The Henry Commentaries:

II. Reconciliation, which is here spoken of under a double notion:–

1. As an unquestionable privilege, v. 18, 19. Reconciliation supposes a quarrel, or breach of friendship; and sin has made a breach, it has broken the friendship between God and man. The heart of the sinner is filled with enmity against God, and God is justly offended with the sinner. Yet, behold, there may be a reconciliation; the offended Majesty of heaven is willing to be reconciled. And observe, 1. He has appointed the Mediator of reconciliation. He has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, v. 18. God is to be owned from first to last in the undertaking and performance of the Mediator. All things relating to our reconciliation by Jesus Christ are of God, who by the mediation of Jesus Christ has reconciled the world to himself, and put himself into a capacity of being actually reconciled to offenders, without any wrong or injury to his justice or holiness, and does not impute to men their trespasses, but recedes from the rigor of the first covenant, which was broken, and does not insist upon the advantage he might justly take against us for the breach of that covenant, but is willing to enter into a new treaty, and into a new covenant of grace, and, according to the tenor thereof, freely to forgive us all our sins, and justify freely by his grace all those who do believe. 2. He has appointed the ministry of reconciliation, v. 18. By the inspiration of God the scriptures were written, which contain the word of reconciliation, showing us that peace was made by the blood of the cross, that reconciliation is wrought, and directing us how we may be interested therein. And he has appointed the office of the ministry, which is a ministry of reconciliation: ministers are to open and proclaim to sinners the terms of mercy and reconciliation, and persuade them to comply therewith. For,

2. Reconciliation is here spoken of as our indispensable duty, v. 20. As God is willing to be reconciled to us, we ought to be reconciled to God. And it is the great end and design of the gospel, that word of reconciliation, to prevail upon sinners to lay aside their enmity against God. Faithful ministers are Christ’s ambassadors, sent to treat with sinners on peace and reconciliation: they come in God’s name, with his entreaties, and act in Christ’s stead, doing the very thing he did when he was upon this earth, and what he wills to be done now that he is in heaven. Wonderful condescension! Though God can be no loser by the quarrel, nor gainer by the peace, yet by his ministers he beseeches sinners to lay aside their enmity, and accept of the terms he offers, that they would be reconciled to him, to all his attributes, to all his laws, and to all his providences, to believe in the Mediator, to accept the atonement, and comply with his gospel, in all the parts of it and in the whole design of it. And for our encouragement so to do the apostle subjoins what should be well known and duly considered by us (v. 21), namely, (1.) The purity of the Mediator: He knew no sin. (2.) The sacrifice he offered: He was made sin; not a sinner, but sin, that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin. (3.) The end and design of all this: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, might be justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Note, [1.] As Christ, who knew no sin of his own, was made sin for us, so we, who have no righteousness of our own, are made the righteousness of God in him. [2.] Our reconciliation to God is only through Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his merit: on him therefore we must rely, and make mention of his righteousness and his only.

Matthew Henry, Commentary, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21.

Moo:

10 The parallelism between this verse and v. 9 renders the differences between them all the more significant. Perhaps the most interesting is the substitution of “reconciled” for “justified. ” Justification language is legal, law-court language, picturing the believer being declared innocent by the judge. Reconciliation language, on the other hand, comes from the world of personal relationships. “To reconcile” means to bring together, or make peace between, two estranged or hostile parties (cf. 1 Cor. 7: 11).⁹³ The language of reconciliation is seldom used in other religions because the relationship between human beings and the deity is not conceived there in the personal categories for which the language is appropriate.⁹⁴ Reconciliation in Paul has two aspects, or “moments“: the accomplishment of reconciliation through Christ on the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5: 19: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself“)⁹⁵ and the acceptance of that completed work by the believer (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20b: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God”).⁹⁶

