Reconciliation
RECONCILIATION
In Scripture, is the restoration of harmony between two persons at variance, by the removal of existing obstacles, 1Sa 29:4 . Christ bids the man who has wronged his brother, to make peace with him, and secure his favor by confession and reparation, before presenting his gift at God’s altar, Mat 5:23,24 . In the far more important matter of peace with God, to make human salvation possible, a just God must be reconciled to the sinner, and the rebellious sinner be reconciled to God. This reconciliation is effected by the blood of the Spirit, 1Ch 5:10 2Co 5:19 Zep 2:16 .
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Reconciliation
()
Reconciliation is the elect word in the apostolic literature to denote the changed relations issuing in the restoration, brought about by means of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, of the fellowship between God and man, which sin had interrupted. The Greek term is based upon the idea of exchange, especially the exchange of equivalent values; this passes, through the ideas of exchange of sympathy, mutual understanding and reciprocal confidence, into the notion of reconciliation, and thus becomes a term expressive of personal relations, with the implication that a previous hostility of mind or heart is now put away. Whilst the English reconciliation (and its German equivalent Vershnung) implies a mutual putting away of hostility, the Greek term is frequently used where only one person ceases to be angry with another and receives him into favour (see Thayer Grimms Gr.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT2, Edinburgh, 1890, p. 333). In the apostolic writings it is used both where the enmity is one-sided and where it is mutual; in the former case the context must show on which side the active enmity exists; the word in and of itself cannot declare on which side the adjustment is required or whether the hostility is mutual. Reconciliation is the redemptive term specially acceptable to the modern mind, which seeks to interpret the Atonement in terms of personality; because it states the apostolic thought on the redemptive relations of God and man in personal and therefore in ethical terms, and not in terms of law or of sacrifice. The practical value of the term, and the immediacy of its application to living experience, make a similar appeal; for in the apostolic teaching it is directly and organically connected with the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation (2Co 5:18 f.) which constituted the essence of the apostolic preaching. Moreover, it presents at-one-ment as the result of atonement; it brings the mystery of a past propitiation into the light of present and abiding personal relations God ward and manward; for it declares a restored communion to be a permanent attitude of God to man, and at the same time a progressively realized experience in man himself; God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation, is also in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2Co 5:18 f.).
Unlike propitiation, reconciliation is a term without direct ancestry in OT usage, and in the NT it is a redemptive term peculiar to the writings of St. Paul. The Pauline usage is found in Rom 5:10 f., Rom 11:15, 2Co 5:14 ff., Eph 2:16, Col 1:20 f. (cf. also 1Co 7:11 and Jer 31:39 [Septuagint ], 2Ma 1:5; 2Ma 7:33; 2Ma 8:29, Mat 5:24). In Rom 5:10 f. the context distinctly shows that the reconciliation spoken of is that of God to man; it is something received by man as an accomplished fact; and, although the act of man in receiving the reconciliation by obedient faith is implicitly recognized as perfecting the Divine purpose by his becoming himself reconciled to God, the clear Pauline contention is that there is a reconciliation on the part of God that is not only antecedent to any reception of it on the part of man, but is independent of any change of feeling on the part of man brought about by the Divine redemption; it is not an alteration in his relation to God accomplished by man. God is regarded as having established anew a relation of peace by putting away His hostility towards man in his sin (cf. Rom 11:15, Eph 1:6). While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Rom 5:10); enemies (), whilst it is a term used both actively, denoting hostility towards God, and passively, denoting hostility from God, almost certainly includes the latter in this place as it obviously does in Rom 11:28, where it is correlated with beloved (), which is certainly passive-beloved of God; the verb were reconciled (, Rom 5:10) is a real passive; men are primarily the objects, not the subjects, of the reconciliation. Otherwise the force of St. Pauls great argument that Gods own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (v. 3) was sufficiently strong to account for this changed attitude would be of little value. He can exalt the love only by pointing to what God has done, not to what we have done; our laying aside our hostility, though ultimately required to make the reconciliation complete, is wisely and intentionally ignored here; it has no place in the demonstration of the transcendent and undeserved love of God in providing the means of reconciliation and in establishing with men a relation of peace. Both in this passage and in 11:15, Col 1:20 f., Eph 2:16 this distinctively Pauline sense prevails-and it is the most direct indication we have of the general apostolic thought-that reconciliation is a work complete on Gods side before mans share in it begins, a work wrought by God in Christ and made available for the world, which men are besought to receive in order that it may become effective in them individually. That this is the Pauline teaching is acknowledged by the great body of NT exegetes, although some distinguished scholars seriously question it (e.g. A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Vershnung, ii. 230 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians 3, London, 1879, p. 159; B. F. Westcott, Epistles of St. John 3, do., 1892, p. 85; cf. also Askwith in Cambr. Theol. Essays, p. 206). Some others, who personally disagree with St. Paul, frankly acknowledge that the hostility overcome by the reconciliation is regarded by him as mutual, and hence any reconciliation which is accomplished between God and man must be two-sided. Not only must man renounce his hostility to God, but God must change His attitude toward man-must relinquish His wrath and resentment (Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation p. 59). Cremer thus states the case in favour of the same position: As this view is grammatically as possible as the other; as, further, there are no lexical difficulties in its way; and as, finally, it is indicated by the context of both passages (Rom 5:11; Rom 11:15)-no solid objection can be raised against it; whereas the other quits the biblical circle of thought, and has merely a hortatory character, but no force as evidence, such as is required, especially in Romans 5 (Bibl.-Theol. Lex.3, p. 92). A reasoned theological defence of the same situation is given in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 205 ff. (cf. also Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , Romans5, p. 129 f.; J. Denney, Expositors Greek Testament , Romans, 1900, p. 625 f.; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, Eng. translation , 1882-83, i. 428 ff.).
