2 Corinthians 5 New
American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Temporal and Eternal
5
For we know that if [a]the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we
have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling
from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For
indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not
want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be
swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God,
who gave to us the Spirit as a [b]pledge.
6
Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home
in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by
[c]sight— 8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from
the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9 Therefore we also have as our
ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed
for [d]his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or
bad.
11
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made
manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.
12 We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion
to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in
appearance and not in heart. 13 For if we [e]are beside ourselves, it is for
God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls
us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He
died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but
for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
16
Therefore from now on we recognize no one [f]according to the flesh; even
though we have known Christ [g]according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in
this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, [h]he is a new
creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all
these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave
us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,
and [i]He has [j]committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20
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. 21 He made
Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness
of God in Him.
The IVP New Testament
Commentary Series
Fear of the Lord
Motivates Ministry (5:11-13)
A
call to evangelistic ministry is increasingly becoming a rarity. In part this
is because many churches no longer highly value or support this type of call.
Street-corner preachers are regularly dismissed as crackpots. Revival meetings
are becoming a thing of the past or are commonly redefined as occasions to
boost the congregation's spirits or to push for recommitment. The developer
pastor who seeks to plant a church through new converts is becoming a vanishing
breed. Pastors and churches committed to outreach in their communities have
become the exception rather than the rule.
This
state of affairs was brought home to me recently in a conversation with a newly
elected member of an evangelism committee who expressed frustration with the
task's being defined primarily in terms of communal nurture rather than
community outreach. Paul had no such illusions. He understood quite well what a
call to preach the gospel involved. It was a lofty call to be one of
"Christ's ambassadors," with God "making his appeal through
us" (v. 20). It involved exhorting others to "be reconciled with
God" (v. 20). And it arose out of a fear of the Lord (v. 11) and a knowledge
of "Christ's love" (v. 14).
Pursuing
such a lofty call necessitates having the right motives (vv. 11-15). In chapter
4 it was Paul's conviction that "the one who raised the Lord Jesus from
the dead will also raise us with Jesus" that compelled him to preach
(4:14). Now he adds too further reasons. The first is found in 5:11. Since,
then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, he states, we try to persuade
others. What is this fear of which Paul speaks? The Greek term phobos ranges in
meaning from panic and fright to awe and reverence. Yet when we are faced with
the divine, fright and awe more often than not coalesce. The genitive tou
kyriou can be objective ("the fear that we feel toward the Lord") or
subjective ("the fear that the Lord inspires"). But in reality, both
amount to the same thing. Fear in itself is not necessarily bad. To fear the
Lord is what God required of Israel (Deut 10:12). And it is through the fear of
the Lord that a person avoids evil (Prov 16:6).
But
what is it about the Lord that elicits Paul's fear? The answer is found in the
opening oun (therefore), which points the reader back to verse 10 and the
future judgment that all those who serve Christ must face. By fear Paul does
not mean terror. In certain places on Alpine summits the way is peculiarly
dangerous on account of frequent avalanches and the traveler walks in dread of
instant destruction. The Christian does not stand in terror of divine judgment
as the traveler does of the Alps. On the other hand, we need to have a healthy
respect for the One who has the power to destroy both the soul and the body (Mt
10:28).
Fear
can often result in paralysis; but not so with Paul. While the prospect of
appearing before Christ's judgment seat provokes fear, it also prompts action.
For the author of Proverbs 1:7, fear of the Lord meant "the beginning of
knowledge." For Paul, it means the attempt to persuade men. The NIV men
renders a Greek term that is gender-inclusive (anthropous). Paul attempts to
persuade "people" (JB) or "others" (NRSV). The present
tense carries a conative nuance—"we try to persuade." The term
persuade means "to strive to convince" by means of argumentation
(Becker 1975:590).
Of
what does Paul seek to persuade? He does not explicitly say; but in light of
his preceding reference to the judgment of the Christian worker, it is not too
improbable to suppose that the judgment of the non-Christian is in mind.
