Ὁ remains inexplicable. Nor is it the Old Testament or the Jewish doctrine, or, it may be added, the doctrine of Paul. Perhaps we need not, with Gess, think of an intermediate class, or, with Ritschl,
22.
of the angels of the Law. To Jewish thought angels stood in the closest rela- tions with men, and were regarded as sharing a moral responsibility for their acts. The angelic princes of earthly kingdoms in Daniel, and the angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse, are Biblical examples of this. A large num- ber of Pauline passages harmonise with the view that the angelic world needed a reconciliation. The detailed proof of this cannot be given here; it belongs to the discussion of the angelology of the Epistle. (See Introd., section ii.) But if the angels needed it, how could it be effected through the blood of the cross ? It is not enough to answer with Haupt that the reconciliation of men affected the angels who were closely united with them. A direct effect seems to be in- tended, and the difficulty is that stated by Holtzmann, that with the flesh all capacity is absent from the angels of Paul, to share in the saving effects of the death of God’s Son, which was made possible through the assumption of the flesh, and in which sin in the flesh is con- demned. In answer to it these considera- tions may be urged. The Son is Head of the angels, as He is Head of humanity ; therefore His acts had an effect on them independently of their effect on men. His death must not be narrowly con- ceived as physical only, as the destruc- tion of the material flesh. It was the destruction of the sinful principle; and therefore is independent in its effects of the possession of material bodies by those whom it saves. And this cannot be set aside by the fact that Paul uses such a physical term as blood of the cross, for the death of Christ was surely more to him than a mere physical incident. So far, then, as the angel world was affected by sin, it needed reconciliation, and received it in the atoning and sin-destroying death of Christ its Head. That in this reconcilia- tion evil angels are not included is clear from the fact that Paul does not regard it as having had effect on them corre- sponding to that onmen. Lueken points out that Paul adds ‘‘through Him” to the words “through the blood of His cross,” and refers the latter to the recon- ciliation of men and the former to that of angels, so that they are simply said to be reconciled through Christ. But the δι αὐτοῦ is an emphatic resumption of δι αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the verse,— εἰς αὐτόν. It is uncertain whether this should be referred to God or Christ. The former is possible, for αὐτός may be reflexive, and reconciliation is usually to