The reluctance to accept the Pauline view that reconciliation must deal with hostility on Gods side as well as on mans arises mainly from two causes. (a) There is an exaggerated anthropomorphic interpretation of the significance of Gods anger against sin; it is set in opposition to His love, as if these were mutually exclusive, or it is made the expression of the purely judicial demand for punishment. This is not the apostolic view; for in it there is no conflict between the Divine wrath and the Divine love, nor do they dwell apart; they are expressions of the one perfect Personality whose name and nature is love. All the processes of redemption are traced in the Pauline discussion to Gods own love for sinful men. His anger is real; it is not simply official as the hostility of a law-giver in presence of a law-breaker; it is personal, but not a fitful personal resentment: it is the hot displeasure of a fatherly love in presence of all that disturbs the filial relations of His children with Himself, and destroys His ideal for their peace; it is loves crowning sign, not its contradiction. His anger is the indication that His love discriminates; for righteousness and love are moral differences which would be lost in a love of God which was incapable of moral indignation and hostility to wrong. (b) There is the unethical conception of the Divine immutability, which leads to confusion of thought; as a true Personality God can and does change His feelings and attitudes; these must change to correspond with His moral activity towards the changing character and conduct of men; whilst behind the varying attitudes involved in a change from hostility to complacence, such as reconciliation supposes, lie the unchangeable character and the changeless moral purpose which give unity and consistency to all God does (cf. I. A. Dorners Divine Immutability in A System of Christian Doctrine, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1880-82, i. 244, iv. 80; W. Adams Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, do., 1907, p. 117 f.).
In 2Co 5:14-21, the locus classicus for the apostolic doctrine of reconciliation, St. Paul is supremely concerned with its practical results in the ethical and spiritual history of mankind and in the personal experience of the individual. These results are profoundly assured in the self-identification of God in Christ with mankind, whilst their blessedness is individually realized by the response of a reciprocal self-identification with God in Christ on the part of man; in this response the reconciliation is perfected. To achieve this end God in Christ has given a word of reconciliation and inspires the tender persuasions of a ministry of reconciliation, which are to us men the mystic wonder of the whole redemptive process: for they reveal a love of God which humbles itself to beseech sinful men, as though God were intreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God (2Co 5:20). But in this work of reconciliation the initiative is taken by God; and its cost in sacrificial self-giving is borne by Him. We never read that God has been reconciled; God Himself does the work of reconciliation in and through Christ, God was in Christ reconciling the world (even a world) unto himself (2Co 5:19). The self-identification of God with men is made in Christ-it is truly Gods self-identification; the humanity of Christ is the humanity of Deity, which is made manifest in time. In His death particularly Christ identified Himself with men; He died on behalf of all ( ), therefore all died (2Co 5:14). The death on behalf of all involved the death of all; because through His self-identification with all Christ was the Representative of all. As it was the death of all men which was died by Him, His self-identification with men, being real in the flesh as in the spirit, involved a true but mysterious fellowship in the deepest mystery of their experience in the flesh-their sin. Him who knew no sin he [God] made to be sin on our behalf (2Co 5:21). His death on behalf of all was a death unto sin once for all, that in the flesh He might destroy sin in the flesh. Such a death on their behalf was virtually the death of mankind with whom He was self-identified. The further significance of His death on behalf of all is that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21). Because we thus judge he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (2Co 5:15). The issue of this self-identification of God in Christ with man is that he is a new creature, the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (2Co 5:17). In this new creation of humanity with its new identities with God in Christ is found the reconciliation to which the love of Christ constraineth us (2Co 5:14). But the justification as well as the source of all this is God-God Himself, not Christ apart from God; not man by his penitence or by the response of his submission to God. All things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation (2Co 5:18). The heart of the apostles teaching, their gospel of reconciliation, is all things are of God. Reconciliation is a Divinely accomplished fact, done once for all. In the Apostolic Church it was believed that this reconciliation was the issue of that which God had done in the setting forth of Christ Jesus to be a propitiation (Rom 3:25). Such a propitiation is the Divinely appointed sanction and constraint of the apostles doctrine () of reconciliation-To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses (2Co 5:19); see, further, Propitiation. But whatever may be the God-ward side of reconciliation, they proclaimed on its manward side, with beseeching urgency, a ministry of reconciliation. Their doctrine gave no countenance to the idea that man is secure in the Divine favour through something accomplished for him apart from the obedience of his own faith, by which the reconciliation is personally received. The wistful word of their beseeching, Be ye reconciled to God (2Co 5:20), is at one with the lingering pathos of their admonition, and working together with him we intreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain (6:1). A mans whole attitude towards sin must be changed, otherwise the incidence of this yearning admonition must rest upon him.
A careful examination of the apostolic documents available leaves an irresistible conviction that the Apostolic Church held the view that reconciliation was a change from mutual hostility, resulting from the sinfulness of mankind, to mutual friendship between God and man; that this change was Gods own work accomplished in Christ through His life and death; but that it was also a process, carried on by God in Christ, requiring for its completion the receiving of it as a grace and the consequent participation in it as a Divine operation by men individually. Whether this view accords with the teaching of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics, and whether it is an interpretation of the experience of salvation binding permanently upon the faith of the Church are questions beyond the scope of this article.
Literature.-H. Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lexicon of NT Greek3, Edinburgh, 1880, p. 91 ff.; Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , Romans5, do., 1902, p. 129 f.; E. H. Askwith, Sin, and the Need of Atonement, in Cambridge Theological Essays, London, 1905, p. 175; W. F. Lofthouse, Ethics and Atonement, do., 1906, pp. 82-179; F. R. M. Hitchcock, The Atonement and Modern Thought, do., 1911, pp. 255-283; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, do., 1897, pp. 219-306; J. Denney, The Death of Christ, do., 1902, p. 139 ff.; G. B. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Edinburgh, 1905, p. 59 ff.; Expository Times iv. [1892-93] 335 f., v. [1893-94] 532 ff.; W. H. Moberly, The Atonement, in Foundations, London, 1912, p. 265 ff.; A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Vershnung4, Bonn, 1895-1902, iii., Eng. translation , Justification and Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1900; D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation, do., 1898; W. L. Walker, The Gospel of Reconciliation, do., 1909; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, London, 1901; S. A. MacDowall, Evolution and the Need of Atonement, Cambridge, 1912; article Reconciliation in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and Dict. of Christ and the Gospels .
