Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1989) 77-95.
Copyright © 1989 by The
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF
RECONCILIATION IN 2 COR 5:11-6:2
DAVID L. TURNER
Introduction
The
passage which is the object of this study is one of the most
memorable sections of the NT. R. P. C. Hanson
refers to it as "one of
the charters of the Christian ministry in the New Testament."l C. K.
Barrett
calls it "one of the most pregnant, difficult, and important in
the whole of the Pauline literature."2
Calvin's comment on 5:18 is also
arresting: "Here, if anywhere in Paul's
writings, we have a quite
remarkably important passage and we must carefully
examine the
words one by one."3
While the present author is in
sympathy with Calvin's remarks
about the necessity of carefully studying this remarkable
passage, this
study does not examine its words one by one. Rather
the goal is to
develop Paul's teaching on reconciliation in the
literary context of
2 Corinthians. This necessitates
careful attention to the syntax of 5:11-
6:2 and to the argument of the entire letter. There is also a brief
survey of reconciliation elsewhere in Paul, along with
a concluding
theological synthesis of Paul's doctrine of
reconciliation. The doctrine
of reconciliation involves individual, corporate,
cosmic, and eschato-
logical dimensions which make it extremely
challenging theologically.
1 R. P. C. Hanson, 2 Corinthians (Torch Bible Commentaries;
1954) 51.
2 C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC;
Harper, 1973) 163.
3 J. Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Corinthians and the
Epistles to Timothy,
Titus, and Philemon
(eds. D. Wand T. F. Torrance; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964) 77.
18
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
However,
the real proof of our understanding of it is our competence
as agents of reconciliation in this hostile world.
Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:11-6:2
Background
Considerations
The argument of 2 Corinthians is a
hotly debated issue, mainly
due to major questions about the unity of the letter.
Abrupt changes
in tone and subject manner in 6:14-7:1 and
especially 10:1-13:10 have
caused many to believe that the letter contains
interpolations, perhaps
involving the letters alluded to elsewhere in the
Corinthian corre-
spondence (1 Cor
5:9; 2 Cor 2:4). While these and other related ques-
tions are not determinative
of the exegesis of 2 Cor 5:11-6:2, the
positions adopted in answering them indirectly
influence that exe-
gesis. This study will
proceed on the assumption that 2 Corinthians is
a literary unity from the hand of Paul and that
the abrupt changes
evident in the letter may be satisfactorily
explained by the apostle's
emotional state and personal anguish over the
Corinthians' spiritual
problems.
Another difficult question is the
occasion of the letter in view of
Paul's
earlier contact and correspondence with the Corinthians (Acts
18:1-18;
1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4). This
is related to the identity and views
of the party which was promoting the rift between
Paul and the
Corinthians. One may suggest answers
to this question by attempting
a “mirror reading” of the epistle (cf. 2 Cor 2:11; 3:1; 4:2-4; 5:12; 6:14;
10:1-2,
10-12; 11:3-4, 12-15, 18-23), but there is no agreement as to
whether this party emphasized gnosis, law, or a
syncretistic blending
of many false ideas. It is clear that Paul viewed
his opponents as false
apostles, messengers of Satan whose emphasis on
fleshly show, rhe-
torical flourish, and
self-commendation was antithetical to the mes-
sage and ministry of the true gospel.4
Despite these difficulties the
epistle's argument is clear. In chaps.
1-
7 Paul is appealing to the Corinthians to recognize that his is a true
gospel ministry. Chaps. 8-9
comprise his instructions and encourage-
ment regarding the offering
for the saints in
had evidently been held in check up to this point
erupt in chaps. 10-
13,
where Paul feels compelled to boast about the authority and
4 For discussion of these
problems, see the introductions to the exegetical com-
mentaries. There is a convenient
summary in D.Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1970) 422-41.
P. E. Hughes makes a good case for
the unity of the letter in Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans.,
1962) xxi-xxxv. For an exegetical treatment of Paul's teaching on
the style of genuine ministry, see D.A. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and
its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (New York: Peter Lang,
1984).
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 79
power of his ministry. This polemic is written
sarcastically (cf. espe-
cially 10:1; 11:4, 19-21;
12:13, 16; 13:3) in order to get the attention of
the Corinthians and to convince them that he loves
them and that he
seeks only their spiritual well-being (10:14-15;
11:2, 12; 12:14-15, 19).
In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul is in the
middle of his appeal to the
Corinthians to recognize his personal integrity
and apostolic authority.
This
appeal and defense is developed in between references to time
spent in
Martin
is correct in saying that this section is not a digression or a
rehearsal of the past. Rather
it is an
extension of the same spirit he [Paul] had shown them in calling
them to
repentance (2:2; 7:8-11) and obedience (2:9), and it is a fervent
yet
reasoned appeal to any who were still unyielding to the pressure of
his earlier
appeal and whose friendly attitude toward himself he still has
reason to
doubt. The plea is a renewed call to them to leave their hostile
dispositions
and suspicions of both his message and his ministry and
accept his
proffered reconciliation, already given to the ringleader (2:5-
11; 7:12).5
The
section is intensely theological and strikingly personal, for Paul's
theology and his manner of ministry will stand or
fall together. Paul
presupposes that it is impossible to separate the
gospel message from
the messenger of the gospel.
Exegesis of 2 Cor 5:11-6:2
This pericope6 begins
with the note that Paul's attempts7 to per-
suade people8 are
motivated by awe of Christ's judgment seat (5:11).
Paul
acknowledges that his life and ministry is an "open book" before
5 R..
Martin, 2 Corinthians
(WBC 48; Waco, TX: Word, 1986) 137.
6 Helpful studies dealing
with reconciliation and this passage include J. W. Fraser,.
"Paul's Knowledge of Jesus: II Cor V.16 once more," NTS 17 (1970-71) 293-313; R.
Martin,
"Reconciliation at
lanta: John Knox, 1981)
90-110; J. L. Martyn, "Epistemology at the Turn
of the Ages:
2
Cor 5:16," Christian
History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed.
W. R. Farmer et al.;
McDonald,
"Paul and the Preaching Ministry," JSNT 17 (1983) 35-50; M. E. Thrall,
"2 Corinthians 5:18-21," ExpTim 93 (1982)
227-32.
7 The present tense verb
as conative in force.
Day in and day out, Paul is seeking to persuade people. Cf. C. K.
Barrett,
2 Corinthians, 163; and V. P.
Furnish, 2 Corinthians (AB 32A;
Doubleday, 1984) 306.
