The work of the Lord Jesus Christ is, likewise, a work of reconciliation.¹Initially partly guided by Mark Ross’ valuable ‘Adult Sunday School’ class on ‘Reconciliation,’ available at https:www.monergism.com/school-theology-mp3-series.

Reconciliation is an act of God — like forgiveness, justification and adoption — that effects ‘a change in our state in relation to God.’²Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 614.

‘There is all the difference in the world between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.’

A Rare Word for a Constant Theme

The term is used relatively rarely in the New Testament (Rom 5:1-11; 2 Cor 5:18-20; Eph 2:11-16; Col 1:19-22), yet it’s essential — underlying and informing everything else.

Though the term belongs uniquely to Paul’s vocabulary,³See Timothy G. Gombis, ‘The Apostle Paul,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 669-76. the thought is present throughout Scripture wherever alienation, hostility and relational breakdown are resolved and relationship restored because peace has been made (Luke 15:24; 19:10; 1 Pet 3:18).

Reconciliation is the underlying rationale and overarching thrust of New Testament teaching as a whole.

Culminating in the cross, it’s most beautifully demonstrated in Jesus’ broad ministry to sinners — in healing, deliverance, feeding, teaching, friendship, fellowship — summed up in his characteristic word: ‘your faith has made you well: go in peace, and be healed of your disease’ (Mark 5:34).

Peace Is the Signature

The God of the gospel is ‘the God of peace’ (Rom 15:33; Phil 4:9; Heb 13:20). The person of the gospel — Jesus Christ — is the ‘Lord of peace’ (2 Thess 3:16). And the gift of the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of ‘peace’ (Gal 5:22).

Peace in all its fullness — shalom — is the signature and hallmark of the triune God’s saving work.

So the first Apostolic preaching to non-Jews announced ‘good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)’ (Acts 10:36). The Christian gospel is indeed ‘the gospel of peace’ (Eph 6:15). And ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’ (Matt 5:9).⁴Two fine books on the theme are Graham Cole, God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom (Apollos, 2009); and Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (IVP 1983). One of the earliest discussions – beyond Scripture – about Christ’s suffering and death as reconciliation and restoration to God is Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3 and 5. On Irenaeus, see ‘John Behr, ’Irenaeus of Lyons,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 569—76. See Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:342 for other background, as well as Harry O. Maier, ‘The Apostolic Fathers,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 371-76. See also the fairly advanced works (of differing length and levels of orthodox): Thomas Andrew Bennett, ‘Reconciliation,’ in T & T Clark Companion to the Atonement, 713-18; William Lane Craig, The Atonement (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Oliver Crisp, Approaching the Atonement: The Reconciling Work of Christ (IVP Academic, 2020); Eleonore Stump, Atonement (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Where the Word Comes From

The language illuminates the concept.

The principal Greek verb allassō, and its cognate noun katallage, derive not from the vocabulary of sacrifice but likely from political diplomacy or negotiation⁵Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 85. — carrying the basic idea of a unifying exchange between persons.

So reconciliation is ‘a personal category; [and] means the making of peace after a quarrel or state of hostility.’⁶Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, 72. See also in fuller form Morris, The Atonement, 132-150. It captures ‘the nature of Christ’s peace-making work. As God’s Son he both reconciles all things through an extraordinary sacrifice and pacifies all opponents through a newly creative exercise of power.’⁷Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 85.

There Was a Real Quarrel

Sinners are people who have offended God and so stand at odds with him.

Leon Morris argues that those who are reconciled were previously clearly and entirely at odds with one another — in a state of enmity, hostility and alienation.⁸Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955).

Fellowship between God and humanity was broken entirely through the massive offence of one party — humanity — against the other. Sin results in this: ‘the wrath of God remains’ (John 3:36; cf. Rom 1:18).

For reconciliation to occur, this hostility requires resolution and removal. Peace must be made by taking away the wrong and all its repercussions. There is genuine hostility between God and sinners; unreconciled sinners are God’s enemies (Rom 5:10; 11:28).

So reconciliation means ‘“restore to friendship,” “make up after a quarrel.” It is not a word to describe good relations in general. It means good relations which follow when an enmity has been overcome. … It means bringing people into a state of friendship after they have been at loggerheads.’⁹Morris, Atonement, 132-33.

