Archive for July 15th, 2010
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.