attitude would be of little value. He can exalt the love only by pointing to what God has done, not to what we have done ; our laying aside our hostility, though ultimately required to make the reconciliation complete, is wisely and intentionally ignored here ; it has no place in the demonstration of the transcendent and undeserved love of God in providing the means of reconciliation and in estab- lishing with men a relation of peace. Both in this passage and in ll'», Col 1»"-, Eph 'i'" this distinct- ively Pauline sense prev.ails — and it is the most direct indication we have of the general apostolic thought — that reconciliation is a work complete on God's side before man's share in it begins, a work wrought by God in Christ and made avail- able for the world, which men are besought to ' receive' in order that it may become effective in them individually. That this is the Pauline teach- ing is acknowledged by the great body of NT exegetes, although some distinguished .scholars seriously question it(e.^. A. \\,\tiic\\\,Rccliifertigung xmd Versohnnng, ii. 23011'. ; J. B. Lightfoot, Colos- sians^, London, 1S79, p. 159; B. F. VVestcott, Epistles of St. John', do., 1892, p. 85; cf. also Askwith in Cambr. Theol. Essays, p. 206). Some others, w-ho personally disagree with St. Paul, frankly acknowledge that the hostility overcome by the reconciliation is regarded by him as mutual, and'hence any reconciliation whichis accomplished between God and man must be two-sided. Not only must man renounce his hostility to God, but God must change His attitude toward man — must relinquish His wrath and resentment' (Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation p. 59). Cremer thus states the case in favour of the same position : 'As this view is grammatically as possible as the other ; as, further, there are no lexical difficulties in its way ; and as, finally, it is indicated by the context of both passages (Ro 5" and 11''') — no solid objection can be raised against it ; whereas the other quits the biblical circle of thought, and has merely a hortatory character, but no force as evidence, such as is required, especially in Ro 5 ' (Bibl. -Theol. Lex.^, p. 92). A reasoned theological defence of the same situation is given in HDB iv. 205 tt'. (cf. also Sanday-Headlam, ICC, ' Romans''', p. 129 f. ; J. Denney, EGT, ' Romans,' 1900, p. 625 f. ; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, Eng. tr., 1882-83, i. 428 tt'.).
"The reluctance to accept the Pauline view that reconciliation must deal with hostility on God's side as well as on man's arises mainly from two causes, (a) There is an exaggerated anthropo- morphic interpretation of the signihcance of God's anger against sin ; it is set in opposition to His love, as if these were mutually exclusive, or it is made the expression of the purely judicial demand for punishment. This is not the apostolic view ; for in it there is no conflict between the Divine wrath and the Divine love, nor do they dwell apart ; they are expressions of the one perfect Personality whose name and nature is love. All the processes of redemption are traced in the Pauline discussion to God's own love for sinful men. His anger is real ; it is not simply official as the hostility of a law-giver in presence of a law-breaker ; it is per- sonal, but not a fitful personal resentment : it is the hot displeasure of a fatherly love in presence of all that disturbs the filial relations of His children with Himself, and destroys His ideal for their peace ; it is love's crowning sign, not its contradiction. His anger is the indication that His love discrimin- ates ; for righteousness and love are moral differ- ences which would be lost in a love of God which was incapable of moral indignation and hostility to wrong, {b) There is the unethical conception of the Divine immutability, which leads to confusion of thought ; as a true Personality God can ami
302
RECONCILIATION
EEDEiMlTION
does change His feelings and attitudes ; these must change to conesnond with His moral activity to- wards the changing character and conduct of men ; whilst behind the varying attitudes involved in a change from hostility to complacence, such as reconciliation supposes, lie the uucliangeable char- acter and the changeless moral purpose which give unity and consistency to all God does (cf. I. A. Dorner's ' Divine Immutability ' in A System of Christian Doctrine, Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1880-82, i. 244, iv. 80 ; W. Adams Brown, Christian Theo- logy in Outline, do., IU07, p. 117 f.)-
In 2 Co 5""-', the locus classicus for the apostolic doctrine of reconciliation, St. Paul is supremely concerned with its practical results in the ethical and spiritual history of mankind and in the personal experience of the individual. These results are profoundly assured in the self-identification of God m Christ with mankind, whilst their blessedness is individually realized by the response of a reciprocal self-identification with God in Christ on the part of man ; in this response the reconciliation is per- fected. To achieve this end God in Christ has given a ' word of reconciliation ' and inspires the tender persuasions of a ' ministry of reconciliation,' which are to us men the mystic wonder of the whole redemptive process : for they reveal a love of God which humbles itself to beseech sinful men, ' as though God were intreating by us : we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God' {v.^"). But in this work of reconciliation the initiative is taken by God ; and its cost in sacrificial self-giving is borne by Him. We never read that God has been reconciled ; God Himself does the work of reconciliation in and through Christ, ' God was in Christ reconciling the world (even a world) unto himself ' (v. '"). The self-identification of God with men is made in Christ — it is truly God's self- identification ; the humanity of Christ is the humanity of Deity, which is made manifest in time. In His death particularly Christ identified Himself with men ; He 'died on behalf of all {vTrip irdyTnii'), therefore all died ' (v."). The death on behalf of all involved the death of all ; because through His self-identification with all Christ was the Repre- sentative of all. As it was the death of all men which was died by Him, His self-identification with men, being real in the flesh as in the spirit, involved a true but mysterious fellowship in the deepest mystery of their experience in the flesh — their sin. ' Him who knew no sin he [God] made to be sin on our behalf (v.-'). His death on behalf of all was a death unto sin once for all, that in the flesh He might destroy sin in the flesh. Such a death on their behalf was virtually the death of mankind with whom He was self-identified. The further significance of His death on behalf of all is ' that we might become the righteousness of God in him ' (v.2'). ' Because we thus judge ... he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto hira who for their sakes died and rose again' (v.'^). The issue of this self- identification of God in Christ with man is that ' he is a new creature, the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new' (v."). In this new creation of humanity with its new identi- ties with God in Christ is found the reconciliation to which 'the love of Christ constraineth us' (v."). But the justification as well as the source of all this is God — God Himself, not Christ apart from God ; not man by his penitence or by the response of his submission to God. ' All things are of God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation' (v."). The heart of the apostles' teaching, their gospel of reconciliation, is 'all things are of God.' Reconciliation is a Divinely accomplished fact, done once for all. In the Apostolic Church it was