8 Hughes' idea that Paul
is referring to persuading the Corinthians, not to evan-
gelism (2 Corinthians, 186),
is too specific. It is doubtful that Paul would have granted
such a distinction between receiving the message and
receiving the messenger of the
gospel. Rejection of the messenger calls into question
the reception of the message (cE.
2:9;
6:1; 7:1; 8:8, 24; 9:3; 11:3-4; 12:20; 13:5).
80
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
God
(cf. 1 Cor 4:4) even though it is necessary for him
to persuade
people of his sincerity.9 He will not get
involved in self-commenda-
tion (5:12; cf. 3:1-2;
10:12, 18; 12:19; but on the other hand cf. 4:2; 6:4;
12:11);
he is not interested in outward appearance but in internal
integrity. Whether he is in an ecstatic state of
mind before God or in a
serious state of mind before the Corinthians,
they have no reason to
doubt his integrity (5:13).10
The prospect of appearing before
Christ's judgment seat is a
strong motive, but it is not Paul's sole motive for
ministry. In 5:14 he
explains (ga<r) that he is also
controlled11 by the retrospect of Christ's
love12 demonstrated by his
death. This constraint of the cross is due to
Paul's
conviction13 that the death of Christ14 represented15
the death of
all. Further (5:15), the death of Christ means that
those who live16
9 Plummer insightfully
explains that the first de<. in 5:11
conveys the antithesis that
"God
knows all about us through and through, but we have to persuade men to believe
in our sincerity." Cf. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Second Epistle of
168.
10 It is difficult to know
the precise reason for his statement. Perhaps Paul used
both of these opposite mental states to defend his
total integrity. Or perhaps the false
apostles were critical of Paul's participation in
the xari<smata.
Cf. 1 Cor 13:1-2; 14:1ff.,
especially vv 18-19.
11 The precise
translation of sune<xei
is disputed, though the general sense is clear.
In
more concrete settings it can mean "to press" or "to
crowd," but here the idea seems
to be "to constrain" or "to
impel." Furnish (2 Corinthians,
309-10) opts for "to lay claim
to" due to usage in the papyri denoting legal
obligation.
12 There is little doubt
that h[ a]ga<ph
tou? Xristou?
emphasizes the love of Christ for
sinners (subjective genitive). Jean Hering's preference for the objective genitive (love
for Christ) is weakly supported. See his The Second Epistle of
Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967)
41-42. Zerwick's argument for a "general"
(others
use such terms as "comprehensive" or
"plenary") genitive comprising both Christ's love
for Paul and Paul's resulting love for Christ is
more plausible, but meanings plausible to
the reader are not necessarily meanings intended by
the author. Contextually the
emphasis is upon God's initiative and grace, thus
the subjective genitive is strongly
preferred. See M. Zerwick,
Biblical Greek (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1963) 13.
13 The aorist participle kri<nantaj should be viewed as
causal.
14 The death of Christ on
the cross (and the resurrection of his body) as the heart
of the gospel is repeatedly stressed in the
Corinthian correspondence. Cf. 1 Cor 1:17 -18;
2:2;
5:7; 8:11; 10:16; 11:23-26; 15:3ff.; 2 Cor 4:10; 13:4.
15 Perhaps
"represented" does not sufficiently stress the substitutionary
nature of
our Lord's death. The debate over the precise
meaning of u[pe>r pa<ntwn is well sum-
marized by Martin (2 Corinthians, 129-31), who favors a substitutionary understanding.
Hughes
(2 Corinthians, 193-95) strongly
argues for a substitutionary understanding. It is
quite clear that terminology such as
"example" or "moral influence" cannot begin to
explain the thought of Paul at this juncture.
16 Systematic theologians
have long debated the question of the extent or intent of
the atonement, and this passage is commonly brought
up. Does the "all" for whom
Christ
died constitute the whole human race or those who will eventually believe in
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 81
should live not for themselves but for the one who
died for them and
again. The theological framework behind this is that
the Adamic
order, characterized since the Fall by selfishness
and death, has been
superseded by the order of the second Adam,
characterized by selfless
living for Christ. Paul's ministry is characterized
not by living for
himself but by living for the one who died for
him and rose again.
Paul
sees believers dying with Christ in the past and standing before
him at the future judgment. Therefore life in
between these two
epochal events can never be the same again.
Self-commendation and
pride in appearance cannot characterize those who are
controlled by
love of their redeemer and future judge.
Second Corinthians 5:14-15 has
stressed Christ's death as a repre-
sentative act and as an act of
renewal. Due to Christ's representative
death, Christ-centered rather than self-centered
living is required of
those who would identify with the gospel. Paul next
in 5:16-17 de-
scribes two consequences of Christ's death.17
First, Christ's death
means that from now on a radically different way of
viewing reality is
present. No one is to be viewed according to the
old order with its
"fleshly" priorities and values;18 Even if
Paul has known Christ in this
manner, those days are gone forever.19
Further (v 17), the former
fleshly worldview has been replaced by a
distinctively Christian one.
him (the elect)? Similarly, are "those who
live" human beings in general, or those who
through faith have come alive spiritually? These
questions are somewhat foreign to
Paul's
immediate agenda in this passage, which is to explain Christ's epochal death
and
resurrection as the ultimate
motivation for his ministry. The universality of Paul's
commission and message would seem to demand that
the whole human race has been
impacted by the cross, and yet that every human
being must come to terms with it
personally in order to experience its benefits.
17 Verses 16 and 17 both
begin with w!ste, a particle of result
or consequence. It
seems best to take both these verses as parallel
consequences of 5:14-15 instead of
viewing v 17 as a consequence of v 16 (Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 314, 332).
18 The phrase kata> sa<rka
describes a
point of view dominated by the flesh, which
should be taken in its pejorative ethical sense (cf.
Rom 8:3-13; Gal 5:16-24). At
the fleshly worldview involved pride in external
prestige and appearance, not in
internal realities of the heart (1 Cor 1:26, 29; 3:1-4; 2 Cor 1:12,
17; 5:12; 10:2-4; 11:18).
19 The combination of ei] kai> which begins v 16b
concedes that Paul once viewed
Christ
erroneously. As Harris states, "his sincere yet superficial preconversion estimate
of Jesus as a messianic pretender whose followers
must be extirpated (Acts 9:1, 2;
26:9-11)
he now repudiated as being totally erroneous, for he had come to recognize
him as the divinely appointed Messiah whose death
had brought life." See M. J. Harris,
2 Corinthians (EBC. 10; Grand Rapids;
Zondervan, 1976) 353. Perhaps the "Christ
party" at
The
view of Reitzenstein and existentialist sources that
this text shows Paul's disinterest
in the Jesus of history is rightly debunked by W.