Judgment is an uncomfortable subject in most Christian circles. Yet it was not
long ago that "hellfire and brimstone" preaching was a staple of the
evangelical diet. Nowadays we tend to shy away from topics of this sort. But a
substantial part of Jesus' preaching had to do with warning his audience of
impending judgment. Peter pleaded with his audience to save themselves from
"this corrupt generation" (Acts 2:40). And mention of "the
coming wrath" was a regular component of Paul's evangelistic preaching
(see Acts 17:31; 1 Thess 1:9-10).
Paul
interjects the comment What we are is plain to God (v. 11). A healthy respect
for Christ as judge motivates Paul to discharge his ministry with integrity, a
fact that is plain to God and would be apparent to the Corinthians if they
stopped and thought about it. Paul uses the perfect tense: "What we are
has been and continues to be plain to God." While a person's motives and
intentions can be hidden from others, they cannot be hidden from God. Paul,
however, makes his ministry available to the scrutiny of all who would care to
inspect it, including the Corinthians.
Paul
momentarily slips into the first-person singular in an effort to express a
deeply felt concern: "I hope it is also plain to your conscience" (v.
11; Furnish 1984:307). What he hopes is that if his apostolic legitimacy is not
immediately apparent to the Corinthians, at least his integrity will be evident
to their conscience. The conscience is that capacity of a person to determine
right from wrong. Stoics saw the conscience as a watchman bestowed by God on
individuals to guide them to live according to nature and to direct their moral
progress (Hahn 1975:349). In much the same way, Paul appeals to the
Corinthians' conscience to judge the sincerity of his motives. This assumes, of
course, that their conscience has not been dulled through misuse, ignorance or
disregard.
Although
this may sound as if Paul is commending himself to them again, all he aims to
do is to provide the Corinthians with the ammunition needed to answer his
critics (v. 12). This is the second time that Paul has admitted saying
something that could be taken as praising himself. In fact, nine out of
thirteen Pauline uses of the verb synistemi (to commend) occur in this letter.
Its frequent appearance shows that ministerial commendation was a bone of
contention with the church. Four times in 2 Corinthians Paul is pushed by the
Corinthians' expectations to commend himself. But in distinction from his
rivals, he commends himself as a servant of God (4:2-5; 6:4) and on the basis
of what God accomplished through him (3:5; 10:13), of which the congregation, it
seems, needed to be reminded from time to time (5:12). They should have taken
the initiative to defend Paul against his detractors. Perhaps they had become
so taken with the current group of visiting preachers that they forgot the many
reasons to be proud of their spiritual father.
In
the second half of verse 12 Paul puts before the Corinthians the major
distinction between himself and these intruders. His rivals take pride in the
externals or what is seen. Paul takes pride in the internals or what is in the
heart. To take pride in what is seen is literally "to boast in the
face." The noun "face" (prosopon) originally meant that which
struck the eye. Here it refers to the features or outward appearance of a thing
or person. To boast "in the face," then, is to place great store in
outward appearances, like letters of recommendations, polished oratory and
flashy presentations. Perhaps Paul is thinking especially of boasting in
ecstatic experiences, since he goes on in verse 13 to say, If we are out of our
mind (ekstasis English "ecstasy"), it is for the sake of God; if we
are in our right mind, it is for you (RSV, NEB). "Out of mind" is the
general sense of the intransitive. Literally, it meant to become separated from
something or to lose something (ek "away" + histhmi "put,
stand") and was used figuratively of losing one's wits (Bauer, Arndt and
Gingrich 1979). Part of the difficulty is that Paul employs the verb nowhere
else. Mark, however, uses it of Jesus, whose family thought him "mad"
(3:21). Most translators follow suit here.
In
what sense was Paul "mad"? On the face of it, the comment is obscure.
This may well have been a charge leveled by his opponents. That Paul would
consider persecution and adversity something to be proud of might well have
appeared mad to those who judged by the world's standards (4:8-9). Yet,
whatever Paul does, he does not out of self-interest but for God and the
Corinthians (for you). This is the essence of verse 13. Thew (for the sake of
God) and hymin (for you) are most likely datives of advantage, designating the
person whose interest is affected (Blass, Debrunner and Funk 1961:no. 188
[101]). There is a time for conduct which appears mad to the world but is in
God's best interest. There is also a time for calm, sensible conduct, which is
to the church's advantage. Paul was prepared to follow whichever advanced the
cause of the gospel (Barclay 1954:208).
