his blood”. The exegetical data would indicate, therefore, that when we find “in Christ” in II Corinthians 5:19 no other interpretation could begin to claim for itself the support which the analogy of Paul’s teaching offers to the view that here the mediacy of Christ in the reconciling action is contemplated. And so we should read: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”, and “in Christ” is to be taken along with “was reconciling”[12] after the pattern of sustained, uniform usage in the other passages.[13]

5. We must now turn to the question of the extent of the reconciliation as it concerns mankind. We are not now dealing with reconciliation in its more cosmic application in the sense of Colossians 1:20 but with the extent in those passages which have clearly in view lost humanity (Rom. 5:8–11; II Cor. 5:18–21; Eph. 2:12–20: Col. 1:21–23).

It was noted already that at Colossians 1:21 Paul becomes more restrictive and proceeds to deal with the reconciliation as it embraces men. At verse 22 the purpose of the reconciling action wrought in the body of Christ’s flesh through death is stated to be the presentation of the beneficiaries as holy and without blemish and unreprovable. Our understanding of the reconciliation as action must not be dissociated from the design here stated and, to say the least, we are thus cautioned against any facile assumption that the reconciliation as action can be conceived of as embracing all mankind. Not all mankind will be presented faultless before God. In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever in this passage for universal reconciliation. Paul is writing to the saints at Colosse (Col. 1:2) all(] only of them does he speak when he says: “And you who were sometime alienated … now did he reconcile” (vss. 21, 22).

Of equal, if not greater, relevance to the question of extent, is the condition stated in verse 23: “if ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard”. This condition is similar to that which we find elsewhere in the New Testament (Cf. Rom. 11:22; Heb. 3:6, 14) and we are reminded that the provisions and promises of salvation are not to be dissociated from the fruits appropriate to and expressive of that salvation.

It might be argued that in this case the conditional sentence in verse 23 does not apply to the reconciling action (vs. 22a) but only to the goal contemplated, “to present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable in his sight” (vs. 22b) and that the whole truth intended is the more obvious one, namely, that the goal is not achieved unless there is Continuance in the faith. But, as noted earlier, it is impossible to think of the reconciling action apart from the design. In other words, the two elements of verse 22 are so interinvolved that the condition expressed in verse 23 cannot be attached to the second element alone. The condition belongs to verse 22 in its unity and, therefore, to the reconciling action as well as to the aim envisaged. Thus in this passage not only is it the case that there is no evidence to support the universal scope of the reconciliation; there is distinct indication that the reconciling action, as also the achievement of the designed goal, is limited in its reference to those who persevere to the end in faith and hope. ‘VV are advised that as we thinly of reconciliation in its objective, once-for-all accomplishment in the death of Christ upon the cross, we may never interpret the same as to its character, design, and extent apart from the actual fruitage in reconciliation received. Universalism violates the contextual data in terms of which we are to interpret the scope of the reconciling action.

It is appropriate now to turn to that other passage in connection with which the question of extent has been in dispute (II Cor. 5:19). The question is concerned with the term “world” in the clause “reconciling the world to himself”.[14] It has been maintained that the thought here is that of Colossians 1:20, the reconciliation in its cosmic proportions including the subjugation of all enemies.[15] If this is the purport then the same qualifications would have to be made as in the case of Colossians 1:20. There are, however, very good reasons for rejecting this interpretation in this instance.

(a) There is no intimation in this passage of the inclusiveness characterizing the context of Colossians 1:20. Everything points to the restrictiveness which we find in Colossians 1:21, as observed above. That Paul is thinking specifically of mankind appears at the outset. “All things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (II Cor. 5:18). “The ministry of reconciliation” (idem) is likewise one that has respect to men. It is men who are exhorted on behalf of Christ “be ye reconciled to God” (vs. 20). And the expiatory action (vs. 21) which defines the reconciling action is one that contemplates men in its intent and effect — “he made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him”. The universe of discourse is ruthlessly disregarded when “world” is given cosmic denotation.

(b) It is true that on occasion Paul may use the word “world” in an inclusive sense to designate what we mean by cosmos (cf. Rom. 1:20; I Cor. 8:4). But such instances are few and a survey of his use of the term will show that frequently he means the world of humanity viewed from various aspects (cf. Rom. 1:8; 3:19; 5:12, 13; 11:12, 15; 1 Cor. 3:19; 11:32; Phil. 2:15; I Tim. 1:15).[16] But of more significance is the fact that when Paul is thinking of the reconciliation in its cosmic reference he finds it necessary to use very different terms to make clear his meaning (cf. Col. 1:16–20).