D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism
(4th
ed.;
82
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Those
who come to be "in Christ"20 by faith in the gospel are part of
a new order for the universe. The former Adamic order (ta>
a]rxai?a) is
gone and a new order has come to exist.21
The cross has once for all
radically changed Paul's view of reality by its
power to begin the
renewal of the universe by renewing individuals
within it (5:16-17).22
This individual and cosmic renewal
which has forever changed
Paul's
view of life is not achieved without human instrumentality. In
5:17
Paul alludes to the divine origin of the new order23 and its
mediation through Christ, but he also clearly
speaks of his own part in
the ministry of reconciliation. The mention of
ministry returns to the
main theme of 2 Corinthians 2-7, the appeal to the
Corinthians to
recognize Paul's ministry as authentic (cf. 3:7-9;
4:1; 6:3). Verse 17
describes the origin of reconciliation in the
Father, the mediation of
reconciliation through the Son, and
the actual accomplishment of
reconciliation through the ministry of
Paul.
At this point it will be helpful to
focus on the vocabulary and
conceptualization of reconciliation.24
When Paul describes his ministry
of the gospel as a ministry of reconciliation, he
uses a familiar image
20 This is the
characteristic Pauline expression for those who are in solidarity with
Christ
by faith (cf. e.g., Eph 1:4, 7; 2:10). Thus there are individual, corporate,
and
eschatological dimensions of this
expression. Thro!lgh faith
in the gospel individuals
enter the New Covenant community (I Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 3:1-18) of
those who
already (though partially) experience the
blessings of the age to come (I Cor 2:6-8;
7:31; 15:20; 2 Cor
1:22; 2:14).
21 Paul's thoughts on the
new order may be based in part on Isa 42:9-10; 43:19;
48:6;
62:2; 65:17; 66:22; cf. Rev 21:1-2,5. The new order as
a divine creation has already
been mentioned in 2 Cor
4:5-6. Despite satanic opposition (4:3-4), the God who
originally created light is now enlightening
sin-darkened hearts as the gospel is being
preached. It is striking that Paul uses the creation
motif to describe the new order in
Christ.
For the Adam-Christ analogy elsewhere, see I Cor 15:20-22; Rom 5:12-21.
22 The phrase kainh> kti<sij
in 5:17 (cf. Gal 6:15) may be translated "he is a new
creature" or "there is a new
creation." Thus there are both individualistic, subjective
interpretations and corporate, cosmic,
eschatological interpretations of the expression.
It
is best to see the two as complementary, however the expression is translated.
Hughes
(2 Corinthians, 201-2) puts it quite
well: “As a man-in-Christ he [Paul] is in fact
a new creation--a reborn microcosm belonging to
the eschatological macrocosm of the
new heavens and the new earth-for whom the old
order of things has given place to a
transcendental experience in which
everything is new. . . . Redemption in Christ is
nothing less than the fulfillment of God's
eternal purpose in creation, so radical in its
effects that it is justly called a new
creation."
23 The clause ta> de> pa<nta e]k tou?
qeou? in
5:18 probably refers to the content of
5:16-17
about the new creation, not to the universe as God's creation (Barrett, 2 Corin-
thians, 115). For verbal
parallels, see Rom 11:36; I Cor 8:6. For emphasis
upon the
Father's
activity in 2 Corinthians, see 1:21; 2:14; 4:6; 5:5; 7:6; 9:15; 10:13; 11:7;
13:4.
24 Helpful studies of the
reconciliation word group may be found in NIDNTT,
s.
v. "Reconciliation. . . katalla<ssw,"
H. Vorlander and C. Brown (3.166-76.); TDNT,
S.v. a]lla<ssw k. t. l. by F. Buchsel (1.251-59).
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 83
from human interpersonal relations. Anyone who
undertakes a study
of soteriological
reconciliation in the NT soon discovers that it is a
Pauline concept. Indeed Paul is the
primary NT author to use the
katalla<ssw word group which is
commonly associated with the
concept of reconciliation.25 The
three key words are a]pokatalla<ssw
(Eph
2:16; Col1:20, 22), katallagh< (Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:19), and
katalla<ssw (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18, 19, 20).26 Of course, the concept
of reconciliation is broader than anyone word
group. Louw and Nida
state that "meanings involving reconciliation
have a presuppositional
component of opposition and hostility, and it is
the process of recon-
ciliation which reverses this presuppositional factor."27 Thus any NT
teaching which deals with God's gracious
redemption as overcoming
the hostility of sinners and establishing peace is
implicitly dealing
with reconciliation.
The use of this word group in extrabiblical Jewish literature is
strikingly different than its NT usage.28
Josephus uses the word
katalla<ssw to describe David's
being asked to be reconciled to
Absalom.29
Also in 2 Maccabees God is implored to be reconciled
to
his erring people
and the efficacy of their prayers.30
This contrasts with Paul's usage
here and elsewhere in that God is always the subject
and never the
object of reconciliation. Human beings need to be
reconciled to God,
not vice versa. God is the initiator and people are
the receptors of
reconciliation. Though L. Morris tends
to minimize this distinction,31
its validity will be supported in later discussion.
25 The simple verb a]lla<ssw, which means "to
change" or "exchange," occurs in
nonredemptive contexts in Acts 6:14;
Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 15:51, 52; Gal 4:20; and Heb 1:12.
The
other occurrences of this word group outside of Paul involve reconciliation be-
tween human adversaries. See a]palla<ssomai in Luke 12:58, diala<ssomai in Matt 5:24,
and sunalla<ssw
in Acts 7:26.
26 Katalla<ssw also occurs in 1 Cor
7:11 describing marital reconciliation.
27 J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.;
1.502.
Louw and Nida also include
the words ei]rhnopoie<w (
(Matt
5:9), mesi<thj (1
Tim 2:5), and a@spondoj
(2 Tim 3:3)
under the semantic domain
of reconciliation.
28 This is noted by
Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 334-35;
Martin, 2 Corinthians, 149;
Thrall, "2 Cor
5:18-21," 227.
29 Josephus
30 2 Macc
1:4-5; 5:20; 7:18, 32ff.; 8:29.