Naturally, while the focus can be on one of these moments or the other, the reconciling activity of God is ultimately one act; and in the present verse the complete process is in view. Paul makes explicit the hostile relationship implicit in the language of reconciliation: it was “while we were enemies” that we were reconciled to God. Paul may mean by this simply that we, rebellious sinners, are hostile toward God–violating his laws, putting other gods in his place.⁹⁷ But, as Paul has repeatedly affirmed in this letter (cf. 1:18; 3:25), God is also “hostile” toward us–our sins have justly incurred his wrath, which stands as a sentence over us (l: 19-32), to be climactically carried out on the day of judgment (2:5). Probably, then, the “enmity” to which Paul refers here includes God’s hostility toward human beings as well as human beings’ hostility toward God.⁹⁸ Outside of Christ, people are in a situation of “enmity” with God; and in reconciliation, it is that status, or relationship, that changes: we go from being God’s “enemies” to being his “children” (cf. Rom. 8:14-17). As in v. 9 justification is accomplished “through” Christ’s blood, so here reconciliation takes place “through⁹⁹ the death of [God’s] Son.” Similarly, “we will be saved,” though not further defined, must have the same referent as the same verb in v. 9: salvation from the wrath of God on the day of judgment. The meaning of the phrase “through¹⁰⁰ his life” is not so clear. In light of Paul’s frequent, and theologically significant, use of “in Christ” language in Rom. 5-8, he could intend to depict our salvation as occurring “in the sphere of” Christ, or his life,¹⁰¹ On the other hand, it is unusual for Paul to use “in Christ” language with another noun intervening between the preposition and “Christ”; and the phrase seems to be parallel to “through him” in v. 9, where an instrumental meaning is certain. Probably, then, the phrase indicates that the new life won by Christ and in which believers share is the means by which they will be saved in the judgment.¹⁰² Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 311-312; Romans 5:10. [Footnote values and content original; italics original; square bracketed insert original; and underlining mine.]

_______________________

⁹³The two images are therefore complementary descriptions of the transformed relationship between human beings and God that takes place in Christ. The two are not simply equivalent (contra Barrett); nor is reconciliation a step beyond justification (Martin, Reconciliation, p. 151).

⁹⁴See F. Büchsel, TDNT I, 254.

⁹⁵See, e.g., Fryer (“Reconciliation,” p. 56), Morris (Apostolic Preaching, pp. 198-99), and Ladd (Theology, pp. 450-56) for the importance of the objective aspect of reconciliation.

⁹⁶Paul uses the verb katallasso and the cognate noun katallage, both here and in 2 Cor. 5: 18-20, to depict what has occurred in our relationship to God through the work of Christ; the related verb apokatallasso occurs in Eph. 2: 16; Col. 1 :20, 22.

⁹⁷See, e.g., Kuss, Kasemann, and Wilckens.

⁹⁸See, e.g., Godet; Michel; Dunn; Fitzmyer; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 199. Others think that Paul refers only to God’s hostility toward human beings (e .g., Haldane; Martin, Reconciliation, p. 144; Fryer, “Reconciliation,” pp. 52-53; Wolter, Rechtfertigung, p. 86). Of Paul’s nine uses of echthros, six are active (denoting the hostility of the subject toward others–cf. Rom. 12:20; I Cor. 15:25,26; Gal. 4:16; Phil. 3:18; Col. 1:21), one is passive (2 Thess. 3: 15), and two (Rom. 5: 10 and 11 :28) probably work both ways.

⁹⁹The Greek preposition here is, however, dia (in place of the ev in v. 9); but the two cannot be distinguished in meaning here (cf. Dunn; contra Martin, Reconciliation, p. 147).

¹⁰⁰Gk. ev.

¹⁰¹S-H; Nygren.

¹⁰²Murray; Fryer, “Reconciliation,” p. 50; and see the discussion in Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 194-95.