(c) The explanatory clause in II Corinthians 5:19 points definitely to the more restrictive sense of the term “world”. It is not so certain what the precise intent of the clause “not imputing to them their trespasses” is. It may be taken as specifying that in which the reconciliation consisted and in that event would be closely related to the clause in verse 21 “him who knew no sin he made to be sin for us”. In the reconciliation there was the imputation of sin to Christ and, therefore, the non-imputation of sin to the beneficiaries. Verse 191) would be epexegetical of verse 19a. However, verse 191) could also be taken as expressing the effect or fruit of the reconciling action and would be resultative. It makes no difference to the present question which of these views should be adopted. The significant feature is that verse 19b indicates the sphere within which the reconciliation (vs. 19a) has relevance. What is the realm to which the non-imputation of trespasses applies? There is but one answer according to Paul and the New Testament. It is the realm of humanity. The good angels have no trespasses to be remitted. For the fallen angels there is no redemptive provision. Non-rational creation rests under the curse, subjected to vanity. But of this creation trespass is not predicable. Distinctly, therefore, only to men can verse 19b apply. Because of the close relation of the two clauses, only of men can Paul be thinking when he says, “reconciling the world”.

If the “world” refers to mankind, the next question is the extent of the reference within mankind. Is there any intimation in this passage and related passages of the limitation we found in Colossians 1:21–23? The interpretive clause in verse 19 — “not reckoning to them their trespasses” — bears not only on the preceding thesis, that of restricting the “world” to mankind, but upon our present question also. If this clause is epexegetical of the reconciling action, as it may well be, then the limited extent obviously applying to the non-imputation of trespasses must likewise apply to that of which it is interpretive, namely, the reconciling action. Since not all of mankind enjoy the remission of their trespasses, so not all come within the scope of the reconciliation. But even if “not imputing to them their trespasses” refers to the effect of the reconciliation as that which emanates from it, the restriction is not eliminated. The two clauses of verse 19 are, in any event, so closely related that their respective scope is interinvolved. If the non-reckoning of trespasses is the effect, it is the effect that inevitably accrues from the reconciling action. The latter insures the remission of trespasses and, for that reason, cannot have broader reference than its unfailing issue. Limitation is bound up with the non-reckoning of trespasses and with the syntax of the sentence. Other considerations are confirmatory of this conclusion.

Though there is repeated emphasis upon the objective, once-for-all accomplishment in the death of Christ, it is not possible to abstract this reconciling action from its fruitage in reconciliation bestowed and enjoyed. Exegetically stated, this means that in passages where the death of Christ as a finished, historical event is clearly in view as reconciling action, those being addressed or contemplated are regarded as the beneficiaries of the reconciling action. In other words, they are conceived of as having received the reconciliation and as possessors of that insured and secured by it. In the order of the New Testament this appears first of all in Romans 5:9, 10. Here there is a parallel between “justified now in his blood” (vs. 9) and “reconciled to God through the death of his Son”. The guarantee involved in the former is that “we shall be saved … from the wrath” and of the latter that “we shall be saved by his [Christ’s] life”. This means saved from the eschatological wrath and saved in Christ’s resurrection life. It may well be that “justified” in this instance is used as the synonym of “reconciled”. But, in any event, it is impossible to thinly of “reconciled” in both instances in verse 10, though the finished action in Christ’s death is distinctly in the forefront, apart from the new status actually constituted which carries with it the guarantee of salvation by virtue of Christ’s resurrection life. The thought is that if we are embraced in the scope of “reconciled” we shall be also in that of “saved”. And this is to say that the death of Christ as reconciling action cannot be interpreted as something broader in its scope and intent than the final outcome of reconciliation bestowed.

The same conclusions can be derived from Ephesians 2:13: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometime were far off have been brought nigh in the blood of Christ”. That “brought nigh” has the same import as reconciliation is evident from the context. The preceding verse defines the situation to which reconciliation is directed and the need it meets — “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world”. And then in verse 16 the term “reconcile” is used to express the same essential thought. Thus verse 13 is directly relevant to the present question.

The reference to the blood of Christ reminds us of the historic event of Jesus’ cross, identified expressly in these terms in verse 16 as that through which the reconciliation had been wrought. So we cannot eliminate from this passage the thought of the reconciling action in the cross of Christ. But, when Paul says that “now in Christ Jesus ye … have been brought nigh”, he is certainly thinking of reconciliation in actual realization in contrast with the alienated status described in verse 12. So again the repeated references in this passage to the cross as the reconciling action cannot be abstracted in its intent and scope from the participation of the grace which it contemplates. The same implications belong to Colossians 1:21–23. But it is not necessary to repeat what are virtually the same considerations.