Christ's Love Compels
Service (5:14-17)
A
further reason for preaching the gospel is found in verse 14: For Christ's love
compels us. Conviction (4:14), fear (5:11) and now love motivate Paul to pursue
his call. The text is literally, "the love of Christ." The genitive
can be objective, "our love for Christ," or subjective, "Christ's
love for us." Although we might instinctively incline toward the former,
the latter is preferred by most modern translations. This is because Paul goes
on in verses 14-15 to speak of Christ dying on our behalf—the ultimate
demonstration of love. The basic sense of synecho (to compel) is to hold
something together so that it does not fall apart. From this we get the
meanings to "hold fast" (that is, to not allow to slip through one's
fingers) and to "surround" or "hem in" (that is, to not let
escape; Köster 1971:883). The idea is that Christ's love completely controls
and dominates Paul so that he has no option but to preach. The hymn writer
George Matheson knew of this kind of constraining love when he penned the words
"O love that wilt not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee; / I give
Thee back the life I owe, That in Thine ocean deptes its flow may richer,
fuller be."
It
is not the mere fact of Christ's death but a conviction about it that leaves
Paul no choice but to carry out his call to preach the gospel. We are convinced,
he says, that one died for all, and therefore all died (v. 14). We are
convinced is actually "we have judged this" (krinantas touto). The
basic meaning of krino is to "separate" or "sift," and it
is commonly used of a conclusion drawn after thoroughly evaluating the facts.
Here it emphasizes a carefully considered judgment as opposed to accepting
something on good faith. Paul has assessed the evidence and come to the
carefully thought-out conclusion that one died for all, and therefore all died.
Much
effort has been expended on determining the theological import of the second
half of verse 14. It is important to notice that Paul does three things here.
He states a conviction, (one died for all) he draws a conclusion, (therefore
all died) and he articulates a rationale (that those who live should no longer
live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again, v. 15).
Paul's conviction is that one died for all. But by all does he mean all
believers or all people? The contrast between one and all suggests that the
term is to be taken in the broadest sense. Even so, while Christ may have died
for all of humanity, it is only believers who reap the benefits. This is why
Paul can say elsewhere that "Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8; 1 Thess
5:10) and "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3). The scope of
Christ's redemptive work may be all-encompassing, but the application is
particular.
A
second exegetical problem is the force of the preposition hyper (for). Does it
mean "instead of" ( anti; that is, Christ died in our place) or does
it bear its usual sense, "on behalf of" (that is, Christ died as our
representative)? Paul routinely employs hyper where anti would have been
expected, so too firm a distinction should not be drawn between the too prepositions.
In most instances, one who acts on behalf of another takes their place (Moule
1959:64). Galatians 3:13 is a case in point, where Paul states that
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our
place" (hyper hemwn). This may well be the primary idea here. Just as
Christ took upon himself the curse that should have been ours, so too he died
the death that we should have died.
A
number of years ago, a young couple, knowing that a tornado was upon them and
not having time to take cover, laid their baby on the floor of their living
room and covered him with their own bodies. The tornado struck with devastating
force and leveled a row of homes, including theirs. The next morning, as rescue
workers were rummaging through the destroyed homes, they heard a muffled
crying. They came upon the lifeless bodies of the young couple, with their baby
still safe beneath their bodies. They gave their lives for their child. This is
what Christ did for us.