Frederic Platt.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
RECONCILIATION
The restoring to favour or friendship those who were at variance. It is more particularly used in reference to the doctrine of the atonement. Thus God is said to reconcile us to himself by Jesus Christ, 2Co 5:18. Our state by nature is that of enmity, dissatisfaction, and disobedience. But by the sufferings and merit of Christ we are reconciled and brought near to God. the blessings of reconciliation are pardon, peace, friendship, confidence, holiness, and eternal life. The judicious Guyse gives us an admirable note on this doctrine, which I shall here transcribe. “When the Scripture speaks of reconciliation by Christ, or by his cross, blood, or death, it is commonly expressed by God’s reconciling us to himself, and not by his being reconciled unto us; the reason of which seems to be, because God is the offended party, and we are the offenders, who, as such, have need to be reconciled to him: and the price of reconciliation, by the blood of Christ, is paid to him, and not to us. Gratius observes, that, in heathen authors, men’s being reconciled to their gods is always understood to signify appeasing the anger of their gods. Condemned rebels may be said to be reconciled to their sovereign, when he, on one consideration or another, pardons them; though, perhaps, they still remain rebels in their hearts against him.
And when our Lord ordered the offending to go and be reconciled to his offended brother, Mat 5:1-48, the plain meaning is, that he should go and try to appease his anger, obtain his forgiveness, and regain his favour and friendship, by humbling himself to him, asking his pardon, or satisfying him for any injury that he might have done him. In like manner, God’s reconciling us to himself by the cross of Christ does not signify, as the Socinians contend, our being reconciled by conversion to a religious turn in our hearts to God, but is a reconciliation that results from God’s graciously providing and accepting an atonement for us, that he might not inflict the punishment upon us which we deserved, and the law condemned us to; but might be at peace with us, and receive us into favour on Christ’s account. For this reconciliation, by the cross of Christ is in a way of atonement or satisfaction to divine justice for sin; and with respect hereunto, we are said to be reconciled to God by the death of his Son while we are enemies, which is of much the same import with Christ’s dying for the ungodly, and while we were yet sinners, Rom 5:6; Rom 5:8; Rom 5:10. And our being reconciled to God, by approving and accepting of his method of reconciliation by Jesus Christ, and, on that encouragement, turning to him, is distinguished from his reconciling us to himself, and not imputing our trespasses to us, on account of Christ’s having been made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2Co 5:18; 2Co 5:21.
This is called Christ’s making reconciliation for iniquity, and making reconciliation for the sins of the people, Dan 9:1-27. Heb 2:17, and answers to the ceremonial and typical reconciliation which was made by the blood of the sacrifices under the law to make atonement and reconciliation for Israel, 2Ch 29:24. Eze 14:15; Eze 14:17, and which was frequently styled making atonement for sin, and an atonement for their souls. Now as all the legal sacrifices of atonement, and the truly expiatory sacrifices of Christ, were offered not to the offenders, but to God, to reconcile him in them, what can reconciliation by the death, blood, or cross of Christ mean, but that the law and justice of God were thereby satisfied, and all obstructions, on his part, to peace and friendship toward sinners are removed, that he might not pursue his righteous demands upon them, according to the holy resentments of his nature and will, and the threatenings of his law for their sins; but might mercifully forgive them, and take them into a state of favour with himself, upon their receiving the atonement, or reconciliation (Rom 5:11, ) by faith, after the offence that sin had given him, and the breach it had made upon the original friendship between him and them?”
See articles ATONEMENT, MEDIATOR, and PROPITIATION; Grot. de Satisf. cap. 7; Dr. Owen’s Answer to Biddle’s Catechism; Guyse’s Note on Coloss. 1: 21; Charnock’s Works, vol. 2: p. 241; John Reynolds on Reconciliation.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Reconciliation
(usually some form of , to cover sin, ) is making those friends again who were at variance, or restoring to favor those having fallen under displeasure. Thus the Scriptures describe the disobedient world as having been at enmity with God, but reconciled to him by the death of his Son. The expressions reconciliation and making peace necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man, which is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to argue that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature, therefore reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching of Christ, they tell us, are very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians, in their discussions on the natural innocence of man, are not willing to admit, that by the infection of sin the carnal mind is enmity to God; that human nature is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law. But this is far from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a reconciliation the making of peace between God and him. That relation is a legal one, as that of a sovereign, iln his judicial capacity, and a criminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority, and who is therefore treated as an enemy. The word is used in this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Test. So, in Rom 11:28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the Gospel, are said by the apostle, as concerning the Gospel, to be enemies for your sakes treated and accounted such; but, as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. In the same epistle (Rom 11:10) the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that with reference to the reconciliation by Christ: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, i.e. when we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this relation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself, it is rather a case of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt nature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God and the penalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is referred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase making peace, in the New Test.; and the hostility is therefore, in its own nature, mutual.