It does not follow from the foregoing observations regarding the coextensiveness of objective accomplishment and subjective bestowment that the completed action wrought in Christ’s death on the cross is not viewed in its distinctness as that which grounds, secures, and insures reconciliation as bestowment and possession. Men come into possession of the reconciliation as actual status in response to the gospel proclamation. This is made clear in II Corinthians 5:18–20. There is “the ministry of the reconciliation” (vs. 18), “the word of the reconciliation” (vs. 19), the acting of preachers as ambassadors on behalf of Christ, and the exhortation, addressed to men as of God and on behalf of Christ, “be ye reconciled to God” (vs. 20). What constitutes this proclamation is that which God has done in the death of his Son, and the essence of the exhortation is that we should enter into this status which the once-for-all accomplishment has secured. In reality no confidence to draw nigh in the assurance of faith for the appropriation of this grace can be engendered in the hearts of men convicted of sin and of alienation from God except as there is to some extent the apprehension of what God has done in Christ once for all to meet the exigency of our sin and of its resultant separation from God. The ground of faith in answer to the exhortation is the reality of that objective accomplishment in the concreteness of the historical event of Christ’s death upon the cross. So the distinctness of the once-for-all reconciling action in Jesus’ blood is not only involved in the ministry and word of reconciliation; it is involved in the very act of faith by which we enter into reconciled status and enjoy peace with God.

In the light of what we have found in respect of the scope of the reconciliation as action, namely, that as accomplished action it is coextensive with reconciliation as status established, the significance of the message, of the exhortation, and of the response in faith should warn us against the distortion so prevalent that the kerugma consists in the announcement to all men that they have been reconciled and that faith consists in the acceptance of this as a fact.[17] It is all-important and most significant that the exhortation correspondent with the message is “be ye reconciled to God”, an exhortation which surely implies that reconciliation as status, as one of peace with God, does not take effect until there is the response of faith. This is another reminder that we may not abstract the accomplished action from its fruitage in reconciliation bestowed, a bestowment always conjoined with the faith that responds to the message proclaimed.

Notes

1. The term is καταλλαγή.
2. καταλλάσσω.
3. ἀποκαταλλάσσω.
4. The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, 1959), Vol. I, pp. 301 f. by the present writer.
5. Cf., for discussion of this verse and reference to relevant literature, F. F. Bruce: Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians (Grand Rapids, 1957), pp. 239 f., n. 68.
6. Cf., on this subject, F. F. Bruce: ibid., pp. 209 f.
7. ἄθεοι in Eph. 2:12 does not mean “ungodly” but “without God” or “Godless”. This is apparent from the coordinate expressions: χωρὶς Χριστοῦ and ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες.
8. This is one of the strongest considerations in favour of regarding “the Father” as subject in verse 19. If “all the fulness” were taken as the subject of εὐδόκησεν, then insuperable difficulty would arise in verse 20. How could “all the fulness” be regarded as the subject and agent of the reconciliation? There is not only the incongruity in concept to be considered but the usage of Paul in other passages where the Father is the subject of the reconciling action.
9. Although no theological issue is necessarily at stake, this alternative interpretation can be subjected to such distortion that theological issues do become involved.
10. It is true theologically to say with Allo: “C’est cette prÉsence de Dieu dans le Christ, dans l’homme JÉsus, qui donne au sacrifice de la Croix son infinie valeur” (P.E.-B. Allo: Seconde Épitre aux Corinthiens, Paris, 1956, ad loc.). But this is exegetically inept.
11. Calvin had sufficient insight to see this, even though he adopted the interpretation now being refuted. “This is said of the Father, since it would be unnatural to say that the divine nature of Christ was in Christ” (The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, E. T., Edinburgh and London, 1964, ad loc.).
12. ἦν καταλλάσσων is a periphrastic imperfect.
13. The argument that ἦν must go with θέμενος as well as with καταλλάσσων (cf. J. H. Bernard: The Expositor’s Greek Testament, New York, n.d., Vol. III, ad loc.) is not a valid one in support of this interpretation. The aorist participle θέμενος refers to the result of the reconciling action, whether the preceding clause is taken as epexegetical of ἦν καταλλάσσων or as the effect, and can surely stand by itself (cf. Heinrich A. W. Meyer: Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, E. T., New York, 1884, pp. 537 f.).
14. It would be unwarranted to stress the anarthrous use of κόσμος and maintain that the thought is focused upon “a world” in the sense of a saved world. The absence of the definite article cannot be made to bear this signification.
15. Cf., most recently, Philip E. Hughes: Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1962, ad loc.
16. It is not necessary to discuss the various aspects in these passages. In Rom. 11:12, 15, for example, the “world” is the Gentle world as distinguished from Israel.
17. For discussion and analysis of this view of the kerugma and of its relations to other doctrines cf. the recent and discriminating study by G. C. Berkouwer: The Work of Christ, Grand Rapids, 1965, pp. 289–294.