The
conclusion (therefore) Paul draws from the conviction that one died for all is
that all died or, literally, "the all died." The article + pas
emphasizes the whole as opposed to the part. The notion here is one of
corporate solidarity. In placing our trust in Christ as Savior, we become united
with him and all that he accomplished on our behalf. This is the idea behind
Paul's statement in Romans 6:3-5 that "all of us who were baptized into
Christ were baptized into his death . . . buried with him" and "will
certainly also be united with him in his resurrection." What is the nature
of this death? Is Paul thinking of a physical death? The aorist indicative,
"all died," suggests something other than this. Paul can hardly mean
that we all died physically as a result of Christ's death. Some suggest
spiritual death due to sin. Yet it was this very condition that necessitated
Christ's death. It was while we were yet sinners and dead in our transgressions
and sins that Christ died for us (Rom 5:8; Eph 2:1-2). The most plausible
alternative is to understand all died as a death to our old way of life. This
is supported by the sequence all died . . . those who live (vv. 14-15). It is
also suggested by the shift from aorist (apethanen) to present tense (hoi
zontes). Death to sin and self is a familiar theme in Paul. "I have been
crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (or a
similar statement) is found in virtually every one of his letters (Gal 2:20,
compare Rom 6:6-14; Eph 2:1-5; Col 2:20). When Augustine returned to his
hometown after his conversion in Milan, his former girlfriend called to him:
"Augustine, Augustine, it is I!" He turned to her and said:
"Yes, but it is not I." Where there is no radical change of attitude
toward life and self, there is no conversion.
Christ's
self-sacrifice had a particular goal in mind. He died that those who live
should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was
raised again (v. 15). The aorists died and was raised point to too historical
facts. The active voice he died (apothanonti) denotes a voluntary action on
Christ's part. It is followed, however, by the passive voice, he was raised,
the deed in this case being performed by God. It is on the basis of these too
facts that believers are constrained to live no longer for themselves but for
Christ.
But
what does this mean? In the first instance, it means that our life is not our
own. We have been bought with the price of Christ's death and therefore are
called to serve not self but Christ (1 Cor 6:19-20). Freedom is an illusion. We
like to think along the lines of William Ernest Henley: "I am the master
of my fate; I am the captain of my soul." The fact of the matter is that
ours is to serve, not to be served. If we are not serving Christ, we are
serving another master. To live for self is to serve sin. To live for Christ is
to serve him—or as we say today, to allow Christ to be Lord of our life. The
difference is between treating Christ as a houseguest and serving him as the
house owner. Robert Munger in My Heart—Christ's Home (first ed. 1954) pictures
the latter in terms of going to the strongbox, taking out the title deed to our
life and signing it over to Christ for eternity. The central thought is a
transference of ownership. Frances Ridley Havergal appropriately expressed this
transfer in a hymn:
Take
my will and make it thine,
It
shall be no longer mine;
Take
my heart—it is thine own,
It
shall be thy royal throne.
From
time to time we hear someone say that a particular experience has given them a
whole new outlook on life. Changed convictions should result in changed
attitudes. It did for Paul. His conviction that one died for all, and therefore
all died (v. 14) changed irrevocably how he looked at people. Seneca once said,
"I do not distinguish by the eye, but by the mind, which is the proper
judge of the man" ("On the Happy Life" 2.2). It is all too easy
to judge people by outward appearances—what kind of clothes they wear, how much
education they have had, what neighborhood they live in, what kind of car they
drive, what schools they went to, and so on. Paul had judged Jesus in this
fashion and decided that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he did not fit
the messianic mold. It was expected that the true Messiah would deliver Israel
from the hand of the nation's Roman oppressors and restore the Davidic
monarchy, thereby ushering in the eternal kingdom of God. Jesus did not do
this. Even worse, he died on a cross, which was considered the ultimate sign of
God's disapproval. The law-abiding Jew would know that anyone "who is hung
on a tree is under God's curse" (Deut 21:23). So, to all outward
appearances, Jesus was a messianic pretender who justifiably died a criminal's
death.
Paul's
encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus forced him to do some
reevaluating. He realized he had been wrong in his assessment of Jesus. Jesus
died a criminal's death, but the criminal was actually everyone except Jesus.
In short, one died for all. Paul initially came to a false conclusion because
the standards he used to form his judgments were wrong. We once regarded
Christ, he says, from a worldly point of view (NIV in this way; v. 16). The NIV
is a free translation of ei kai egnokamen kata sarka Christon: "Even if we
knew Christ according to the flesh." Some have understood Paul to be
rejecting knowledge of the earthly, physical Jesus in favor of the risen,
spiritual Christ. But this is to take the verse out of context. He has just
distinguished himself from those who form their judgments of a person on the
basis of external appearances ("what is seen," v. 12). In particular,
he is thinking of the Corinthian intruders who presented themselves as power
evangelists and polished speakers, emphasizing the outward display of the
Spirit in the working of miracles, revelations, ecstatic experiences, knowledge
and charisma (see the introduction).