But that there is no truth in the notion that reconciliation means no more than our laying aside our enmity to God may also be shown from several express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God (Rom 5:10). Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if this reconciliation consisted in the laying-aside of our own enmity, the act would be ours alone. And, further, that it could not be the laying-aside of our enmity is clear from the text, which speaks of reconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of here is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For that the apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to our conversion appears evident from the opposite members of the two sentences much more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath through him; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. The apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so benign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now we are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to colnvert, for the apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of Christ. But to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his death, when there have been but very few good men who have died for their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly to his glorious life than to his shameftil death; but this reconciliation is attributed to his death as contradistinguished from his glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the two verses. Besides, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted, consists of the peace of God and salvation from wrath (Rom 5:9-10). This the apostle afterwards calls receiving the reconciliation. And what is it to receive the reconciliation but to receive the remission of sins? (Act 10:43). To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the remission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them (2Co 5:19). Here the manner of this reconciliation is expressly said to be not our laying aside our enmity, but the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words, the pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favor. The promise on God’s part to do this is expressive of his previous reconciliation to the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is distinguished from this by what follows, and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation, by virtue of which all men were, by the apostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason, too, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he promises not to impute sin, is grounded by the apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, not upon the laying-aside of enmity by men, but upon the sacrifice of Christ: For he hath made him to be sin (a sin-offering) for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Eph 2:16). Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken of as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews and Gentiles together, and both to God, by his cross. Thus, says the apostle, he is our peace; but in what manner is the peace effected? Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man’s heart, but by removing the enmity of the law. Having abolished in, or by, his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments. The ceremonial law only is here probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in Christ, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away. But still it was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to reconcile both unto God. This he did by the same act; abolishing the ceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus, by the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God, slaying the enmity by his cross, taking away whatever hindered the reconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not enmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial hostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and criminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus on this passage, in which he has been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by Grotius: In this passage the dative , to God, can only be governed by the verb , that he might reconcile; for the interpretation of Socinus, which makes to God stand by itself, or that to reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves that they might serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument valid which is drawn from thence, that in this place Paul properly treats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it follow from this argument that it was beside his purpose to mention the peace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined are so joined among themselve ththat they should be primarily and chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves, except by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made friends among themselves by friendship with God.
Here, also, a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will show how falsely it has been asserted that God is nowhere in Scripture said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of our being reconciled to God imports the turning-away of his wrath from us. Whitby observes, on the words and , that they naturally import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us, both in profane and Jewish writers. When the Philistines suspected that David would appease the anger of Saul by becoming their adversary, they said, Wherewith should he reconcile himself to his master? Should it not be with the heads of these men? Not, surely, how shall he remove his own anger against his master? but how shall he remove his master’s anger against him? how shall he restore himself to his master’s favor? If thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, not that thou hast aught against thy brother, first be reconciled to thy brother, i.e. appease and conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import See that thy brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes before is, not that he hath done thee an injulry, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger of God towards it is to be appeased, whiich the New Test. expressly declares to be meritoriously the sin-offering of him who knew no sin, and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, faith in his blood. SEE PROPITATION.
We know, says Farrar, that God cannot literally feel anger, or any other passion; nor can he be literally grieved and pained at anything man can do, since (as the 1st article of our [Anglican] Church expresses it) he is without body, parts, or passions; though in Scripture hands and eyes and other bodily members are figuratively attributed to him, as well as anger, repentance, and other passions. But all these are easily understood as spoken in reference to their effects on us, which are the same as if the things themselves were literally what they are called. It is well known to astronomers that the sun keeps its place, and yet they, as well as the vulgar, speak familiarly of the sun’s rising and setting without any mistake or perplexity thence arising, because the effects on this earth the succession of liglht and darkness are exactly the same as if the sun did literally move round it daily. In like manner, when the Scriptures speak of God’s wrath, fierce anger, etc., against sinners, it is meant not that he literally feels angry passions, but that th effect on men will be the same as if he did. And, similarly, when reconciliation’ with God is spoken of, it is to be understood as meaning that the effects of the death of Christ are such as to cause men to be regarded by God with that favor with which he would regard them if literally returned from a state of enmity to a state of reconciliation. See Nitzsch, Practische Theologie; Fletcher, Works (see Index); Presbyterian Confessions; Pearson, on the Creed; Goodwil. Works; Knapp, Christian Theology; Reynolds [John], On Reconciliation; Ritschl, Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinb. 1872); Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology (Lond. 1875, 12mo), p. 196-200.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Reconciliation
a change from enmity to friendship. It is mutual, i.e., it is a change wrought in both parties who have been at enmity.
(1.) In Col. 1:21, 22, the word there used refers to a change wrought in the personal character of the sinner who ceases to be an enemy to God by wicked works, and yields up to him his full confidence and love. In 2 Cor. 5:20 the apostle beSee ches the Corinthians to be “reconciled to God”, i.e., to lay aside their enmity.
(2.) Rom. 5:10 refers not to any change in our disposition toward God, but to God himself, as the party reconciled. Romans 5:11 teaches the same truth. From God we have received “the reconciliation” (R.V.), i.e., he has conferred on us the token of his friendship. So also 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 speaks of a reconciliation originating with God, and consisting in the removal of his merited wrath. In Eph. 2:16 it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the winning back of the sinner in love and loyalty to God, but to the restoration of God’s forfeited favour. This is effected by his justice being satisfied, so that he can, in consistency with his own nature, be favourable toward sinners. Justice demands the punishment of sinners. The death of Christ satisfies justice, and so reconciles God to us. This reconciliation makes God our friend, and enables him to pardon and save us. (See ATONEMENT)
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Reconciliation
Katallagee, (See “ATONEMENT”; SACRIFICE; PROPITIATION.) Rom 5:10-11; “we were reconciled … being reconciled … we have now received the reconciliation” (the same word as the verb and participle). The “reconciliation” here cannot be that of ourselves to God, or having its rise in us, for we then should not be said to “receive” it, but that of God to us. We have received the laying aside of our enmity to God would not be sense. Hebrew ratsah “to associate with,” “to be satisfied” or appeased. Katallagee, diallagee, is “the changing of places”, coming over from one to the other side. In 1Sa 29:4 (yithratseh zeh ‘el ‘adonaayw), “wherewith should this man (David) reconcile himself to his master (Saul)?” the anger to be laid aside was not David’s to Saul, but Saul’s to David; “reconcile himself to Saul” therefore means to induce Saul to be reconciled to him and take him back to his favor.