31 L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (
1955) 192-98. Morris is concerned to
show that God is not passive in relation to sin but
rather is actively wrathful against it. His wrath
against sin must be satisfied. This of
course is true, but the fact remains that Paul uses
the term "propitiation" (i[lasth<rion
Rom
3:25), not the term "reconciliation" to describe the satisfaction of
God's wrath
against sin.
84
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Paul's description of the ministry
of reconciliation is expanded in
5:19.32
This verse begins with the difficult double connective w[j o!ti
variously translated "namely" (NASB), "that" (NIV), "that is" (RSV),
"to wit" (KJV),
"for indeed" (DV), and
"what I mean is" (
of these are epexegetical
translations implying that 5:19 further ex-
plains the thought of 5:18. Two other questions
confront the exegete
of this verse. First, should the prepositional
phrase e]n Xrist&? be
understood adverbially ("God was reconciling
in Christ," NIV) or
adjectivally ("God-in-Christ
was reconciling," KJV, NASB)? The first
option is preferable due to the usual usage of
prepositional phrases as
adverbs, not adjectives. Further, Paul's
emphasis is not upon incarna-
tion but upon
reconciliation, and it is his habit to mention Christ as
the means of reconciliation (2 Cor
5:18; Rom 5:10;
second question concerns the periphrastic verbal
construction h#n . . .
katalla<sswn (imperfect plus present
participle). One wonders why
the simple finite verb was not used, and also why
the progressive
aktionsart rather than the aorist
(as in v 18) appears. Perhaps the best
answer is that Paul wished to emphasize here the
element of contin-
gency in the ongoing process
of reconciliation through the ministry of
the gospel. It is noteworthy that the middle clause
of v 19, "not
counting their sins against them," also uses
a progressive tense (logi-
zo<menoj, present participle) to
describe God's reconciling action. Al-
though there is an historic, objective sense in which
reconciliation was
finished at the cross, there is also the
subjective actualization of that
objective truth as the gospel is preached and
people believe.34
32 The following displays
the similarity of these two verses:
18 A ta>
de> pa<nta e]k tou? qeou?
tou? katalla<cantoj h[ma?j e[aut&? dia> Xristou?
B kai> do<ntoj
h[mi?n th>n
diakoni<an th?j katallagh?j,
19 A' w[j
o!ti qeo>j h#n e]n Xrist&? ko<smon katalla<sswn e[aut&?,
C mh> logizo<menoj au]toi?j ta> paraptw<mata au]tw?n
B' kai> qe<menoj e]n h[mi?n
to>n lo<gon th?j katallagh?j.
The
A and A' lines are quite similar except that the object of reconciliation
("us") in A
is expanded to "world" in A'. The B and
B' lines are nearly synonymous except for the
terminology, with B having do<ntoj . . . diakoni<an and B' having qe<menoj
. . . lo<gon. It is
obvious that the major expansion has taken place
in line C, which describes reconcilia-
tion in terms used elsewhere
of justification (Psa 32:2; Rom 4:8).
33 Paul also uses this
combination in 2 Cor 11:21 and 2 Thess
2:2, but in these cases
the combination introduces statements which Paul
does not totally affirm. Some who
believe that Paul is alluding to a traditional
formula at this point translate ''as it is said"
(e.g., Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 317-18). But arguments that Paul is adapting tradition
throughout the passage (as, e.g., by Martin,
"Reconciliation at
convincing. One thing is clear, the thought of v 18
is enlarged in v 19, making an
epexegetical translation such as
"that is" preferable. See further BDF §396; and
T.
Muraoka, "The use of WS in the Greek
Bible," NovT
7 (1964) 65.
34 See Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 318; Hering,
2 Corinthians, 44; and Martin, 2 Corin-
thians, 154.
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 85
Paul's statement in v 19 is that in
Christ God was reconciling "the
world" (cf. Rom 11:15) to himself, not
"us" as in v 18. While some
take the world as equivalent to "all"
(people) in 5:14-15,35 it is more
likely that a cosmic meaning is intended. Though
people are primarily
in mind (note the middle clause of the verse,
"not counting their
trespasses against them,") Paul's thought
cannot be limited merely to
human beings. Paul has been speaking of the new
creation in Christ as
superseding the old creation ruined by Adam's fall
(5:17). Thus it is
likely that he does not mean merely all people
(believers?), or even
the Gentiles as opposed to merely
the universe as a whole. "All things" are
in the process of being
reconciled through the cross of Christ. The effects
of the second
Adam's
obedience can be no less than the effects of the first Adam's
disobedience. As Adam's disobedience
wreaked havoc throughout the
entire created order, so Christ's obedience will
ultimately harmonize
the universe in the new heavens and new earth. The
entire ko<smoj
will ultimately be at peace with God due to Christ's
redemptive
mediacy (cf. Rom 8:18-21; Eph
1:10; Phil 2:9-11;
to be confused with soteric
universalism, since many will only bow
the knee grudgingly. However, recognition of a sort
of cosmic uni-
versalism is necessary if we are
to grasp the glorious comprehensive-
ness of Christ's work of redemption. Paul seems to
picture this process
of reconciliation elsewhere through a military
motif (2 Cor 2:14;
10:3-5;
Coll:13; 2:15). It is as if the decisive battle of the
war has
already been fought, and it is only a matter of
time until the defeated
foes lay down their arms. In God's wisdom the
ministry of reconcilia-
tion already is calling his
enemies to surrender. Ultimately this will
result in the total victory of the Lord Jesus Christ.36
In v 20 contemplation of the
glorious truth of God's program to
reconcile the world to himself through the gospel
of Christ brings
Paul to a conclusion (ou#n). In vv 20-21 Paul takes
the general truths
which he has been explaining and applies them
directly and specifi-
cally to the situation in
very mouthpiece of God, Paul pleads with the
Corinthians in Christ's
behalf to be reconciled to God. Though some take this
to be a sample
35 E.g., Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 177; C. Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians (TNTC; Leicester/Grand
Rapids: InterVarsity/ Eerdmans,
1987) 127.
36 For the cosmic view
see, e.g., Hughes, who precisely comments, "The cosmic
rehabilitation is brought about
through the salvation of sinful men" (2
Corinthians, 209).
37 The verb presbeu<omen (Cf. Eph 6:10) pictures
Paul's ministry as the representa-
tive or legate of a king
carrying out diplomatic or governmental business. That verb was
used to describe such activities for the Roman
emperor in NT times. Cf. 1 Macc 14:22;
2
Macc 11:34.
