δι
1 Onl here ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς. 22. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπο-
Ξι Ν.. Tim. iii.
κατηλλάγητε ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου,"
10; Tit.i. παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ' ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον
6, 7 in N.T.
1 So Ln., Tr. mg., W.H. mg., ΚΕΝ. mg., Lft., Ws. with B. αποκατηλλακηται: 17, a corruption from the text. αποκατηλλαγεντες: D* FG, Latin ἆ, e, g, m, Goth., Iren.
(transl.) and others, an incorrect correction of text to improve the grammar,
απο-
κατηλλαξεν: T., Tr., W.H., R.V. with all other authorities, an alteration for the sake
of smoothness, helped by active in ver. 20.
2 So T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with most authorities. avrov: inserted after θανα-
τον (Ln.], [Lft.] with ΝΑΡ.
Further, not only is this exclusion of the angels from the scope of reconciliation inconsistent with the terms ofthe passage, it omits a very important point in Paul’s polemic. To the angels the false teachers probably ascribed the function of procur- ing the reconciliation of men with God. (Cf. Enoch xv. 2, “And go, say to the watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: you should inter- cede for men, and not men for you”’.) How effective is Paul's reply that these angels needed reconciliation themselves ! Assuming, then, that angels are included among those reconciled, and that this is also referred to in the words “ having made peace through the blood of His cross,” the question arises, What did Paul mean by this? Meyer says that in consequence of the fall of the evil angels the angelic order as a whole was affected by the hostile relation of God to them, and the original relation will be fully restored when the evil angels are finally castinto hell. But apart from the specu- lative nature of this explanation, and the injustice it imputes to God, the reference is certainly not eschatological. Godet lays stress on εἰς αὐτὸν, and suggests that the reconciliation is not to God but with reference to God. He thinks that the passing over of sins by God (Rom. iii. 25) might cause the angels, who had been mediators in the giving of the law, difficulties as to the Divine righteousness. This was met and removed by the cross, which revealed God's attitude to sin and reconciled them to His government. We do not know that the angels needed this vindication, which, of course, it was a function of Christ’s death to give, though it is possible (Eph. iii. το, 1 Pet. i. 12). But this interpretation seems to be ex- cluded by the explanation of reconcilia- tionas making peace. And els αὐτὸν was probably chosen instead of αὐτῷ on account of εἰς αὐτὸν (ver. 16), and be-
cause it was stronger and expressed the thought of God or Christ as the goal. The explanation that the angels were confirmed, and thus made unable to fall, is altogether inadequate. Harless, Oltra- mare and others admit a reconciliation of men and angels to God, but without asserting that τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ. needed recon- ciliation, Wherever it was needed Christ effected it. But Paul's division of τὰ π. into two categories marked by εἴτε - . « εἴτε shows that the statement has reference not simply to these classes taken together as a whole, but to each taken singly. Alford, in his suggestive note, after saying that such a reconcilia- tion as that between man and God is not to be thought of, since Christ did not take on Him the seed of angels or pay any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature, gives as his interpretation “all creation subsists in Christ: all crea- tion therefore is affected by His act of propitiation: sinful creation is, in the strictest sense, reconciled from being at enmity: sinless creation, ever at a dis- tance from His unapproachable purity, is lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, and is thus reconciled, though not in the strictest, yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense”. Unfortunately this cannot be accepted, for the strict is the only allowable sense. But it is on the right lines, and indicates the direction in which a solution must be sought. This, as several recent scholars have urged (ΚΙ., Gess, Everling and others), is through taking account of the Biblical and Jewish doctrine of angels. That the angels are divided into the sharply separated classes of sinless and demoniacal is a view on which this pas-