Being
driven to reconsider his judgment of Christ also caused Paul to reassess the
place of the non-Jew in salvation history. From now on, he says, we regard no
one from a worldly point of view. From now on is probably calculated from the
moment Paul became convinced that one died for all (v. 14). The emphatic
position of we in the clause we regard no one may well indicate that others
(like Paul's critics) do judge in this fashion (Murphy-O'Connor 1991:59).
"To regard" translates too different Greek verbs that are virtual
synonyms. Oida (perfect of horao) is to see with the mind's eye (that is,
"to know by reflection"), while ginosko is to know by observation.
Both oida and ginosko, when used of persons, mean "to have knowledge
of," "to be acquainted with." Here the sense is to have enough
knowledge to form an opinion or estimate of someone. Formerly, Paul based his
estimates of people "after the flesh" (kata sarka), a favorite phrase
that occurs toenty times in his letters. The term sarx (flesh) can refer not
only to what is physical but also to what is human or worldly. Thus to know
someone "after the flesh" is to form an estimate of them on the basis
of human standards (regard . . . from a worldly point of view). Yet human
standards are faulty because they are based on externals like heritage,
intelligence, wealth and social status (2 Cor 11:22; 1 Cor 1:26).
Paul's
new estimate is that Christ died not only for the Jew but also for the non-Jew.
Caiaphas had advised the Jewish leadership that it would be good "if one
man died for the people" (John 18:14). Paul's judgment is that one died for
all—for the Jew and non-Jew alike. This was a radical shift for a Jew to make.
Because of non-Jewish heritage, the Gentile's place in the kingdom was thought
to be at best that of a second-class citizen. Now "in Christ" there
is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal 3:28). Indeed, Paul can go even further and
claim that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the
new has come! (v. 17). Kainos (new) denotes what is fresh or newly made. Kaine
ktisis can mean either "there is a new creation" (RSV, NRSV, NEB,
REB, JB) or "a new creature" (KJV, NKJV, TEV, LB, Phillips, NASB,
NIV). The former has to do with the dawning of a new age, the latter with the
creation of new life within. Ktisis is normally used in Paul's letters of
creation in its entirety (Furnish 1984:314). But the previous verses speak of a
new estimate of people, not things. It is the world's way of evaluating people
that will no longer suffice; for if someone is "in Christ, he becomes a
new person altogether" (Phillips).
The
values of the world were evidently still having their way in the Corinthian
community, influencing their judgments (5:12) and their behavior (12:20-21).
Critiqued by the world's standards, Paul comes out looking like the underdog of
humanity instead of the servant of Christ. In part, this is the fault of rival
missionaries, who reasoned from outward conformity to the world's standards and
values to ministerial credibility. Paul calls this way of viewing things the
old way. Archaios, when used of things, as here, means "old-fashioned,
"antiquated" or "worn out" (ta archaia). This old way of
thinking about things, Paul says, has gone (parelthen). The aorist points to
something that has passed out of existence.
In
its place the new has come. Paul's pronouncement is prefaced by idou
("look"; translated as an exclamation point in the NIV), a particle
frequently used to arouse the attention of the listener or reader (Bauer, Arndt
and Gingrich 1979). The word new (kainos) denotes that which is qualitatively better
as compared with what has existed until now (Haarbeck, Link and Brown
1976:670). A better way of looking at things has come. The tense is perfect
(gegonen)—a new set of standards and attitudes "has come to stay" (M.
J. Harris 1976:353) so that a person is now to be judged in a completely new
light. Paul has in mind specifically the person in Christ. This is a favorite
phrase of his that more often than not means "to belong to Christ."
The Bible Panorama
2 Corinthians 5
V 1–5: RESERVED! Our bodies, the
earthly dwelling place for our souls, are deteriorating. But Christians in
Corinth then, or anywhere now, own the title deeds to an eternal home to come!
Furthermore, there will be a new resurrection body to clothe us, in which we
will enjoy our glorious privileges for ever. We have been given the Holy Spirit
now as a guarantee of this glorious future blessing.