86 CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
of Paul's missionary preaching directed to no one
in particular,38 it is
preferable to understand it as Paul's appeal to the
Corinthians to
renew their peaceful relationship to God and his
messenger.39 Though
it is true that the personal pronouns
("you") found in many English
translations do not occur in the
Greek text of 5:20, the second person
plural ending of the imperative katalla<ghte
implies that the Corin-
thians are its subject. Also,
the presence of ou#n at the beginning of
5:20
implies that Paul is now drawing a new inference from his
previous general statements about reconciliation.
Likewise, the urgent,
emotive, personal tone of 5:20 makes more sense
if it is directed to the
Corinthians
than if it is merely an example of what Paul would preach
if he had an audience for evangelism. Most
importantly, the context
must be given its due. Since 2:14 Paul has been
making an appeal/
defense to the Corinthians regarding his message
and ministry. Their
rift with him carried with it ominous implications
of defection from
the gospel. The messenger and the message cannot be
separated, as is
underlined in Paul's warning in 6:1-2. Paul is
God's ambassador,
speaking in Christ's stead. Rejection of the
ambassador is tantamount
to rejection of the King of kings and calls into
question the reception
of
the King's message (cf. 2:9; 6:1; 1:1; 8:8, 24; 9:3; 11:3-4;12:20; 13:5).
The urgency of Paul's appeal for the
Corinthians to renew their
relationship with God is underlined
by the striking asyndetic addition
of v 21. Here Paul explains how reconciliation can
be achieved: the
sinless Messiah became sin so that sinners might
become righteous in
him (cf. Rom 3:21-22; 1 Cor
1:30; Phil 3:9). The language is once
more (cf. 5:19b) reminiscent of justification.
Barrett's proposal of a
chiastic structure for this verse is
unconvincing, but he is correct that
the verse "is set out in a carefully balanced
pair of parallel lines."40
Through
the years this striking statement has been the basis of a great
deal of theological debate as the relationship of
Christ to sin was
pondered. Harris correctly comments that these
words "defy final
exegetical explanation, dealing as they do with the
heart of the
atonement."41 This passage
reaffirms and defines the central truth Paul
has just alluded to in 5:14-15: the representative,
substitutionary char-
acter of Christ's death.
The central problem of the verse is
the meaning a[marti<an e]poi<h-
sen.42 How indeed was Christ
"made sin"? Paul affirms in continuity
38
Hughes, 2 Corinthians, 210-11.
39 Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 350; Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 128; and especially
Martin,
2 Corinthians, 155-56.
40
Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 179.
41
Harris, 2 Corinthians, 354.
42 Among many treatments
of this problem, see especially L. Sabourin and
S.
Lyonnet, Sin,
Redemption, and Sacrifice (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970)
185-296.
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 87
with many NT passages that Christ "knew no
sin"43 (cf. John 8:46;
Heb
4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22, citing Isa 53:9; 1 John 3:5).
Nevertheless,
Christ
identified himself with sinners in order to redeem them (Matt
3:13-17; Luke 23:40-41; Rom 8:3; Gal 3:13). Paul does not say that
God
made Christ a sinner, but that he made (appointed?) him to be
sin. While some have argued that sin means
"sin offering," it seems
better to view this as compressed, almost hyperbolic
language in-
tended to say that Christ totally identified with
sinners. Harris elo-
quently explains that it was
Paul's intent
to say more
than that Christ was made a sin-offering and yet less than
that Christ
became a sinner. So complete was the identification of the
sinless
Christ with the sin of the sinner, including its dire guilt and its
dread
consequence of separation from God, that Paul could say pro-
foundly, "God made him. . . to be sin for
us."44
The compressed statement of 5:21
regarding the substitutionary
basis of reconciliation now gives way to a direct
appeal to the Corin-
thians in 6:1-2. The chapter
division is unfortunate, since the flow of
thought runs uninterrupted from the profundity
of Christ's identifica-
tion with sinners to the
appeal for the Corinthians not to receive God's
grace in vain.45 Most scholars agree that sunergou?ntej; in 6:1 speaks of
Paul as God's coworker. This striking thought
fits the context, espe-
cially the thought of 5:20
(cf. 1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess
3:2). Paul does not
mean to lord this over the Corinthians since he uses
the same word to
describe his relationship with them (2 Cor 1:24). Nevertheless, in his
apostolic vocation he is uniquely endowed for
ministry (2 Cor 2:14;
3:4-6;
10:14; 12:11-12), and this heightens the obligation of the Corin-
thians to respond obediently.
Coming as it does after 5:11-21, this
appeal is perhaps the most direct and urgent of the
entire epistle.46
Paul
urges (parakalou?men; cf. deo<meqa in 5:20) the
Corinthians not
to receive the grace of God in vain (ei]j keno>n, cf. Gal 2:2; Phil
2:16;
43 Obviously this is not
to say that Christ was intellectually unaware of sin. Here
the "knowledge" of sin refers to
accepting or approving it, or having an intimate
relationship with it. The verb ginw<skw, and its Hebrew
equivalent it", commonly
fixpress this idea (cf. Ps 1:6;
Amos 3:2; Matt 7:23).
44
Harris, 2 Corinthians, 354.
45 Sources which
recognize that the appeal of 6:1-2 belongs with the flow of 5:11-
21
include Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 182;
Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 341; Harris, 2 Corin-
thians, 355; and Martin, 2 Corinthians, 160. Hughes (2 Corinthians, 211) makes too
much of a distinction between the appeals of 5:20
and 6:2. Hanson goes so far as to say
that Paul wrote 2 Cor
5:19-6:2 as "unostentatious midrash"
because he had been
meditating on Isa 49:1-8.
See A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s
Technique and Theology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974) 167.
46 Furnish (2 Corinthians, 321, 338) states that the
appeal of 5:20-6:2 connects
Paul's
discussion of apostleship (2:14ff.) with a major section of appeals
(5:20-9:15).
88
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
1
Thess 3:5). This expression has been taken in two
different ways.
Some
think that Paul warns the Corinthians so that their genuine
acceptance of the gospel will not be without
beneficial purpose.47
However,
Hering is correct that "acceptance of the gospel
is an action
or state which continues."48 In
this understanding genuine acceptance
of the gospel will be a persevering acceptance. If
this is accepted,
Paul
must be warning the Corinthians to consider whether their ac-
ceptance of the gospel has been
superficial and counterfeit.49 In other
words, the offer and acceptance of God's grace is an
ongoing process.