Sacrifice Alongside Friendship

That distinction sharpens when reconciliation is set alongside Christ’s sacrifice, which not only restores friendship but deals objectively with sin before God:

‘Christ’s sacrifice has objective significance, a significance also valid to God. In the Old Testament, the sacrifices were intended to cover the sins of the offering before the face of God. … Now nowhere does this atonement have God as its direct object, but it does take place in relation to him and therefore before his face (Lev 1:3; 6:7) and aims, by covering the sin, to avert his wrath (Num 8:19; 16:46) and to propitiate him. Similarly, in the New Testament Christ is a propitiation (Rom 3:25), “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2; 4:10), “a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17). As high priest, with the offering of this perfect obedience, he has covered the sins of his people, thus averting God’s wrath and securing his grace.’¹⁰Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 447; slightly amended. See Jeremy J. Wynne, ‘Wrath,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 807-12.

Romans 5:10-11 stands as the pinnacle passage. Paul argues that if, while we were God’s enemies, we were brought into a reconciled relationship through the blood of Christ, then how much more, now reconciled, will we be kept safe through the Saviour’s life.

And not only that — we may now rejoice in God himself. The objective of that reconciliation is unfolded in Romans 8:12-17: believers are adopted by God, brought into his family, becoming children and heirs together with Christ.¹¹Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 121.

Hated and Loved at Once

Without reconciliation, God reckons human beings his enemies — not merely that we regard him as our enemy, but that he stands, in justice, condemning us, altogether opposed to us. There is both judicial barrier and relational estrangement.

And yet God is at odds with sinners at the very same time that he loves them.

Wrath and mercy, hatred and love, judgement and compassion, rejection and acceptance — these are all simultaneously and actively the case at once, and harmoniously so, each absolutely consistent within God’s character.

How this can be so exceeds our capacity for comprehension. Yet, as has been well said, there is all the difference in the world between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

There are things we do know. We know that God loves the image and nature he has made at the same time as hating the sins his creatures perpetrate against him.¹²Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.49.4. We know that we are chosen and predestined in love ‘for adoption to himself in Jesus Christ’ from ‘before the foundation of the world,’ yet until we receive ‘the forgiveness of our trespasses’ we remain ‘children of wrath’ (Eph 1:4-5, 7; 2:3).

Each of these statements is true.

The marvellous mystery is that ‘God reconciles those he recognises, up to the moment of reconciliation, as enemies.’¹³EDT, 727. Loving us, he reconciled himself to us: he loved us first, but, having turned against him, we had to be reconciled to him — and that reconciliation was his own doing.¹⁴Echoing Augustine, as cited in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:449.

Strangely but clearly, there is a fury to the love of God.

—

• 1
  Initially partly guided by Mark Ross’ valuable ‘Adult Sunday School’ class on ‘Reconciliation,’ available at https:www.monergism.com/school-theology-mp3-series. ↩︎
• 2
  Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 614. ↩︎
• 3
  See Timothy G. Gombis, ‘The Apostle Paul,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 669-76. ↩︎
• 4
  Two fine books on the theme are Graham Cole, God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom (Apollos, 2009); and Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (IVP 1983). One of the earliest discussions – beyond Scripture – about Christ’s suffering and death as reconciliation and restoration to God is Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3 and 5. On Irenaeus, see ‘John Behr, ’Irenaeus of Lyons,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 569—76. See Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:342 for other background, as well as Harry O. Maier, ‘The Apostolic Fathers,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 371-76. See also the fairly advanced works (of differing length and levels of orthodox): Thomas Andrew Bennett, ‘Reconciliation,’ in T & T Clark Companion to the Atonement, 713-18; William Lane Craig, The Atonement (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Oliver Crisp, Approaching the Atonement: The Reconciling Work of Christ (IVP Academic, 2020); Eleonore Stump, Atonement (Oxford University Press, 2018). ↩︎
• 5
  Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 85. ↩︎
• 6
  Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, 72. See also in fuller form Morris, The Atonement, 132-150. ↩︎
• 7
  Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 85. ↩︎
• 8
  Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955). ↩︎
• 9
  Morris, Atonement, 132-33. ↩︎
• 10
  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 447; slightly amended. See Jeremy J. Wynne, ‘Wrath,’ in T & T Clark Companion to Atonement, 807-12. ↩︎
• 11
  Hammet and Quarles, Work of Christ, 121. ↩︎
• 12
  Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.49.4. ↩︎
• 13
  EDT, 727. ↩︎
• 14
  Echoing Augustine, as cited in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:449. ↩︎