V 6–10: REWARDS Notwithstanding the
certainty of salvation in Christ through grace alone, and the fact of one day
being present with the Lord in heaven, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they
must appear before the ‘judgement seat of Christ’ where good or bad stewardship
will receive its just and appropriate rewards.
V 11–15: RATIONALE With that
accountability in mind, Paul persuades men to turn to Christ. Christ’s love
compels him to do this, knowing that Christ ‘died for all’ and ‘rose again’.
These facts demand that lives be lived for Him.
V 16–21: RECONCILIATION Those reconciled to
God, through Christ, have become completely new people. Furthermore, they urge
others to be reconciled to God. The basis of that reconciliation is that the
sinless and righteous Christ was made sin for sinful and unrighteous sinners,
who trust Him, so that they are counted as sinless and righteous in Him.
Dictionary of Bible
Themes
6717 reconciliation, of
the world to God
On
account of sin, people are alienated from God and cut off from fellowship with
him. Through Jesus Christ, God reconciles the world to himself, breaking down
the barriers of hostility and estrangement.
A
broken relationship through sin brings alienation from God
Isa
59:2 See also Ge 3:23-24 the expulsion from Eden; Ge 4:13-14 Cain’s alienation
from God; Isa 48:22; Isa 64:7; Jer 33:5; Lk 18:13 the tax collector’s prayer
for mercy; Ro 5:10; Ro 8:7; Eph 2:1-3,12; Eph 4:18; Col 1:21; Jas 4:4
God
takes the initiative in bringing about reconciliation
2Co
5:18-19 See also Ro 5:6-8; Gal 4:4-5; Eph 2:4-5; 1Jn 4:10
The
means of reconciliation is the death of Jesus Christ
Ro
5:6 See also 2Co 5:18-19,21; Eph 2:13,16; Col 1:20
The
results of reconciliation are both personal and universal
Peace
with God Ro 5:1 See also Ac 10:36-46; Eph 2:14-19; Col 1:21-22
Access
to God Ro 5:2 See also Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12; Heb 10:19-22
Adoption
as God’s children Ro 8:15-16; Gal 3:26; Gal 4:4-6; 1Jn 3:1-2
Peacemaking
throughout the universe Col 1:20 See also Ro 11:15; Eph 1:7-10,22-23
Believers
are to be the ambassadors of reconciliation
2Co
5:18-20
Easton's Bible Dictionary
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 beseeches 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
Encyclopedia of The
Bible
RECONCILIATION. Reconciliation is
bringing again into unity, harmony, or agreement what has been alienated.
According to Biblical teaching, there is need for reconciliation between God and
man because of the alienation between them which has its source in human sin
and the righteous aversion to it and hatred of it on the part of God. The Bible
teaches that God Himself has provided the means of reconciliation through the
death of His Son Jesus Christ.
1.
The Biblical data. The word “reconciliation” (καταλλαγή, G2903) is found four
times in the Greek NT. Three times it is used of the reconciliation between God
and man (Rom 5:11; 2 Cor 5:18, 19) and once of the reconciling of the world to the
covenant line by way of the cutting off of the Jewish people (Rom 11:15). An
intensive form is used (with the prefix apo), meaning “to reconcile fully” (Eph
2:16; Col 1:20, 21).
When
reconciliation has its full Biblical meaning of salvation, the alienation it
removes is clearly the result of sin (Isa 59:12). This is apparent from 2
Corinthians 5:19, where reconciliation is brought into connection with God’s
not imputing trespasses. In more than one place in Paul’s letters
reconciliation appears as the parallel and equivalent of justification (Rom
5:9, 10; 2 Cor 3:9; 5:18). This is not strange because the means of
reconciliation is the death of God’s Son (Rom 5:10). The purpose of sacrificial
death is expiation. The death of Jesus Christ and the imputation of His
righteousness to the sinner is ground for removing the cause of alienation
between God and man, namely, the guilt of sin.
But
“reconciliation” has a broader meaning than “justification.” The word katallagē derives from the
socio-economic sphere (cf. 1 Cor 7:11). It speaks in general of the restoration
of a proper relationship between two parties. It refers broadly to overcoming
an enmity, without specifying how this enmity is removed. In Paul’s writings
the word katallage is contrasted many times with “enmity” and “alienation” (Rom
5:10; Eph 2:14f.; Col 1:22). In the positive sense it has the meaning of
“peace” (Rom 5:1, 10; Eph 2:15f.; Col 1:20f.). The removal of the reason for
alienation brings about a condition of peace between the warring parties.
In
its Biblical sense, “peace” is the inclusive term referring to the restoration
of fellowship between God and man. The inclusive sense of “reconciliation,” as
it is used regarding salvation, that is, overcoming of enmity and alienation,
is reflected in what it has in view, namely, the restoration of peace between
God and man. Thus Paul can exult, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).
The
Bible teaching is that peace is brought about by the death of Christ. We are
reconciled in the body of His flesh through death (Col 1:22). Romans 5:10
speaks of having been reconciled by the death of Christ. Colossians 1:20 speaks
of God’s having made peace through the blood of Christ’s cross.
“Reconciliation”
is used also in connection with the uniting of the Gentiles with the covenant
line (Rom 11:15). In this passage the characteristic traits of reconciliation
are present. Paul says of the Gentiles that they were without Christ, aliens
from Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise. They were far off and
foreign. Christ is the One who brings peace, who preached peace, who is our
peace. He is said to have removed and to have abolished enmity, to have brought
the Gentile near, and to have made of Gentile and Jew one. Gentile and Jew have
been brought into a single commonwealth. What is in mind is not directly the
removal of enmity between God and man but the abolishing of the distinction in
Christ of Jew and Gentile. Nevertheless, what separated them is identified as
the law. It is by the cross of Christ that what separated them, the enmity, has
been broken down. Thus they could be brought together and united in one body.
Of two Christ made one new man, thus making peace (Eph 2:16).
This
and the other elements of reconciliation must be seen against the background of
the all-embracing purpose of God to reconcile all things to Himself through
Jesus Christ (Col 1:20f.). This indicates the scope of the idea of
reconciliation. Having made peace through the blood of Christ’s cross, God has
the great purpose of reconciling to Himself all things in heaven and in earth.
Thus
it is possible to speak of the Gospel of salvation in its broadest scope as the
“ministry of reconciliation” and the appeal of the Gospel to the sinner as the
call to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20).
2.
Doctrinal formulation. The doctrine of reconciliation brings into focus man’s
alienation from God because of sin and God’s provision for restoring man to His
favor. In its most embracive meaning reconciliation has to do with the removal
of that which stands in the way of the proper relationship between God and the
world in the most inclusive sense of the word. Thus it must have in its purview
all the facets of the restoration of the world, including the final
reconciliation of all things in Christ to the Father at the last day.
The
Scripture passages which refer explicitly to reconciliation invariably speak of
man’s being reconciled to God and not of God’s being reconciled to man. At
first sight, it might be thought that there are Scriptural grounds for concluding,
with liberalism, that the alienation was altogether on the side of man.
Liberalism taught that there was an alienation of man from God, but that it was
entirely from man’s side. It would not admit that God was estranged. God
remained always the same, always favorably inclined toward mankind, in spite of
its weakness and sin.
That
the Scriptures speak explicitly only of God’s reconciling man to Himself does
not mean, however, that it is only man who has been alienated from God and not
God from man. Because of sin mankind has come under the righteous judgment and
curse of God. God is too holy to look upon sin; He recoils from it. This
righteous judgment of God must be satisfied, and this satisfaction is
accomplished, the Scriptures teach, by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The idea of sacrifice involves the idea of expiation for sin, which is
necessary if God is to be reconciled. Although the Bible does not refer
explicitly to God’s being reconciled, the Scriptural teaching will not allow that
reconciliation be only on man’s part. Reconciliation is of God to man as well
as of man to God.
Furthermore,
the alienation involves more than a sense of estrangement on man’s part. This
can be seen from Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5:23, 24. Christ commanded one
who brings his gift to the altar and there remembers that his brother has a
grievance against him to postpone making his offering until he has been
reconciled to his brother. This command cannot be taken to mean simply that the
one offering his gift should replace an attitude of animosity toward his
brother with one of good will; for this he would not have to leave the altar.