Though
acceptance of this grace has a beginning, it must also have
continuance. This second option is to be preferred
due to the solem-
nity and urgency of Paul's
argument to this point, an urgency which is
emphasized further in the OT passage cited next in
6:2.50
The section under consideration
began in 5:11 with the awesome
prospect of future judgment. This prospect caused
Paul to have a
ministry characterized by integrity, one which
the Corinthians must
obey. Now the prospect of future judgment should
cause the Corin-
thians not to receive God's
grace in vain. To emphasize this point
even further, Paul cites Isa
49:8 from the LXX. The appeal becomes
more urgent if it is realized that the
eschatological "day of salvation"
is already present. The thought here relies upon
Paul's new creation
emphasis in 5:14-17. The old order is past; the
new order has dawned;
and the opportunity for salvation must be grasped
now, at the "ac-
ceptable time," during the
"day of salvation." Paul thus applies Isaiah's
oracle about the Servant and postexilic salvation to
the gospel era of
messianic salvation (cf. Isa
61:1-2 in Luke 4:19).
Therefore the Corinthians
are participants in the age of oppor-
tunity, and this heightens
their accountability to Paul's appeal. They
must renew their original faith in the message and
messenger of God's
47
Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 131.
48 Hering, 2 Corinthians,
46.
49
Martin, 2 Corinthians, 167.
50 Many lack
understanding and appreciation of Paul's warnings due to a one-
sided and misguided emphasis upon the "eternal
security" doctrine. It must be noted
that the NT generally promises security to those who
are persevering in faith (John
10:27-30;
Rom 8:25, 28; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 1, 21, 25). God preserves those whose genuine
faith produces fruit (Matt 7:15-27). The urgent
warning of 2 Cor 6:1-2 is not excep-
tional in the Corinthian
correspondence (cf. 1 Cor 3:1-4, 16-17; 6:9-11; 8:11;
9:24-27;
10:12;
15:2, 10, 12, 14; 2 Cor 11:2-4, 20; 13:5-6) or in
Paul's other epistles (cf. Gal 1:6;
3:1-4;
4:19-20; 5:2, 4;
places strong emphasis upon the duty of believers to
persevere in good works (cf. e.g.,
Rom
2:7; 8:25; 11:22; 12:1-2; Eph 2:10; 4:1; Phil 1:29; 2:12; Col1:10; Tit 2:7,14; 3:8, 14).
The
cliche bears repeating with urgency: "Faith
alone saves but the faith which saves is
never alone."
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 89
reconciliation. Their hostility to the
messenger is tantamount to hos-
tility to the message. Paul
models God's reconciling activity by open-
ing his heart to them,51
and they must reciprocate (6:11-13).
Reconciliation Elsewhere in Paul
There are many scholarly works which
present detailed studies of
the Pauline material on reconciliation.52
And of course the topic is
regularly treated by systematic theologians and
ethicists. Here only a
brief survey of the major passages is possible.
Besides 2 Corinthians 5, four other
Pauline passages53 speak di-
rectly of reconciliation. Rom
5:6-11 speaks of reconciliation as God's
loving act toward undeserving sinners in which Christ
died for the
helpless enemies of God. Once this reconciliation
has been received,
the believer may rejoice in his/her salvation from
God's eschatological
wrath. Paul's words here take the form of two
arguments, the first
"lesser to greater," and the second "greater to
lesser." If dying for a
righteous or good man is praiseworthy, how much
more is Christ's
death for helpless sinners (5:6-8)? This magnifies
God's mercy in
providing reconciliation through Christ's death.
Second, if Christ went
so far as to reconcile his enemies, will he not in
the end save his friends
(5:9-11)?
This provides assurance that God will ultimately complete
what he has begun in Christ. It is interesting to
note the close
connection between justification and reconciliation
in the protases of
51
Martin, 2 Corinthians, 166-67.
52 See, e.g., J. Dupont, La
reconciliation dans la theologie
de
Desclee de Brouwer,
1953); J. Fitzmyer, "Reconciliation in Pauline
Theology," No
Famine in the Land:
Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (ed. J. W. Flanagan and
A.
W. Robinson;
ment Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1981) 486-92; E. Kasemann, "Some
Thoughts
on the Theme The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New
Testament,'" The
Future of our Religious
Past: Essays in Honor of Rudolf Bultmann (ed. J. M. Robinson
and R. P. Scharlemann;
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 450-56;
of 'Reconciliation,'" Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor
of George E. Ladd (ed. R. A. Guelich;
L.
Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955)
186-223;
R. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology (
1981);
J. Murray, "The Reconciliation," in Studies in Theology, Reviews (Collected
Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1982) 4.92-112; H. Ridderbos,
Paul: An Outline of His
Theology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 182-86; and V.
lor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London: Macmillan, 1941) 83-129.
53 The authenticity of
Ephesians and Colossians as genuine epistles of Paul is
assumed in this study.
90
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
vv 10 and 11 respectively. Eschatological
salvation is the consumma-
tion of redemption already
begun. The "already" (justification and
reconciliation) assures believers of
the "not yet" ("we shall be saved").54
In Rom 11:15 Paul turns again to the
language of reconciliation in
his defense of the wisdom of God's plan for the
Jews and Gentiles. If
the present national unbelief of
of the Gentiles, the marvelous outcome of
can only be described as life from the dead! Paul
has been speaking
of his ministry to the Gentiles as a means of
provoking
jealousy (11:11-14). He goes on to illustrate the
redemptive historical
process with the olive tree (11:16b-24). The
phrase in 11:16 is katal-
lagh>
ko<smou, and ko<smou is clearly an objective
genitive describing
the worldwide opportunity for Gentiles to receive
salvation through
faith in the Messiah of Israel. While reconciliation
in Rom 5:6-11 was
something received individually (5:11; th>n katallagh>n
e]la<bomen),
here in Romans 11 it has more of a corporate
reference to Gentiles
having the opportunity to receive salvation. This
opportunity results
in "the fullness of the Gentiles"
receiving salvation, which in turn
spells the consummation of national
Corporate reconciliation is also the
theme of reconciliation lan-
guage in Ephesians 2. Here
Paul stresses the grace (2:5, 7-8), mercy
(2:4),
and kindness (2:7) of God who reconciles (2:16) those who
deserve wrath (2:3). Here the state of
alienation from God (2:1) is also
described as a state of satanic influence (2:2)
and alienation from
God's
Messiah, covenant promises, and covenant nation (2:12-13).