So Mat 5:24, “be reconciled to thy brother,” means, “propitiate him to lay aside his anger and be reconciled to thee.” So 2Co 5:18-19, “God hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ,” i.e. restored us (the world, 2Co 5:19) to His favor by satisfying the claims of justice against us. The time (aorist) is completely past, implying a once for all accomplished fact. Our position judicially in the eye of God’s law is altered, not as though Christ’s sacrifice made a change in God’s character and made Him to love us. Nay, Christ’s sacrifice was the provision of God’s love, not its procuring cause (Rom 8:32). Christ’s blood was the ransom or price paid at God’s own cost to reconcile the exercise of His mercy with justice, not as separate, but as the eternally co-existing harmonious attributes in the unchangeable God. (See RANSOM.)
Rom 3:25-26, “God in Christ reconciles the world to Himself,” as 2Co 5:19 explains, by “not imputing their trespasses unto them,” and by in the first instance satisfying His own justice and righteous enmity against sin (Psa 7:11; Isa 12:1). Katallassoon, “reconciling,” implies “changing” the judicial status from one of condemnation to one of justification. The “atonement” or reconciliation is the removal of the bar to peace and acceptance with the holy God which His righteousness interposed against our sin. The first step towards peace between us and God was on God’s side (Joh 3:16). The change now to be effected must be on the part of offending man, God the offended One being already reconciled. Man, not God, now needs to be reconciled by laying aside his enmity against God (Rom 5:10-11). Ministers’ entreaty to sinners, “be ye reconciled to God,” is equivalent to “receive the reconciliation” already accomplished (2Co 5:21).
In Heb 2:17 Christ is called “High-priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for (hilaskesthai, “to expiate”) the sins of the people.” Literally, “to propitiate (in respect to) the sins,” etc. God’s justice is (humanly speaking) propitiated by Christ’s sacrifice. But as God’s love was side by side from everlasting with His justice, Christ’s sacrifice is never expressly said to propitiate God (but Heb 2:17 virtually implies something like it), lest that sacrifice should seem antecedent to and producing God’s grace.
God’s love originated Christ’s sacrifice, whereby God’s justice and love are harmonized. By Christ’s sacrifice the sinner is brought into God’s favor, which by sin he had justly forfeited. Hence his prayer is,” God be propitiated (hilastheeti) to me who am a sinner” (Luk 18:13). Christ who had no sin “made reconciliation for (le-kafr “pitch”, covered) the iniquity” of all (Dan 9:24; Psa 32:1). (See PITCH; ATONEMENT.) “Man can suffer, but cannot satisfy; God can satisfy, but cannot suffer. But Christ, being both God and man, can both suffer and also satisfy. He is competent to suffer for man and to make satisfaction to God, in order to reconcile God to man and man to God. So Christ, having assumed my nature into His person, and so satisfied divine justice for my sins, I am received into favor again with the most high God.” (Beveridge).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
RECONCILIATION
Through sin the human race has made itself the enemy of God. People are separated from God, under the wrath of God and unable to have fellowship with God (Rom 1:18; Rom 8:7-8; Eph 2:3; Col 1:21). They need to be reconciled to God; that is, they need to be brought back from a state of hostility to a state of peace; from being an enemy to being a friend.
The only way that reconciliation can occur is through the removal of the cause of hostility. Christ did this when he died on the cross; he bore sin on behalf of sinners. Gods holy wrath against sin was satisfied, but only at great cost to himself. God was in Christ, reconciling sinners to himself. Because of all he has done through Christs death, God can in his love accept repentant sinners back to himself (Rom 5:6-9; 2Co 5:18-19; 2Co 5:21; see PROPITIATION).
Once God has dealt with sin according to his standards of justice and holiness, he can reconcile guilty sinners. Reconciliation is Gods work; it is not something sinners themselves can accomplish. The fault is on their side, but the removal of hostility is entirely the work of God (2Co 5:18-19). People are brought into a right relationship with God only through the outworking of Gods grace in the death of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:10-11; Eph 2:12-16; Col 1:20; Col 1:22). They receive the benefits of this reconciliation when they respond to God in faith and repentance (Rom 5:1; 2Co 5:20).
Peace now replaces hostility (Eph 2:3; Eph 2:14-17). This peace is more than the absence of hostility; it is a state of spiritual well-being brought about through a right relationship with God. It is a peace that comes from God through Christs conquest of sin, and it enables believers to be confident and calm in a world still hostile to God (Joh 14:27; Rom 5:1; Rom 8:6; Rom 16:20; Php 4:7; Php 4:9; see PEACE).
Having experienced the gracious work of Gods reconciliation, believers should preach it to others, so that others might be reconciled to God (2Co 5:18). In addition they should desire that people be reconciled to each other. Christs work destroys traditional hostilities in human relations and brings peace (Eph 2:14-16).
Whether within the community of believers or outside it, Christians should try to live peaceably with others (Mat 5:23-26; Rom 12:18-21; 2Co 6:11-13), and should encourage the same attitude in others (Mat 5:9). They should also work towards the reconciliation of people in general to the world of nature in which they live. Such a reconciliation is part of the purpose for which Christ died (Rom 8:19-23; Col 1:16; Col 1:20; see NATURE).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Reconciliation
RECONCILIATION.The gospel, in the Pauline acceptation, is peculiarly a message of reconciliation (). The ministry of the gospel is a ministry of reconciliation. Its preaching is a word of reconciliation. Its design is that those who receive the message should be reconciled to God (2Co 5:18-21). The word reconcile is not found in this connexion in either the Gospels or the other writings of the NT. It is a distinctively Pauline term. The fact is one worth remembering by those who insist so much on the absence of certain other aspects of St. Pauls doctrine from the Gospels, yet see in reconciliation, at least as relates to man, the truest expression for the end of Christs mission. If, however, the word is absent from the Gospels, assuredly the reality is there. It is implied, on its Godward side, in Christs doctrine of forgiveness of sins as a primary blessing of His Kingdom (Mat 6:12; Mat 6:14-15). It is the presupposition of Christs whole ministry as directed to the salvation of the lost (Mat 18:10-14, Luk 19:10); is exhibited in His own gracious and merciful attitude to the sinful and burdened (Mat 11:28-30, Luk 4:17-21); in His mercy, especially to those whom society regarded as outcasts (Luk 7:36-50 friend of publicans and sinners; Mat 11:19, Luk 15:1-2); is involved in His whole revelation of the Father. On the manward side, as necessity, duty, and privilege, it is not less clearly implied in the invitation to come to Him (Mat 11:28); in the demand for repentancea changed mind and life (Mat 4:17, Mar 1:15 etc.); in the call to sonship in His Kingdom (Mat 5:9; Mat 5:48, Luk 6:35-36 etc.), and to complete surrender of self, and trust in the Father (Mat 6:24 ff.); in the requirement of a habitual doing of the will of the Father (Mat 5:48; Mat 7:21 ff. etc.). The parable of the Prodigal Son is a typical parable or reconciliation (Luk 15:11 ff.). If, in St. Pauls gospel, reconciliation is made dependent on Christs Person and redeeming death, it is certain that in the Gospels also Jesus views the whole Messianic salvation as depending on Himself, and on repeated occasions connects it with His death (Joh 3:14-15, Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28, Luk 24:46-47; see Redemption). This circle of conceptions involved in reconciliation is now to be more closely investigated.
In the OT the word reconcile occurs several times in the Authorized Version in Leviticus and Ezekiel as the translation of the verb , usually rendered to make atonement (Lev 6:30; Lev 8:15; Lev 16:20, Eze 45:15; Eze 45:17; Eze 45:20 [Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 translation , as elsewhere, to make atonement, atoning]). The idea here conveyed is that of forgiveness and restoration to Divine fellowship on the ground of a propitiation. Similarly, in the NT, Authorized Version reads in Heb 2:17 to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, where the word is , and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 renders, to make propitiation. In Dan 9:24, while the same Heb. word () occurs (with direct object), Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 retains the rendering to make reconciliation, and puts in the margin, purge away. In 2Ch 29:24, again, where Authorized Version has made reconciliation, Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 renders more accurately made a sin-offering. These OT examples have only an indirect bearing on the NT word, the idea of which is not propitiation but change from variance into a state of friendship. Propitiation, in the OT, no doubt, effected a reconciliation, and, in the NT, reconciliation is made by atonement; but the ideas expressed by the words are nevertheless distinct. The NT term for reconciliation, as already indicated, is (Rom 5:11 [not atonement, as Authorized Version ] 11:15, 2Co 5:18-19). With this are connected the verbs (Rom 5:10, 2Co 5:20; cf. of a wife, 1Co 7:11), and (Eph 2:16, Col 1:20-21). A related form, , is used in Mat 5:24 (pass.) of reconciliation with a brother. But besides these terms, there is in St. Paul, as in other NT writers, a considerable range of words and phrases which express the same idea, e.g. made peace (Col 1:20; cf. preached peace, Act 10:36, Eph 2:17; have peace, Rom 5:1); made nigh (Eph 2:13); turned unto God (1Th 1:9-10), etc. The general meaning of the Pauline expressions is well brought out in such a passage as Rom 5:10 If, when we were enemies (), we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, etc.; or in such a declaration (addressed to Gentiles) as that in Col 1:21 You, being in time past alienated, and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.
There is no dispute, then, that, in St. Pauls use, and generally, the word denotes a change from enmity to friendship. The differences in regard to reconciliation in the gospel relate to two other points. (1) On whose side does the change from variance to friendship take placeon Gods side as well as mans, or on mans only? Is God as well as man the subject of the reconciliation, or is man only reconciled? (2) By what means is the reconciliation effected? On the first point, the view is very widely held that the reconciliation is on the part of man only (Ritschl, Kaftan, Cambridge Theol. Essays, pp. 206, 217, etc.); God needs no reconciliation. God is eternally propitious to the sinner: it needs only that the sinner change his thoughts and his dispositions towards God. Yet it is very doubtful if, on exegetical grounds, even in regard to the use of the word, this can be sustained. God, indeed, is represented by St. Paul as already reconciled in Christ, i.e. everything is done on His side which is necessary for the restoration of the ungodly to favour. All that is needed now is the reciprocal reconciliation of men to God (Rom 5:6; Rom 5:8, 2Co 5:18-21). But it is still implied that a reconciliation was needed on Gods side as well as on mans, and it is declared that this has been accomplished once for all in Christs Cross (Col 1:21-22). It is on the basis of Gods reconciliation to the world in Christ, that the world is now entreated to be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20). This, which is the view taken of the meaning of St. Pauls expressions by the majority of exegetes, is the only one which fully satisfies the connexion of the Apostles thought. Sinners, it is implied throughout, are, on account of their sins, the objects of Gods judicial wrath. They are , a word which, both in Rom 5:10; Rom 11:28, is used in the passive sense of objects of wrath (cf., in latter passage, the contrast with , beloved). As Prof. Stevens, who disagrees with St. Paul, explains it: Between God and sinful man there is a mutual hostility. Sinners are the objects of Gods enmity (Rom 5:10; Rom 11:28), and they, in turn, are hostile to God (Rom 8:7, Col 1:21). Hence any reconciliation () which is accomplished between them must be two-sided (Christ. Doct. of Salv. p. 59, cf. his Theol. of the NT, p. 414). Quite similar is the view taken by Weiss, in his Bib. Theol. of the NT, i. p. 428 ff. (English translation ); by Denney, in his Romans, on 5:9 ff., and Death of Christ, p. 143 ff.; in art. Reconciliation in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , etc. St. Pauls own explanation of his words, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, by the clause, not reckoning unto them their trespasses (2Co 5:19), makes it clear that the reconciliation intended is on Gods side. If this is granted, the second question is already answeredBy what means is the reconciliation effected? For the Apostles consistent doctrine is that it was by Christs death for our sins that God was reconciled to the world (see Redemption).
The objection, however, will not unfairly be urgedDoes it not conflict with a worthy view of Gods character, and detract from the grace of salvation, to think of God as at enmity with any of His creatures, and needing to be propitiated or reconciled? Can such a thought have any real place in a gospel of Christ? It may be observed, first, that St. Paul did not regard his doctrine as casting any shadow on the love of God; rather, it is to this love he traces the inception and carrying through of the whole work of mans salvation. The crowning proof of Gods love is just this fact, that Christ died for us (Rom 5:9). If this seems a paradox, it is to be remembered, next, that displeasure against sin, and even the assertion of holiness against it in the form of wrath, are not incompatible with love to the sinner, and with the most earnest desire to save him. In human relations also there are cases in which a very genuine displeasure requires to be removed before relations of friendship can be restored (cf. Mat 5:23-24). If God cherishes displeasure at sin at alland would He be God if He did not?then there must be a measure of reconciliation on His side, as well as on mans, even if it be conceived that repentance on mans part is sufficient to bring it about. But this is the whole pointDoes repentance suffice to repair the broken relations of the sinner with a Holy God? And does repentance of the kind required spring up spontaneously in man, or is it not called forth by God first meeting man with a display of His own reconciling love? That this is the truer and more scriptural view cannot be doubted, and it throws us back on what it may be necessary for God to do in approaching a world yet ungodly with the message of His grace. That God has come to the world in the way of a reconciling work by His Son, is certainly no abatement from the love on which depends the possibility of a salvation for the world at all.
The other, or manward, side of reconciliation is one on which a few words will suffice. Its necessity and importance are admitted by all. Estranged from God by his sense of guilt, and alienated in the spirit of his mind, the sinner needs, as the first condition of his salvation, to have this enmity of his heart broken down, and new dispositions of penitence and trust awakened. He needs to be moved to say, I will arise, and go to my Father (Luk 15:18). The great dynamic in producing such a change is again the spectacle of Gods reconciling love in Christ. I, if I be lifted up from the earth, said Jesus, will draw all men unto me (Joh 12:32). Along both lines, therefore, the Godward and the manward, we come to the Cross of Christ as the centre of the reconciling power of the gospel. By it we are redeemed from the curse (Gal 2:20; Gal 3:13); by it the world is crucified to us, and we unto the world (Gal 6:14). The man who truly realizes his redemption lives no more unto himself, but unto Him who died for him, and rose again (2Co 5:15).
On the different views which have been held in the Church on Christs reconciling work, see art. Redemption.
Literature.Ritschl, Recht. und Vers. iii. (English translation Justification and Reconciliation); D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation; Cambridge Theol. Essays (v.); art. Reconciliation in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; works by Stevens and Denney cited above. See also F. W. Robertson, Serm. iv. 208; J. Caird, Univ. Serm. 92; T. Binney, Serm. ii. 51; Phillips Brooks, Serm. for the Principal Festivals, 97; W. P. Du Bose, The Soteriology of the NT (1892), 47.
James Orr.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Reconciliation
RECONCILIATION.The word reconciliation, with its cognates, is a Pauline one, and is not found in the Gospels, or other NT writings. The chief passages in which it and related terms are employed are Rom 5:10-11 (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), 2Co 5:18-20, Eph 2:16, Col 1:20-21. In Heb 2:17, where the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] has to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, the RV [Note: Revised Version.] reads, more correctly, to make propitiation. OT usage, where the word occasionally tr. [Note: translate or translation.] reconcile (Lev 6:30 etc.) is again more correctly rendered in RV [Note: Revised Version.] make atonement, throws little light on the NT term. The effect of propitiation is to remove the variance between God and man, and so bring about reconciliation. The means by which this result is accomplished in the NT is the reconciling death of Christ (Col 1:20-22). On the special questions involved, see artt. Atonement and Redemption.
Perhaps better than any other, this term brings out in vivid form St. Pauls conception of the gospel. As proclaimed to men, the gospel is a message of reconciliation (2Co 5:18-20). It is a misunderstanding of the Apostles meaning in such passages to suppose that the need of reconciliation is on mans side only, and not also on Gods. Man, indeed, does need to he reconciled to God, from whom he is naturally alienated in his mind in evil works (Col 1:21). The mind of the flesh is enmity against God (Rom 8:7), and this enmity of the carnal heart needs to be overcome. On this side, the ministry of reconciliation is a beseeching of men to be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20). But the very ground on which this appeal is based is that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses (2Co 5:19). It is an essential part of the Apostles teaching that sinners are the objects of a Divine judicial wrath (Rom 1:18). They lie under a condemnation that needs to be removed (Rom 3:19 ff.). They are described as enemies in two passages (Rom 5:10, Rom 11:28) where the word is plainly to be taken in the passive sense of objects of wrath (cf. in Rom 11:28, the contrast with beloved). It is this barrier to Gods reconciliation with men that, in the Apostles doctrine, Christ removes by His propitiatory death (Rom 3:25, Col 1:20). The ground on which men are called to be reconciled to God is: Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:20-21). Believers receive a reconciliation already made (Rom 5:11 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). The gospel reconciliation, in other words, has a twofold aspecta Godward and a manward; and peace is made by the removal of the variance on both sides. See artt. above referred to.
James Orr.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Reconciliation
Except in 1Sa 29:4, and 2Ch 29:24, the Hebrew word is kaphar, which is more than sixty times translated ‘to make an atonement;’ and this rendering suits sufficiently well in the places where ‘reconciliation’ is read in the A.V. Lev 6:30; Lev 8:15; Lev 16:20; Eze 45:15; Eze 45:17; Eze 45:20; Dan 9:24. In the N.T. the last clause of Heb 2:17 should be translated “to make ‘propitiation’ for the sins of the people.” Elsewhere the word translated ‘reconciliation’ is , and kindred words, signifying ‘a thorough change.’
By the death of the Lord Jesus on the cross, God annulled in grace the distance which sin had brought in between Himself and man, in order that all things might, through Christ, be presented agreeably to Himself. Believers are already reconciled, through Christ’s death, to be presented holy, unblameable, and unreproveable (a new creation). God was in Christ, when Christ was on earth, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing unto them their trespasses; but now that the love of God has been fully revealed in the cross, the testimony has gone out world wide, beseeching men to be reconciled to God. 2Co 5:19-20. The end is that God may have His pleasure in man.
Christ also abolished the system of the law that Jew and Gentile might be reconciled together unto God, the two being formed in Christ into one new man. Eph 2:15-16. Reconciliation will extend in result to all things in heaven and on earth, Col 1:20; not to things under the earth (the lost), though these will have to confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Php 2:10-11.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Reconciliation
Between man and man
Mat 5:23-26
Of Esau and Jacob
Gen 33:4; Gen 33:11
Between Pilate and Herod
Luk 23:12
Between God and man
– General references
Lev 8:15; Eze 45:15; Dan 9:24; Rom 5:1; Rom 5:10; Rom 11:15; 2Co 5:18-21; Eph 2:15-18; Col 1:20-22; Heb 2:17 Atonement; Jesus, The Christ, Mission of; Propitiation; Redemption
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
RECONCILIATION
(1) With God through Christ
Eze 45:15; Dan 9:24; 2Co 5:18; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20; Heb 2:17
–SEE Atonement, ATONEMENT
Redemption (2), REDEMPTION
(2) With Men
Mat 5:24; Mat 18:15
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Reconciliation
The expressions reconciliation and making peace necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man, which is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to argue, that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature, therefore, reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation of God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching of Christ, they tell us, is very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians in their discussions on the natural innocence of man are not willing to admit that by the infection of sin the carnal mind is enmity to God, that human nature is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law; but this is far from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a reconciliation, the making of peace between God and him. That relation is a legal one, as that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a criminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority, and who is, therefore, treated as an enemy. The word is used in this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Testament. So, in Rom 11:28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the Gospel, are said by the Apostle, as concerning the Gospel, to be enemies for your sakes; treated and accounted such; but, as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. In the same epistle, Rom 5:10, the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that with reference to the reconciliation by Christ: For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; that is, when we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as enemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this relation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself: it is rather a case of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt nature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and the penalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is this judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is referred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase making peace, in the New Testament; and the hostility is, therefore, in its own nature, mutual.
But that there is no truth in the notion, that reconciliation means no more than our laying aside our enmity to God, may also be shown from several express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited: For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God, Rom 5:10. Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if this reconciliation consisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the act would be ours alone: and, farther, that it could not be the laying aside of our enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of reconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of here is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For that the Apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to our conversion, appears evident from the opposite members of the two sentences, much more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath through him, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. The Apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so benign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now we are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to convert; for the Apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of Christ; but to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his death, when there have been but very few good men who have died for their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly to his glorious life, than to his shameful death; but this reconciliation is attributed to his death, as contradistinguished from his glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the two verses. Beside, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted, consists of the peace of God, and salvation from wrath, Rom 5:9-10. This the Apostle afterward calls receiving the reconciliation. And what is it to receive the reconciliation, but to receive the remission of sins? Act 10:43. To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the remission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 2Co 5:19. Here the manner of this reconciliation is expressly said to be, not our laying aside our enmity, but the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words, the pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favour. The promise, on God’s part, to do this, is expressive of his previous reconciliation to the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is distinguished from this by what follows, and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation, by virtue of which all men were, by the Apostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason, too, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he promises not to impute sin, is grounded by the Apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, not upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but upon the sacrifice of Christ: For he hath made him to be sin, a sin-offering, for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby, Eph 2:16. Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken of as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews and Gentiles together, and both to God, by his cross. Thus, says the Apostle, he is our peace; but in what manner is the peace effected? Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man’s heart, but by removing the enmity of the law. Having abolished in or by his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments. The ceremonial law only is here, probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in Christ, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away; but still it was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to reconcile both unto God. This he did by the same act; abolishing the ceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus, by the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God, slaying the enmity by his cross, taking away whatever hindered the reconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not enmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial hostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and criminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus, on this passage, in which he has been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by Grotius: In this passage the dative , to God, can only be governed by the verb , that he might reconcile; for the interpretation of Socinus, which makes to God stand by itself, or that to reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves, that they might serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument valid which is drawn from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly treats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it follow from this argument, that it was beside his purpose to mention the peace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined, are so joined among themselves, that they should be primarily and chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves, except by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made friends among themselves by friendship with God.
Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will show how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of our being reconciled to God imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby observes, on the words and , that they naturally import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us, both in profane and Jewish writers. When the Philistines suspected that David would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they said, Wherewith should he reconcile himself to his master? Should it not be with the heads of these men? not, surely, How shall he remove his own anger against his master? but, how shall he remove his master’s anger against him? How shall he restore himself to his master’s favour? If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, not, that thou hast aught against thy brother, first be reconciled to thy brother; that is, appease and conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, See that thy brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes before is, not that he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger of God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly declares to be meritoriously the sin-offering of Him who knew no sin, and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, faith in his blood. See PROPITIATION.