It means that he should remove whatever is the ground for his brother’s
complaint against him. He should bring a change into the situation which
occasioned alienation between them, so that he and his brother can again be in
harmony. Christ teaches, therefore, that whatever is behind the alienation
should be removed before the worshiper presents his sacrifice. Likewise in the
relationship between God and man, it is not simply a question of an attitude on
man’s part that must be changed. What must be changed is the condition of
alienation which has arisen because of sin. If this alienation is to be
removed, the ground of the alienation, namely, the guilt of sin, which deserves
the divine wrath, condemnation, and curse, must be removed.
Since
this is the case, it is not at all surprising that the scriptural teaching
concerning reconciliation is brought into the most intimate connection with
those of justification and the expiatory death of Jesus Christ. What effects
reconciliation is the sacrifice of Christ, whereby the sinner is relieved of
the guilt and the condemnation of sin and receives the righteousness of Christ
imputed to him. Since release from condemnation involves also being freed from
bondage by the payment of a ransom, reconciliation also has an intimate
connection with redemption.
The
new relationship between God and men, resulting from their reconciliation, is
that of sonship. It is the result of adoption (cf. Gal 4:4f.). Adoption is the
goal of the great divine purpose of reconciliation. It is a direct result of
redemption, justification (Rom 3:25, 26; 4:25), and reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18,
19).
Contrary
to liberalism, contemporary theology has had more place for the idea of divine
wrath. It has had a greater place, therefore, for the idea that reconciliation
involves God as well as man. Contemporary theologians have come to assert that
the divine yes is at the foundation of every divine no. Karl Barth taught that
all men are elected and are reconciled. They must only be brought to realize
it.
Especially
under the influence of Sören Kierkegaard and Karl Marx, the idea of alienation
and estrangement has become a major theme of contemporary philosophy, theology,
and literature. This accounts in great measure for the importance that the
doctrine of reconciliation has assumed in current theological thought. The
notion is often secularized, however, referring only to a reconciliation of one
with his own deeper nature. Even in contemporary theology this secularizing
tendency is present. Its peculiar tendencies do not allow contemporary theology
to view reconciliation in its proper relationship to the sacrificial death of Christ,
expiation, and the imputation of righteousness, all of which are essential to
the Biblical doctrine. See Atonement.
Bibliography
J. Hastings, ed., art. “Reconciliation,” A Dictionary of the Bible (1902), IV,
204-207; G. C. Workman, At Onement or Reconciliation with God (1911); J. B.
Champness, The Heart of the New Testament (1941); F. W. Dillistone, The
Significance of the Cross (1944); A. W. Argyle, “The New Testament
Interpretation of the Death of Our Lord,” The Expository Times, 60 (Oct., 1948-Sept.,
1949), 253-256; J. Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (1955); K.
Barth, Church Dogmatics (1956), IV, i, ii; H. Ridderbos, Paulus: Ontwerp van
zijn theologie (1966).
Reconciliation
(theology)
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reconciliation,
in Christian theology, is an element of salvation that refers to the results of
atonement. Reconciliation is the end of the estrangement, caused by original
sin, between God and humanity. John Calvin describes reconciliation as the
peace between humanity and God that results from the expiation of religious sin
and the propitiation of God's wrath.[1] Evangelical theologian Philip Ryken
describes reconciliation in this way; "It is part of the message of
Salvation that brings us back together with God. ... God is the author, Christ
is the agent and we are the ambassadors of reconciliation (2 Corinthians
5)."[2] Although it's only used five times in the Pauline corpus (Romans
5:10-11, 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, Ephesians 2:14-17 and Colossians
1:19-22) it is an essential term, describing the "substance" of the
gospel and salvation.[3] Ralph Martin writing in the Dictionary of Paul and his
Letters, suggests reconciliation is at the center of Pauline theology.[4]
Stanley Porter writing in the same volume suggests a conceptual link between
the reconciliation Greek word group katallage (or katallasso) and the Hebrew
word shalom, generally translated as 'peace.'[5]
Read
more of the In-depth Series