The
enmity (e@xqra) or hostility removed
by Christ's redemption is not
merely vertical but is also horizontal. The
stipulations of the Mosaic
Covenant
formed a barrier between Jews and Gentiles which Christ
abolished (2:14-15) when he created the church
(1:22) as "one new
man" (2:15), and "one body" (2:16)
in which equal access to God is
opened up to all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike
(2:18). It is
54 This connection
between justification and reconciliation in vv 10-11 may be
illustrated by the following arrangement of the
clauses:
A poll&? ou#n ma?llon
dikaiwqe<ntej nu?n e]n t&? ai!mati
au]tou?
B swqhso<meqa di ] au]tou? a]po>
th?j o]rgh?j.
A' ei]
ga>r e]xqroi>
o@ntej kathlla<ghmen t&? qe&?
dia> tou?
qana<tou tou? ui[ou?
au]tou?:
B' poll&?
ma?llon katallage<ntej swqhso<meqa e]n t^? zw^?
au]tou?:
Both
justification (A) and reconciliation (A') produce the assurance of future
salvation
(B,
B/). There is perhaps a shade of distinction between B and B' in that B states
the
truth negatively and B' states it positively.
Believers will be saved from wrath by and to
Christ's
life.
55 This interplay between
grasped by J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
1959,
65) 75-90.
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 91
noteworthy that Christ, not the Father as generally
stated elsewhere in
Paul, is the subject of the act of reconciliation in
2:16. This is not a
point of tension or contradiction since the Father is
acting to reconcile
through, his appointed Messiah.56 The
experience of reconciliation
through Christ radically redefines vertical and
horizontal human rela-
tionships as there is now peace
between mankind and God and peace
between Jew and Gentile (2:14, 17). Both are
built into one dynamic
dwelling of God through the Spirit (2:19-22).57
When one turns to Colossians there
is less of the emphasis upon
Jew-Gentile
equality which has just been noticed in Ephesians (but
see 1:27; 3:11). Rather, the stress can only be
called cosmic. Paul is not
interested so much in individual reconciliation, or
in redemptive his-
tory, or even in the
corporate unity of Jew and Gentile in the body of
Christ.
He is more concerned to point out that the reconciliation
wrought by Christ leaves nothing outside its
impact. The entire uni-
verse, including both visible and invisible beings,
has in some way
been reconciled by the blood of the cross (1:20).58
Paul's chief goal in
Colossians
1 seems to be the magnification of Christ as the all-suffici-
ent Lord of the universe.
This truth is then applied more directly in
Colossians
2 to the false teaching which has endangered the church.
Thus, Paul speaks of Christ as
creator and sustainer of the uni-
verse (1:16-17; ta>
pa<nta) and as the head of the church (1:18). The
Father
was pleased for divine fullness (cf. 2:9) to dwell in Christ and
to reconcile the universe to himself through
Christ (1:19-20). Here the
familiar vocabulary of alienation (1:21) occurs
again as the presup-
position of reconciliation, as Paul moves from
the universe in general
to the Colossians in particular (1:22). It is
striking that the emphasis is
primarily upon the reconciliation of the universe,
especially the
supernatural powers (1:16, 20). This
is evidently due to the false
teaching about the powers which has been
troubling the Colossians
(2:8,
10, 15, 18, 20). They needed to know that not only did Christ
originally create the powers but also that
subsequently his cross de-
feated them when they rebelled
against their Creator. The term
reconciliation describes both the
defeat of the evil powers (1:20) and
the redemption of the Colossians, who are now
exhorted to stand firm
in their freedom from the defeated powers (1:23;
2:8, 16, 18, 20).
56 M. Barth, Ephesians 1-3
(AB 34; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 266.
57 For a careful study of
the unity of Jew and Gentile see C. B. Hoch,
"The
Significance
of the syn-Compounds
for Jew-Gentile Relationships in the Body of
Christ,"
JETS 25 (1982) 175-83.
58 For a careful study of
this text see P. T. O'Brien, "Col. 1:20 and the Reconcilia-
lion of All Things," Reformed Theological Review 33 (1974) 45-53; as well as O'Brien's
Colossians; Philemon (WBC 44; Waco, TX;
Word, 1982) 53-57,
92
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
While
there are some who conclude that the reconciliation of
things involves the annihilation of evil powers and
unbelieving human
beings,59 this seems to go beyond
Paul's statements and to conflict
with other biblical truths. The doctrine of eternal
punishment does
not conflict with the reconciliation of the powers
and even of those
who reject Christ's redemption. Rather their defeat
in the cross of
Christ
leads to the pacification of the universe. Their eternal punish-
ment is the means by which
eternal peace is achieved on the renewed
earth for the people of God (cf. Rev 21:7-8,27;
22:14-15).
To conclude the survey, a few lines
of continuity between
2
Corinthians 5 and the other Pauline passages may be drawn. It is
clear that Paul's concept of reconciliation was
related to his concept
of justification (2 Cor
5:19, 21; cf. Rom 4:8; 5:9-11). Barrett and
Davies
opine that these two terms do not describe distinct acts but are
merely different ways of explaining freedom from sin.60
However,
despite some overlap it does seem that distinct
truths are expressed
by reconciliation and justification. For one thing
it has been rightly
suggested by Buchsel and
Cranfield that reconciliation is the more
personal term of the two.61 Not merely
a right legal standing but a
harmonious relationship of reciprocal personal love
is the result of
reconciliation. Further, Ridderbos notes that the eschatological, cos-
mic scope of reconciliation
is lacking from justification, which seems
to be concerned only with individual human beings.62
Another line of continuity is the
necessity of reconciliation being
received individually by faith (2 Cor 5:20; cf. Rom 5:11). People are
not passive in the actualization of reconciliation
on earth. There is a
ministry to be fulfilled, a message to be
proclaimed, a Lord to be
received. The message is that people must be reconciled
to God, not
that they are so already.63
Three other matters call for brief
notice. The horizontal aspect of
reconciliation so emphasized in
Ephesians 2 was threatened by Paul's
59 Recently this has been
argued by P. E. Hughes, The True Image
(Grand
Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/lnterVarsity,
1989) 405-6.
Against others who attempt to
use this text to demonstrate universal salvation,
O'Brien (Colossians, Philemon, 57)
says
"Although
all things will finally unite to bow in the name of Jesus and to acknowledge
him as Lord (Phil 2:10-11), it is not to be assumed
that this will be done gladly by
all. . . .
60 C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (HNTC; New York:
Harper, 1957)
108; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,
36.
.
61 Buchsel,
"a]lla<ssw,"
255-56; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans
(2 vols.; ICC;
1975, 79) 1.267.