Vos:

The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation”
The Bible Student 4:40-45. [1901]

Among the various forms under which the Apostle Paul sets forth the objective saving work of God centering in the cross of Christ, that of reconciliation occupies a prominent place. The main obstacle to a proper understanding of the truth embodied in this term lies in the inadequacy of the English rendering. In common parlance, the statement that one person reconciles another is most naturally taken to mean that the former changes the subjective frame of mind of the latter, so as to render his disposition from an unfriendly to a friendly one. Now the Greek word katallassein, while it may be used in this manner, has a far wider range of meaning, and may, under given circumstances, express a transaction which does not include a subjective change of mind at all. Katallassein tina simply means to bring somebody into a reconciled relationship. This may be done by the subject of the verb giving up his own hostility, or by his inducing the other party to give up his hostility, or by both. And that which is laid aside may in every case be either the outward attitude and course of action or the inward feeling and disposition of enmity. The same possibilities of interpretation belong to the passive form, katallassqai proj tina. In view of this the question, what are the precise implications of the word when used by Paul in a specific soteriological sense, must be determined solely from the context in each individual instance.

Ritschl has endeavored to establish for the phrase, “God reconciles us,” the meaning that God effects a change in our disposition whereby we are moved to cherish friendly instead of unfriendly feelings towards Him. He argues mainly from the correlative term, “alienated,” in Colossians 1:21, “And you being .  .  . alienated .  .  . yet now hath he reconciled.” But this term by no means describes a subjective alienation of mind; it rather describes an objective breach between God and man, the only doubtful point being whether the immediately following clause, “enemies in your mind in your evil works,” repeats the same thought in a different form or adds to the objective the subjective aspect of the matter. A brief examination of the most important passages will show how little support there is in reality for Ritschl’s subjectivizing view. In 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19 we find the reconciling act of God represented as something finished once for all, before the message of it reaches the sinner. In the eighteenth verse this appears from the use of the aorist participle: “All things are from God who did reconcile us unto himself through Christ”; and also, from the coordination of this participle with the other participle, “who did give unto us [Paul] the ministry of the reconciliation.” Just as the commission of Paul was a single, definite, objective act, the coordinated act of the reconciliation must have been of the same kind, and the latter must have preceded the former. On Ritschl’s view the reconciliation ought to have consisted in Paul’s conversion, but his own conversion did not furnish the theme of the apostle’s preaching, as is here affirmed of the reconciliation. Or, if it be replied that not his own conversion, but the change of heart of men in general, formed the substance of his message, we may point to the use of the article before reconciliation. It was not a ministry of reconciliation in the sense that it aimed at producing a change in the hearts of men, but the ministry of the reconciliation, i.e., the ministry which conveys the message of the reconciliation as an already accomplished fact. Equally conclusive is the representation of the nineteenth verse: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” This hn katallasswn cannot mean, as some have proposed, God was endeavoring in Christ to reconcile, or God was laying in Christ the basis for reconciling, both of which renderings would involve the subjective view of the matter. Paul uses the periphrastic conjugation in order to give greater emphasis to the fact that it was God and no one else who did in Christ reconcile the world.

From all this it appears that the apostle means by reconciliation an objective transaction accomplished by God in Christ. Still the possibility remains that the apostle’s conception of it may have been wide enough to include alongside of this a change of disposition or of attitude on the part of men also. The twentieth verse is quoted in favor of this: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” Here the imperative mode places it beyond dispute that something to be experienced by the Corinthians subjectively is intended. But it would be hasty to infer from this that his subjective experience cannot have been anything else than a change from hostility to friendship towards God. Undoubtedly the passive form of the verse might mean this. But, grammatically considered, it may just as well have another meaning. It may be rendered with equal correctness by “let yourselves be restored to a relation of friendship.” The context alone can decide here. Now, if Paul had intended to say, “After God has on his part shown his willingness to be reconciled, do ye on your part show the same by laying aside your feeling of enmity,” he would naturally have indicated this contrast between God and man by adding the pronoun umeij “be ye also reconciled.” Further, it is evident that what Paul here desires of the Corinthians is the application of what has been done by God, the human response to the divine act. And the response must in its general character resemble that to which it answers. Now all the terms used show, as we shall presently see, that on God’s part this act did not consist in a change of disposition, but simply in the removal of certain objective conditions which rendered it impossible that He should deal with men on the basis of friendship. If, then, God reconciled us by providing an objective righteousness, the natural inference is that we will be reconciled in response to this by appropriating this righteousness subjectively, i.e., by the act of believing. God reconciled us and we let ourselves be reconciled; on neither side is a change of disposition referred to, although in the case of men it is of course presupposed as underlying the act of faith. Finally, the connection of thought between verses 20 and 21 shows how the idea of an appropriation of the objective work of Christ lay uppermost in Paul’s mind. This connection is as follows. Because God has brought about the reconciliation in Christ, Christ Himself is supremely interested in the attainment of the end for which it was designed. This being so, the appeal made by Paul is in reality an appeal made on behalf of, for the sake of, in the interest of, Christ. The motive urged is the fear lest Christ’s work should be in vain: “In the interest of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors—in the interest of Christ we beseech you, let yourselves be reconciled to God.” But the 21st verse shows under what aspect the work of Christ, which would be frustrated if men did not let themselves be reconciled, comes under consideration: “Him that knew no sin, he made sin for our sakes, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Plainly here the primary effect of men letting themselves be reconciled is represented as consisting in this, that they become the righteousness of God in Christ. We conclude, therefore, that not the experience of conversion, but the exercise of justifying faith forms the subjective reflex of the reconciliation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shultz:

2 Corinthians 5:18-21

Second Corinthians 5:18-21 enlarges upon and completes the truths expressed in 5:14-15. Second Corinthians 5:16-17 describes two consequences of Christ’s death for those who believe (cf. 5:15). First, for believers there is now a completely different way of viewing reality (v. 16).⁸⁷ Second, anyone who is in Christ is a new creation, and a part of Christ’s new order for the universe (v. 17).⁸⁸ All of these benefits of being in Christ are from God (v. 18a),⁸⁹ as God is the one “who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18b-19). These verses state that God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, and the results of this reconciliation are the forgiveness of sins and the preaching of the cross.⁹⁰

Reconciliation is a distinctly Pauline idea,⁹¹ and most broadly it refers to God’s work in which, out of his love, he acts to bring about harmonious relations between himself and his creation.⁹² God reconciles through Jesus Christ, on the basis of the work of Christ, the atonement.⁹³ Reconciliation is primarily an objective act; it is something that God has done for humanity in the cross of Christ.⁹⁴ It is also a subjective act, however, because human beings must themselves subjectively experience the reconciliation that God has wrought in order to have fellowship with him.⁹⁵ Both the objective and the subjective senses of reconciliation are present in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

Second Corinthians 5:18-19 are parallel statements, in that verse 19 repeats and amplifies the thoughts of verse 18.⁹⁶ The objective work of reconciliation appears at the beginning of each verse, in that God has reconciled “us” (v. 18) or “the world” (v.19) to himself. The need for a subjective receiving of God’s reconciliation is highlighted at the end of each verse, as Paul speaks of the ministry and the message of reconciliation.⁹⁷ This ministry and message of reconciliation is clarified in verse 20, which states “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” In light of God’s reconciling act and consequent entrustment of the message of reconciliation to Paul, Paul describes himself (and others who follow after him)⁹⁸ as Christ’s ambassador. God makes his appeal through his ambassadors, and people need to believe this appeal in order to be reconciled to God; they need to subjectively experience the objective reality of God’s reconciliation in order to have a relationship with God.⁹⁹ Second Corinthians 5:21 returns to the objective idea of reconciliation and describes how God accomplished reconciliation in Christ.¹⁰⁰ The verse states, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Read the rest of this entry »