Iv. The Reconciliation Terminology In The New Testament
III. RECONCILIATION IN JUDAISM
According to Strack-Billerbeck, ‘In Rabbinic writings the two verbs ritstsâh and piyyēs are especially used for 
αταλλάσσιν’.405 Both these verbs speak of the removal of enmity, the first having the idea of causing to be pleasant, and the second of calming. Thus both imply a previous enmity, and sometimes there is an explicit reference to ‘wrath’, or similar evidence of ill-feeling in the context.
αταλλάσσιν’.405 Both these verbs speak of the removal of enmity, the first having the idea of causing to be pleasant, and the second of calming. Thus both imply a previous enmity, and sometimes there is an explicit reference to ‘wrath’, or similar evidence of ill-feeling in the context.Reconciliation is sometimes between men, but often this is part of the process of reconciliation with God. Thus R. Jose used a parable: ‘A man lent his neighbour a maneh and fixed a time for payment in the presence of the king, while the other swore to pay him by the life of the king. When the time arrived he did not pay him, and he went to excuse himself to the king. The king, however, said to him: The wrong done to me I excuse you, but go and obtain forgiveness from your neighbour.‘406 The application of the parable is not far to seek, and it is typical of the teaching of the Rabbis that a man must be reconciled with his fellow if he would expect to be reconciled with his God. The responsibility for reconciliation is, of course, with the person doing the wrong. Sometimes, however, we hear of the wronged one taking the initiative in an attempt to heal the breach.407
God is thought of as angry with men because of sin, and reconciliation accordingly becomes necessary. A number of mid-rashes speak of reconciliation after the episode of the Golden Calf. For example, a saying of R. Isaac is recorded: ‘Moses reconciled God with Israel through the second Tables.’ It goes on to put forward the curious explanation that Moses pretended to be angry with the people, causing God to say that they both could not be angry with them, and thus He became reconciled to them.408 In another place we are told that, when he found that God’s wrath was towards the people because of the calf, ‘Moses instantly rose and sought mercy from Him, begging Him to be reconciled with them’. But God put away only part of His wrath, and when the tabernacle was built Moses wondered whether this would do away with the remainder of the wrath: ‘is He reconciled with them and will He display towards them the Attribute of Mercy?’ The answer is that He is reconciled. A little later in the same section this is given in the words of R. Berekiah, the priest, speaking in the name of R. Judah son of R. Simon: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “Formerly there was hostility between Me and My children, there was enmity between Me and My children, there was contention between Me and My children. Now, however, that this Tabernacle has been made there will be love between Me and My children, there will be peace between Me and My children.” This explains the text, “For He will speak peace unto His people,” namely to Israel, because they have made the Tabernacle.‘409
Such passages as the ones we have so far quoted would perhaps leave the impression that the Rabbis dwelt on the wrath of God in a very anthropomorphic fashion, and it is true that they sometimes did. But there are many passages reflecting a nobler view of God. Thus on the verse, ‘She (i.e. Jerusalem) is become as a widow’, Rab Judah says : ‘(The verse implies) blessing; “as a window” ; not a real widow, but a woman whose husband has gone to a country beyond the sea (fully) intending to return to her.‘410 Here the disciplines of suffering imposed upon the nation are seen as temporary. God will shortly cause them to cease. So also we read: ‘Come and see how different from the character of one of flesh and blood is the action of the Holy One, blessed be He. As to the character of one of flesh and blood, if one angers his fellow, it is doubtful whether he (the latter) will be pacified or not by him. And even if you would say, he can be pacified, it is doubtful whether he will be pacified by mere words. But with the Holy One, blessed be He, if a man commits a sin in secret, He is pacified by mere words.‘411 This must not, of course, be interpreted as meaning that right inward dispositions are not necessary, but the saying is a strong affirmation that God is merciful.
Sometimes the thought of reconciliation takes on a cosmic aspect (as in Col. 1 : 20). Thus, ‘R. Safra on concluding his prayer added the following: May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to establish peace among the celestial family, and among the earthly family, and among the disciples who occupy themselves with Thy Torah.‘412 This may be given a different twist, as when we read that God ‘made peace (hishlîm) between His works and His creatures. How so? He caused the fire to be at peace with Abraham our father; He caused the sword to be at peace with Isaac; He caused the angel to be at peace with Jacob.‘413 Here it is God who makes peace. Sometimes also Israel is held to have done this, as when the nation’s acceptance of the Law is regarded as the means of making peace with God and thus preventing the destruction of the world (Gn. R. 66 : 2 ; Cant. R. 7 : 1).
We may notice here that Josephus makes use of the verb αταλλάσσω on three occasions. Twice he uses it of human reconciliations , namely when the woman says to David: ‘be first reconciled to your own son and let your anger toward him cease’,414 and when the Levite who went after his concubine (Jdg. 19) ‘redressed her grievances and was reconciled to her’.415 The third occasion tells of Samuel who ‘all night long set himself to entreat God to be reconciled to Saul and not wroth with him’.416 This verb also occurs three times in 2 Maccabees (1 : 5 ; 7 : 33; 8: 29). In all three cases the verb is in the passive with God as subject, e.g. ‘and if for rebuke and chastening our living Lord hath been angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants’. There may be discussion as to whether in the New Testament references God can be said to be reconciled to men, but there can be no doubt as to the position in Maccabees.
αταλλάσσω on three occasions. Twice he uses it of human reconciliations , namely when the woman says to David: ‘be first reconciled to your own son and let your anger toward him cease’,414 and when the Levite who went after his concubine (Jdg. 19) ‘redressed her grievances and was reconciled to her’.415 The third occasion tells of Samuel who ‘all night long set himself to entreat God to be reconciled to Saul and not wroth with him’.416 This verb also occurs three times in 2 Maccabees (1 : 5 ; 7 : 33; 8: 29). In all three cases the verb is in the passive with God as subject, e.g. ‘and if for rebuke and chastening our living Lord hath been angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants’. There may be discussion as to whether in the New Testament references God can be said to be reconciled to men, but there can be no doubt as to the position in Maccabees.The noun αταλλγή is found with reference to the restoration of the temple worship, ‘and (the place) which was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again with all glory’ (2 Macc. 5 : 20). Here again the noun is used to signify reconciliation, and the mention of the divine wrath makes it clear that it is God who is reconciled, and not simply men.
αταλλγή is found with reference to the restoration of the temple worship, ‘and (the place) which was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again with all glory’ (2 Macc. 5 : 20). Here again the noun is used to signify reconciliation, and the mention of the divine wrath makes it clear that it is God who is reconciled, and not simply men.Thus the Jews certainly held that God wars angry when men sinned, and that this demanded an act of reconciliation. They do not hesitate to speak of God as being reconciled to men, by which they mean that His just wrath is removed. There is divergence of opinion about the method of effecting reconciliation, but the best Rabbinic thought had risen to the idea that God Himself brings about the reconciliation. On the human side the Rabbis looked for repentance and a readiness to be reconciled to other men.
IV. THE RECONCILIATION TERMINOLOGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The chief difficulty to be solved in the New Testament use of reconcile, reconciliation, etc., is whether, in the process of reconciliation, God can be said to be reconciled to man, or whether the process is one in which man only is reconciled. As we have seen the Old Testament says little in set terms about the matter (though it often speaks of the wrath of God and of its removal, and this is nothing else than the reconciliation of God). The idea that God is reconciled to man is seen in the Rabbinic writings, in the apocrypha and in authors like Josephus. Yet all this amounts to no more than that it was quite usual in early times to think of God as being reconciled to man, and that αταλλάσσω and its cognates (or their equivalents) were used of this reconciliation of God.
αταλλάσσω and its cognates (or their equivalents) were used of this reconciliation of God.The New Testament must be allowed to speak for itself, and when it does so we are immediately struck by the fact that God is never said in so many words to be reconciled to man. Almost always He is the subject of the verb and is said to reconcile man to Himself. This manner of speaking puts emphasis on the truth that the process of reconciliation originates with God. It is only by the outworking of His love that man can be brought into right relationships with his Maker. This is not, however, conclusive of itself. The argument from silence is always precarious, and doubly so when, as here, there are few passages in question.
Under the general heading of reconciliation there are various sections to consider, for the New Testament speaks of ideas such as those of making peace, fellowship, etc., which may well be held to be parts of the same conception as that denoted by αταλλάσσω (we have already noted that Vincent Taylor discusses a wide range of topics under the heading of ‘reconciliation’). But for our purpose it will suffice to consider the thoughts of enmity, of making peace, and those denoted by such words as ατλλάσσω.
αταλλάσσω (we have already noted that Vincent Taylor discusses a wide range of topics under the heading of ‘reconciliation’). But for our purpose it will suffice to consider the thoughts of enmity, of making peace, and those denoted by such words as ατλλάσσω.a. ἐχθρóς and ἔχθρα
The New Testament undoubtedly teaches that men are enemies of God: ‘While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God’ (Rom. 5 : 10) ; ‘And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works’ (Col. 1 : 21) ; ‘Whosoever therefore >would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God’ (Jas. 4 : 4). There is no disputing the fact that Scripture regards man as constituting himself God’s enemy by the fact of his sin. But in view of the fact that the New Testament strongly insists on the all-pervading love of God it seems to many today that God cannot be thought of as regarding man with hostility. In other words, in view of the love of God, it is said that when man is spoken of as God’s enemy that must be understood as meaning that man is hostile to God with a one-sided hostility, a hostility which meets with nothing but love in return.
The usage of ἐχθρός and ἔχθρα in the New Testament does not furnish a completely final argument, although there are some points which should carry weight. Thus there is the repeated injunction to ‘love your enemies’ (Mt. 5: 44; Lk. 6: 27, 35), or, again, Paul’s ‘if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink’ (Rom. 12: 20), which indicate that the attitude of the Christian in the face of hostility is to be one characterized by love; he may not respond with vindictiveness. It is impossible to think that the attitude of God will be less worthy than that He requires from His people. Indeed we are assured that God loves men, even while they are sinners and enemies (Rom. 5: 8—10).
But that does not mean that God will remain inactive in the face of sin. After all it is possible for a Christian to be righteously angry and still retain an attitude of love. We cannot think that this is impossible with God. This being so, we cannot overlook the fact that ἐχθρός commonly denotes a mutual hostility (although it can also be used when the hostility is on one side only). We see something of this in such a passage as Galatians 4: 16, ‘So then am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?’ where Paul speaks of himself as the enemy, although the hostility immediately in mind is on the side of the Galatians.417 This usage prepares us for Romans II: 28, where the Jews are said to be ‘enemies for your sake’, an expression which most scholars hold to indicate that they are being treated by God as enemies. The general context seems to demand such a meaning, especially the ‘for your sake (δ
’ ὑµᾶς)’ and the parallelism with ἀγαπητοί which must be taken in the sense of ‘beloved of God’. C. Anderson Scott thinks that too much weight should not be attached to ‘grammatical symmetry’ and understands the passage to mean, ‘Seen in the light of the Gospel, still hostile to God for your sakes: but in the light of election still beloved for the >fathers’ sakes’.418 But this does not seem to do justice to the apostle’s thought. Throughout the chapter he is arguing that salvation came to the Gentiles only because Israel fell away from her vocation as God’s people (see verses II, 12, 15, 19, etc.). He does not mince his words when he speaks of God’s attitude to Israel, for he thinks of the nation as being cast away (verse 15), he likens them to branches broken off (verses 17, 19, etc.), he says, ‘God spared not the natural branches’ (verse 21), and he directs attention to God’s action ir si pas fermante plutot - Verifier la mise en indice - "toward Israel as a striking example of ‘severity’ (verse 22). Moreover, if there were only a hostility of the nation without a corresponding reaction on God’s part, it is difficult to see how this could avail to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The whole tenor of the chapter, as well as the specific points of language noted above, indicates that the nation is thought of as the object of God’s hostility in verse 28, and most scholars accept this point of view.
’ ὑµᾶς)’ and the parallelism with ἀγαπητοί which must be taken in the sense of ‘beloved of God’. C. Anderson Scott thinks that too much weight should not be attached to ‘grammatical symmetry’ and understands the passage to mean, ‘Seen in the light of the Gospel, still hostile to God for your sakes: but in the light of election still beloved for the >fathers’ sakes’.418 But this does not seem to do justice to the apostle’s thought. Throughout the chapter he is arguing that salvation came to the Gentiles only because Israel fell away from her vocation as God’s people (see verses II, 12, 15, 19, etc.). He does not mince his words when he speaks of God’s attitude to Israel, for he thinks of the nation as being cast away (verse 15), he likens them to branches broken off (verses 17, 19, etc.), he says, ‘God spared not the natural branches’ (verse 21), and he directs attention to God’s action ir si pas fermante plutot - Verifier la mise en indice - "toward Israel as a striking example of ‘severity’ (verse 22). Moreover, if there were only a hostility of the nation without a corresponding reaction on God’s part, it is difficult to see how this could avail to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The whole tenor of the chapter, as well as the specific points of language noted above, indicates that the nation is thought of as the object of God’s hostility in verse 28, and most scholars accept this point of view.Again, ‘he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet’ (I Cor. 15: 25f.), shows that God is not regarded as passive in opposition to His enemies. The same conclusion may perhaps be drawn from Luke 19: 27, though this verse must be used with caution as it occurs in a parable. In Acts 13: 10, Elymas is called the ‘enemy of all righteousness’. But God is not passive, for it is due to ‘the hand of the Lord’ that the sorcerer is struck blind. Similarly Paul speaks of ‘perdition’ as the end of certain ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’ (Phil. 3: 18f.), and James says that God ‘resisteth the proud’ (Jas. 4: 6).
Thus a consideration of the passages in which the term ‘enemy’ occurs indicates that God takes action against those who are His enemies. Admittedly this is not a complete and final proof that God is rightly said to be hostile to His enemies. But the evidence certainly points in that direction.
With regard to ἔχθρα, a state of enmity usually denotes a reciprocal hostility, as when Herod and Pilate are said to have been ‘at enmity between themselves’ (Lk. 23: 12). On the other hand, when we read that ‘the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be’ (Rom. 8: 7), it seems that a hostility from the side of man only is meant, although the following ‘they that are in the flesh cannot please God’ indicates that even here the divine reaction is not being overlooked. For the rest ‘enmities’ is one item in a list of ‘the works of the flesh’ (Gal. 5: 20). This does not help us much, unless we assume that what can be referred to as a ‘work of the flesh’ cannot under any circumstances be referred to God, a proposition which is negatived by the fact that in the same verse ‘wraths’ (θυμοί) also occurs, and the thought of ‘the wrath of God’ is quite scriptural. ἔχθρα also occurs in James 4: 4, ‘Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?’ in a context which implies the divine reaction against those who are His enemies (cf. verses 6, 9—10). It is found also in Ephesians 2: 15f., in the first of which verses it refers to the mutual enmity between Jew and Gentile, while in the second the same enmity may be in view, though the thought seems to be extended so as to include the enmity between man and God. Whichever way it be understood the enmity is slain through the cross. W. Foerster’s comment on this verse, ‘Enmity with one another and enmity against God (not enmity from the side of God as Gal. 3: 10, but against God as Rom. 8:7)’419 sums up much in this discussion. The passages in which ἔχθρα occurs may not prove a divine enmity against men but other passages in the Bible do.
For the fact seems to be that the question of whether, prior to the effecting of reconciliation, God is to be conceived of as in some sense hostile to man must be determined from the general scriptural position, and not from those passages in which ἐχθρός or ἔχθρα are found. And it is surely not without significance that it is only in the Scriptures that we find this thought of an enmity caused by sin. It is not always taken into account that sinful man is not hostile to God. He is quite content to get alone amiably with his Maker, and does not, in point of fact, regard his sin as a just cause for enmity. He himself is not greatly concerned about the trifle of wrongdoing that is in him, and he cannot see why God should be. Now if Jones says that Smith is his enemy, but Smith says, ‘No, I am peaceable!’ then we must decide that there is enmity from the side of Jones, even though the term ‘enemy’ is fastened on Smith. So when sinful man is content to let bygones be bygones, but nevertheless God (through the mouth of His servants) speaks of an enmity, it is hard to see how it can be maintained that there is no enmity from the side of God. The point is that it is God’s demand for holiness which causes the enmity, and not a conscious hostility on the part of man towards God.
It is important to be clear that there is, on the scriptural view, a definite hostility on the part of God to everything that is evil. Throughout both Old and New Testaments we come across a multiplicity of passages speaking of ‘the wrath of God’, of the divine activity in punishing evil, of the demand for the follower of God to ‘hate evil’, and many similar things. Thus, quite apart from details of interpretation of particular passages, there is strong and consistent teaching that God is active in His opposition to all that is evil. Nor will it do (as some seem inclined) to differentiate between God and the punishment of wrong. They see in ‘the wrath’ a semi-personalized entity separate from God, and not truly expressive of Him. Others, again, think of wrath as the working out of an impersonal law of retribution, and there are other ways of avoiding the scriptural position.
But all such shifts seem incompatible with a genuine belief in the sovereignty and immanence of God. If God really made the universe a moral universe in which punishment follows sin, then He cannot be exempted from responsibility when it does so. We may choose to call the result the outworking of the wrath of God as the scriptural writers do, or we may prefer some other way of putting it, but the important thing is that we do not overlook the fact. Scripture is insistent that God reacts in the strongest possible way to men’s sin.420
This does not compromise the conception of the love of God. We are not forced to choose between a God of wrath and a God who loves; rather, the wrath is the obverse side of the love. E. H. Gifford has an apposite remark, ‘Human love here offers a true analogy: the more a father loves his son, the more he hates in him the drunkard, the liar, or the traitor’.421 If this be quite possible in a human father with all his failings we cannot account it incredible in God from whose wrath are absent all those imperfections which mar the human emotion of righteous anger even at its purest.
Nor must it be overlooked that the very fact that Christ had to die to reconcile men to God is a witness in itself to the hostility from the divine side, especially since His death is a death which avails for us. ‘One died for all’, says St. Paul, ‘therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5: 14). But why should all die? Surely this points to a divine hostility, a divine hostility made manifest in the sentence of death. A. Schlatter puts it this way, ‘As Paul saw in the death of Christ the death prepared for him he recognized that he had God against him. The God who condemns to death treats man as His adversary whom He withstands’.422
We conclude then that the biblical teaching on ἐχθρός and ἔχθρα taken in conjunction with the wider biblical teaching on the wrath of God indicates that there is a very real hostility on the part of God to all that is evil, and that this hostility is not incompatible with a deep love of God for sinners.
b. xαταλλάσσω and xαταλλαγή
One of the most important passages under this heading is Romans 5: 8—11, where we are reminded of the love of God shown in the cross, of our being justified in Christ’s blood and saved from the wrath through Him, and then: ‘For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life; and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.’
Here let us notice first of all that there is an aspect of reconciliation which is outside man, an objective element. We are said to have received the reconciliation, which, therefore, is in some sense independent of us. Obviously reconciliation must be personal to be effective, and we must enter into a state of being reconciled; but, nevertheless, there is a sense in which a reconciliation can be said to be proffered to us. In other words the New Testament view is that reconciliation was wrought on the cross before there was anything in man’s heart to correspond.423 There is an objective aspect to reconciliation, and this may well be held to imply that there is a sense in which God can be said to be reconciled to man. As James Denney puts it: ‘Reduced to its simplest expression, what an objective atonement means is that but for Christ and His Passion God would not be to us what He is.’ He goes on to indicate the seriousness of rejecting this position by saying, ‘The alternative is to say that quite independent of any value which Christ and His Passion have for God, God would still be to us what He is. But this is really to put Christ out of Christianity altogether’.424
Then there is the term ἐχθός which St. Paul applies to men in their state prior to reconciliation (Rom. 5: 10). It may be granted that in this context the major idea conveyed by ἐχθρόςis that men were hostile to God, for the apostle is trying to show us the greatness of the love of God and he insists that even when men were hostile to God He effected ‘reconciliation. But this does not mean that we have exhausted the meaning of the term ἐχθρός. As we saw in the previous section, it is a word which may well imply a severe reaction on the part of God to man’s sin. While it is, of course, true that the usage in other passages does not determine the meaning in this, it does show us that there is scriptural warrant for thinking of an opposition of God to sin and sinners which can be referred to by the use of ἐχθρός. As Vincent Taylor says, ‘We must conclude that in Rom. v. 10 ἐχθρό describes, not only the hostile attitude of men, but also their character in the eyes of God. He sees them as enemies; and yet He reconciles them to Himself.’425
describes, not only the hostile attitude of men, but also their character in the eyes of God. He sees them as enemies; and yet He reconciles them to Himself.’425Seen, then, in the wider context of New Testament thought, Romans 5: 8—11 indicates a reconciliation in which there is a Godward as well as a manward aspect. The immediate context also favours this idea, for the words about reconciliation are immediately preceded by a reference to ‘the wrath’ from which men are saved through Christ,426 a thought which is typically Pauline, and which we saw in Chapter Five is developed in the first three chapters of the Epistle.
In addition to the context, the meaning of the verses in question points in the same direction. Thus we are said to be reconciled by the death of Christ, and this seems to indicate a Godward rather than a manward aspect of the atonement. As H. P. Liddon says, ‘Christ’s death removed God’s enmity against man, and man’s enmity against God only ceased, as a moral consequence of faith. xαταλλαγέντες and xαταλλάγημεν must, therefore, be understood to express, not merely the reconciliation of the moral nature of the Christian with God, but the new relation of God to man in Christ which made this possible.‘427
It is quite true that when a man comes to a position of faith in Jesus there is a change of heart and outlook, such that his enmity to God is done away. It is also true that the display of divine love which we see on the cross is a powerful force in bringing him to this position of faith. But it is more than difficult to think that Paul is trying to express either of these truths in this passage. If he had wished to say something like that he had a splendid opening when he spoke of God as commending His own love to us (verse 8). But his point in making this statement is not to lead on to the thought that this love induces men to lay aside their enmity. Rather it is to stress that it was ‘while we were yet sinners’ that ‘Christ died for us’. From there he goes on to speak of justification, of being saved from wrath, of being reconciled while still enemies. The apostle is not indifferent to the new life, for he goes on to mention it as a consequence of reconciliation—‘much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life’. Being saved by or in His life is surely another way of putting what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4: 10f., ‘that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh’. Thus there is a change in man such that, instead of living his own fleshly life, he now shows Christ living in him. But this seems to be the consequence of reconciliation and not reconciliation itself.
We are not helped here by the fact that the English terms for reconciliation, etc., do not denote exactly the same things as their Greek counterparts. If, in English, we speak of God and man as reconciled, we think of a reconciliation in which right relationships now exist on both sides. Perhaps the same is true with the Greek terms when reconciliation is thought of as being fully consummated. But it is also possible to use the Greek terms to mean that God has dealt with the obstacle to fellowship, and that He now proffers reconciliation to man. Thus Paul can speak of men ‘receiving the reconciliation’.428 It is a gift which God gives. Now if it is a gift which God gives it must exist in order to be given. There is thus a sense in which reconciliation exists before men receive it. It is not denied that it is also possible to think of reconciliation as something which calls for man’s co-operation, for ‘Be ye reconciled’ is also a word of St. Paul. All that is being insisted is that the usages of the Greek and the English words are not quite the same. The Greek can be used of a more one-sided process than the English, and there is more than a hint at a largely one-sided process in Romans 5: 9—11.
The other great passage on reconciliation is 2 Corinthians 5: 17ff.: ‘Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were intreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him. And working together with him we >intreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.’
Here we have no mention of wrath in the context as we have in the Romans passage,429 and the context has much to say about the new life in Christ, which indicates the close connection between reconciliation and the resultant Christian victorious living. It is thought by some to point to reconciliation as essentially an activity within man, but this seems to be going too far, and to be neglecting some of the points that Paul is making.
First let us notice that the process the apostle has in mind is one which is wrought by God. ‘All things’, he tells us, ‘are of God, who reconciled us’; ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself’, ‘him... he made to be sin on our behalf’. Though it is true that there is an aspect in which men may be exhorted to be reconciled to God, yet there is no question but that Paul is thinking of something God has done for men, and not of some merely human activity.
In verse 19, moreover, reconciliation is explained as ‘not reckoning unto them their trespasses’. This is in keeping with much in the Scriptures which assures us that the obstacle to fellowship between God and man is sin, so that if there is to be peace between the two something must be done about that sin. It can be alleged, of course, that it is necessary for man to forsake his sin and that, when he does this, there is reconciliation with God. Thus C. Anderson Scott equates reconciliation with ‘the flooding of human hearts with the love of God, the disappearance of hostility, the joyful acceptance of forgiveness’,430 and similarly C. Ryder Smith, in discussing the idea of the wrath of God, says, ‘but here (i.e. Rom. iii. 23—26), as always, it is taken for granted that, if man repents, the >“wrath” of God dies’.431 There is of course truth in these statements, for if a man truly repents, has his heart filled with the love of God, finds his hostility to God disappear and accepts forgiveness gladly, then he is certainly reconciled to God.
But it is difficult to believe either that this is the whole story or that this is St. Paul’s meaning in the passage which we are considering. Such statements come perilously close to leaving Christ out of reconciliation,432 and it is the activity of Christ that Paul is especially concerned to stress, and in particular the necessity of His death. For although in these verses the apostle does not specifically mention the death of the Lord, there is not the slightest doubt but that he has it in mind. On Paul’s view it is only through this death that man’s trespasses are put away, and thus the cross is vividly present to his mind in verses 19, 21. He is not thinking of reconciliation as basically subjective to man, as though Christ’s activity were simply to make a display of the divine love such as would arouse in men feelings of love and gratitude and would cause them to repent and be reconciled. When he says that God made Christ ‘sin’ for us it seems clear, at least, that he conceived of the death of the Lord as availing in an objective manner to put away man’s sin.433
It is common in these days to assert that Paul here means nothing more than that Christ entered into a perfect sympathy with sinners, much in the same manner as a loving mother feels deeply for her erring son. Such analogies are often drawn out to show that the mother may have a more intense suffering than the son, that she may loathe the sin more than he does in his imperfect penitence, and so on. But, true as all this is, it does not seem that this is what Paul is saying. Rather the verse is to be understood along with Galatians 3: 13, which speaks of Christ becoming ‘a curse’ for us, as indicating that He bore to the full the consequences of sin.434 When God made Him sin that we might become ‘the righteousness of God’, then in some way He took upon Him our sin and we bear it no more. As Denney puts it, ‘Christ died for us, died that death of ours which is the wages of sin. In His death, all sinless as He was, God’s condemnation of our sin came upon Him; a divine sentence was executed upon the sin of the world.‘435 Or to quote a more recent writer, the verse means that ‘He made Him die that death which is the wages of sin, as our substitute’.436 Such also is the interpretation of G. Schrenk: ‘Because the Christ is substitutionarily ἁμαρτία for us, may we be δxαοσύνη ἐν αὐτῷ .’437 Such interpretations are much nearer to the thought of Paul than those which minimize the force of the passage.
xαοσύνη ἐν αὐτῷ .’437 Such interpretations are much nearer to the thought of Paul than those which minimize the force of the passage.Arising out of all this is what Paul calls ‘the word of reconciliation’, the message to men that they must ‘be reconciled to God’. This stresses the need for men to respond to the divine grace. Reconciliation is not something which is carried through independently of men’s reaction. While it is true that, in some sense, reconciliation can be thought of as offered to men on the basis of Christ’s work, yet it cannot be thought of as availing in the case of any individual man until he himself has become reconciled to God. But if there is anything in what we have been saying, the need for this action on the part of the sinner should not blind us to the fact that the really important part of reconciliation is in the action of God and not in the sinner’s response. Because God has made Christ sin for us, because God is not reckoning to men their trespasses, therefore there is a word of reconciliation, a message of good news that can and must be proclaimed to men. Well may Paul exhort his readers to ‘receive not the grace of God in vain’. But it is ‘the grace of God’ and not merely some subjective change in their own hearts of which he is speaking.438
Apart from these two passages xαταλλάσσω occurs only in I Corinthians 7:11, where St. Paul charges those married ‘That the wife depart not from her husband (but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband)’. It is surely of significance that while the wife is envisaged as the party actively seeking the reconciliation she is exhorted to ‘be reconciled’, indicating a change from her side as well as his.439
The noun xαταλλαγή is found also in Romans 11: 15, ‘For if the casting away of them (i.e. the Jews) is the reconciling of the world’, but this does not help us greatly. Paul is here developing an argument that it is because the Jews were temporarily rejected that reconciliation came to the Gentiles, but he does not indicate in what manner this reconciliation was effected. So for our understanding of the term, we are dependent upon the passages already considered.
c. ἀποxαταλλάσσω
Under this heading two passages fail to be considered, namely Ephesians 2: 11ff. and Colossians 1:19ff. The former begins with the enmity between Jew and Gentile, when the Gentiles were ‘separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world’. But the coming of Christ has altered all that. He ‘made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the twain one new man, so making peace’. From this point the apostle goes straight on to consider the change wrought by Christ in the relationship of men to God, and says that He ‘might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby’. The upshot of it all is that the Gentiles ‘are no more strangers and sojourners, but . . . fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God’.
This passage strongly insists on the divine initiative in the process of reconciliation. Indeed the whole process is described from the point of view of Christ, and men are not said to do anything in the matter. They were ‘far off’, they are ‘made nigh’ and all is the work of Christ. There is nothing here like the ‘Be ye reconciled’ of 2 Corinthians 5, although it may fairly be said that such an aspect of the subject is implied. But the point is that it is the divine initiative and the divine effort that is in view; the human response is not so much as mentioned.
This might accord well with the contention that, in reconciliation, God does not need to be reconciled. But in fact the passage does not indicate this. That all is of God is freely admitted, but that does not carry with it the thought that there is no divine reaction against sin to be dealt with. The fact that it is to God that the reconciliation is due does not determine what the process of reconciliation is.
Everything depends on what we are to understand by ‘the enmity’. If it is only man’s enmity against God, then there is no Godward aspect of reconciliation in mind, but if it includes the thought that God reacts severely against sinners, then such an aspect cannot be dismissed. There is nothing in the immediate context which decides the point. The argument flows on evenly whatever interpretation of ‘the enmity’ we adopt. But if we pay attention to the wider thought of the Epistle (confining ourselves to this one writing since there are some who do not think it Pauline), we cannot overlook the strenuous divine reaction against evil. All men are thought of as ‘by nature children of wrath’ (Eph. 2: 3). Again, the writer says, ‘Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience’ (5: 6). Masters are urged to forbear threatening on the grounds that they themselves have a Master in heaven, ‘and there is no respect of persons with him’ (6: 9). Certain persons, namely, formcators, the unclean and the covetous, are expressly said to be excluded from the kingdom of God (5: 5). Even the enthusiasm with which the writer speaks of salvation seems to be partly because he has in mind what men are saved from, as well as the new state into which they are saved. Taking the Epistle as a whole it seems clear that the author thinks of God as hostile to evil. Therefore we can believe that an element in his thought of reconciliation is that this hostility is removed for them that are ‘in Christ Jesus’.
This is supported by the statement in 2: 17f. that Christ ‘came and preached peace (εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην) ... for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father’. The good tidings is that God has removed the barrier which separated sinners from Himself. The idea that all that men have to do is to realize that He has always loved them and will receive them is inadequate to explain the passage. The writer is referring to a new situation called into being by Christ’s death on the cross. Because of that death, there is good news. Men now need not fear to draw near to God for the enmity has been ‘slain’.
Again, it may not be without significance that the writer is led into his discussion of reconciliation by a consideration of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, and this was an enmity on both sides. This is not conclusive, but as far as it goes it points to a reconciliation affecting both parties.
Thus, surveying all the evidence, it would seem that in this passage the writer is thinking of the removal of the divine wrath against sin as the effect of the death on the cross, and of peace being made between God and man accordingly. Admittedly a final proof of this is lacking, but it is contended that this is the most natural way of reading the available evidence.
The other passage in which ἀποxαταλλάσσω is used tells us that it was the Father’s good pleasure through Him ‘to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross’ (Col. 1: 19f.). The argument goes on: ‘And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled (or as P46, B and Hil. read, “you have been >reconciled”) in the body of his flesh through death, etc.’
Once more the stress is on the activity of God. It was His good pleasure that reconciliation should be effected, and the emphasis throughout the passage is on what He has done, and not on any puny effort of man.
Each time reconciliation is mentioned we have a reference to the means. The first time ‘having made peace through the blood of his cross’ is added; the second time reconciliation is said to be ‘in the body of his flesh through death’. Thus it is clear that reconciliation is closely tied up with the death of the Lord, and the implication is that this death really did something by way of removing barriers. Once more it is clear that such explanations as that the death is an indication that God loves men and that if they turn to Him all will be well are inadequate as summaries of the thought of the writer. It is difficult to escape the impression that what Paul is teaching us is that the death of Christ did something quite apart from the stimulus it has on the feelings and actions of man.
It is sometimes argued that the statement of the nature of the enmity shows that reconciliation takes place only from the manward side. Men are said to have been ‘alienated and enemies in their mind in their evil works’. This, it is said, shows that reconciliation means the alteration of this state of affairs and the substitution of a better state of mind and of better works. But this goes beyond the evidence. It is not disputed that the hostility in men’s minds and actions is real and serious, nor that it must be removed before there can be completely harmonious relations between God and men. But it can be maintained that this exhausts the concept of reconciliation only by holding that God’s reaction to all this is not serious. That this is not the thought of the writer of the Epistle is shown by his mention of ‘the wrath of God’ as coming ‘upon the sons of disobedience’ (Col. 3: 6), his statement, ‘For he that doeth wrong shall receive again for the wrong that he hath done; and there is no respect of persons’ (Col. 3: 25), and the possibility of failing to attain ‘the prize’ (Col. 2: 18). These general considerations and the fact that the passage under discussion seems to imply that sinners are in no good case because of the attitude of a holy God to their sin show that St. Paul thought of the cross as the veritable means whereby sin was put away and reconciliation effected.
That man’s response to this is important is undoubted, and that that response leads to a thoroughgoing reformation of man is clear. But the point is that it is man’s response to something that God has done for him; it is not in itself the process of reconciliation.
Thus it is clear that certain ideas run through the passages where the reconciliation words are used in the New Testament. Common to all are the thoughts that it is the sin of man which represents the barrier to communion with God, and that this must be dealt with if reconciliation is to take place. It is this which gives point to the idea that God can be said to be reconciled to man, for it is manifestly impossible for God to regard man in quite the same way before the barrier is removed as He does after that takes place. At the same time the reconciliation is always God’s work, and in several ways we have the truth stressed that it is the love of God that is the dominant factor in bringing reconciliation about.
There is support for the idea that the reconciliation includes an aspect of reconciliation of God in the usage of διαλλάσσω, a word closely allied in meaning to xαταλλάσσω. We have noted that this word was used in the LXX of David being reconciled, though it was Saul’s enmity which was to be removed, and therefore we would have expected the text to say that Saul rather than David was to be reconciled. We have exactly the same usage in Matthew 5: 23f., ‘If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother . . .’ Here again it is the one taking the initiative who is said to be reconciled, and this usage seems to be established for xαταλλάσσω by 1 Corinthians 7: 11. Thus the linguistic usage gives us ground for thinking that when reconciliation is applied to the relations between God and men it will signify, in part, that God is reconciled as well as man. Moreover, as Handley Moule says, xαταλλαγή and its cognates ‘habitually point to the winning rather the pardon of an offended King than the consent of the rebel to yield to His kindness’.440 Similarly T. J. Crawford long ago pointed out that xαταλλάσσω and διαλλάσσω are used in the biblical writings ‘to signify the removal of enmity, not from the offending, but from the offended party’; and again he says ’when one party is said “to be reconciled to another” or “to reconcile himself to another,” the latter, and not the former, according to the Hellenistic idiom, is the >party whose friendship and favour are conciliated’.441 Too often this is overlooked. Men argue as though the familiar English usage were decisive, whereas, of course, it is the meaning of the Greek that is important. And that points to what, for want of a better term, we can speak of only as a change from the divine side as well as the human.