62 Ridderbos, Paul,
160-61.
63 Thrall, "2 Cor 5:18-21," 228.
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION
93
strained relations with the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:20; cf. Eph 2:16). The
cosmic aspect of reconciliation found in Colossians 1
is connected in
2
Corinthians 5 with the renewal of all things (2 Cor
5:17; cf.
1:20).
And finally, it is repeatedly evident that
reconciliation is a state
which must be maintained by the believer's
perseverance (2 Cor 5:20;
6:1;
cf. Rom 11:22; Col1:23).
Conclusion: A Pauline Theology of Reconciliation
A brief synthesis now concludes this
study. Though some despair
of the idea of a NT doctrine of reconciliation,
that pessimism is
unwarranted.64 The doctrine can be
elucidated by several contrasts
and by four perspectives. First by way of contrast,
the literature on
the biblical theology of reconciliation indicates
that Paul's teaching
may be explained as follows:
Reconciliation is both.
. . and. ..
Objective Subjective
Accomplished Applied
God's act A person's state
Extra nos In/pro
nobis
Abstract Concrete
Indicative Imperative
Kerygmatic
Parenetic
Vertical Horizontal
Already Not
yet
Personal Cosmic
This
grid for conceptualizing reconciliation attempts to show that it is
a duality. The sovereign work
of God in Christ. accomplished recon-
ciliation objectively, but God
also sovereignly planned to apply this
reconciliation to individuals through
the work of the Spirit in the
proclamation of the message.
Individual reception of the message
changes both vertical (Godward)
and horizontal (humanward) rela-
tionships as peace permeates the
whole of one's life. Those who
receive reconciliation have already received a
taste, token, or guaran-
tee of God's future work in their lives and in the
universe as a whole.
They
also individually begin to model the kind of peaceful relation-
ships in every area of life which God has ordained
for the eschaton.
Paul’s
strained relationship with the Corinthians is a serious aberration
from this ideal, and he desperately desires to
resolve the hostility.
64 See
tion in the New
Testament,'" 49-51; J. A. Fitzmyer,
"Reconciliation in Pauline The-
ology," 162-70. Kasemanns pessimism is largely corrected by Fitzmyer.
94
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
A
second way of conceiving Paul's doctrine of reconciliation is
from the four perspectives of initiation, mediation,
proclamation, and
actualization. First, God the Father
is the initiator of reconciliation:
ta> de> pa<nta e]k tou? qeou? tou?
katalla<cantoj h[ma?j e[aut&? dia> Xristou?
(2 Cor 5:18)
This
emphasis on the Father as the ultimate source of reconciliation is
also seen in 2 Cor 5:19,
interpreted as a "divine passive"). Though
the Father did not lack the
means to destroy all those who spurned his rule, his
grace initiated a
plan to remove the hostility between himself and his
incorrigible
children.
Second, God the Son in his death on
the cross is the mediator of
reconciliation:
kathlla<ghmen t&? qe&? dia>
tou? qana<tou tou?
ui[ou? au]tou? (Rom 5:10)
Christ's
redemption as the mediating dynamic of reconciliation may
also be noted in Rom 5:11, 2 Cor
5:18,
and 2 Cor 5:19 (EV). The two passages which speak of
Christ as the
subject of the verb "to reconcile"
also speak of him as mediator of
reconciliation (Eph 2:16;
knew no sin as a substitute for sinners so that they
might become
righteous before God. Christ identified with
sinners so that there
would be a redemptive basis for sinners to be
identified with God
through him. The cross did not merely provide an
example by which
sinners were morally influenced to turn to God.
Rather it provided a
sinless substitute for sinners by which they
could approach a holy and
just God.
Third, the proclamation of reconciliation
is carried out by Paul:
deo<meqa u[pe>r Xristou?, katalla<ghte t&? qe&? (2 Cor
5:20)
Paul
had been divinely appointed to a ministry of reconciliation
(2 Cor 5:19). His consciousness of
this apostolic commission stood the
test of the Corinthians' disobedience only because
he understood that
as an ambassador of the reconciling God his
message was the func-
tional equivalent of the very
voice of God (2 Cor 5:20). Paul also
realized that the proclamation of this message
demonstrated the
dom of God in redemptive
history. In Rom 11:13ff. he shows how
resulted in the Gentiles experiencing
reconciliation. He goes on to
explain that the Gentiles' reconciliation will
ultimately bring
point of national reception of their Messiah, which
will in turn bring
unprecedented blessing to the whole
world.
Turner:
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION 95
Fourth, the actualization of reconciliation comes only when indi-
viduals hear the proclaimed
message and receive it by faith:
kauxw<menoi e]n t&? qe&? dia> tou? kuri<ou h[mw?n ]Ihsou? Xristou?, di
] ou$
nu?n th>n
katallagh>n e]la<bomen (Rom 5:11)
Individuals
cannot experience reconciliation with God apart from
faith in the proclamation of the messianic mediation
of the Father's
gracious initiative. As individuals respond to
the message of reconcilia-
tion, they gain confidence
that they are now at last in harmony with
the Creator of the universe who has begun a new
creation in them
(2 Cor 5:17). Their destiny is no
longer an unknown which causes
fear. Rather they gain confidence in the good will
of their reconciler
and are assured (Rom 5:2ff.) that they will
ultimately be saved by his -
life (Rom 5:10). The actualization of reconciliation
has even greater
effects as reconciled individuals begin to live
at peace with one
another in the community of the people of God.
Local churches thus
become microcosmic examples of the ultimate
eschatological shalom
which will some day characterize the macrocosm of the
universe
when the Creator brings about new heavens and a new
earth.
As has been often stated, believers
today live "between the times"
of the first and second advents of Christ. The
first advent mediated
the basis of reconciliation; the second will
mediate its universal exten-
sion. In the meantime, may
those who have experienced through the
gospel the end of hostilities and the beginning of
peace with God
make every effort in their family, church, and
societal duties to extend
the message of reconciliation by word and deed.
Paul modeled this
reconciling lifestyle as he patiently served the
Corinthians in obedi-
ence to his master who said,
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called the sons of God" (Matt 5:9; cf.
Jas 3:17-18).65
65 Kasemann
said it well: "Cosmic peace does not settle over the world,
as in a
fairy tale. It takes root only so far as men [and
women] in the service of reconciliation
confirm that they have themselves found peace
with God" ("Some Thoughts on the
Theme ‘The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New
Testament,’" 56).
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: