Reconciliation

John Flavel (1628-1691)

Reconciliation of the elect to God, is therefore another of those beautiful births which Christ travailed for. So you find it expressly, Rom. v. 10. “If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” This [if] is not a word of doubting, but argumentation. The apostle supposes it is a known truth, or principle yielded by all Christians, that the death of Christ was to reconcile the elect to God. And again he affirms it with like clearness, Col. i. 20. “And having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things.” And that this was main and principal end designed both by the Father and Son in the humiliation of Christ, is plain from 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” God filled the humanity with grace and authority. The Spirit of God was in him to qualify him. The authority of God was in him by commission, to make all he did valid. The grace and love of God to mankind was in him, and one of the principal effects in which it was manifested, was this design upon which he came, viz. to reconcile the world to God. Upon which ground Christ is called the “propitiation for our sins,” 1 John ii. 2. “*Now reconciliation or atonement is nothing else but the making up on the ancient friendship betwixt God and men which sin had dissolved, and so to reduce these enemies into a state of concord, and sweet agreement.” And the means by which this blessed design was effectually compassed, was by the death of Christ, which made complete satisfaction to God, for the wrong he had done him. There was a breach made by sin betwixt God and angels, but that breach is never to be repaired or made up; since, as Christ took not on him their nature, so he never intended to be a mediator of reconciliation betwixt God and them. That will be an eternal breach. But that which Christ designed, as the end of his death, was to reconcile God and man. Not the whole species, but a certain number, whose names were given to Christ. Here I must briefly open, 1. How Christ’s death reconciles. 2. Why this reconciliation is brought about by his death, rather than any other way. 3. What are the articles according to which it is made. And 4. What manner of reconciliation this is.

First, How Christ reconciles God and man by his death. And it must needs be by the satisfaction his death made to the justice of God for our sins. And so, reparation being made, the enmity ceases. Hence it is said, Isa. liii. 5. “the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.” That is (as our English Annotators well explain it) he was chastised to procure our peace, by removal of our sins, that set God and us asunder, the guilt thereof being discharged with the price of his blood.

Now this reconciliation is made and continued betwixt God and us, three ways; namely, by the oblation of Christ, which was the price that procured it, and so we were virtually or meritoriously reconciled. By the application of Christ and his benefits to us through faith, and so we are actually reconciled. And by the virtual continuation of the sacrifice of Christ in heaven, by his potent and eternal intercession, and so our state of reconciliation is confirmed, and all future breaches prevented. But all depends, as you see, upon the death of Christ. For had not Christ died, his death could never be applied to us, nor pleaded in heaven for us. How the death of Christ meritoriously procures our reconciliation, is evident from that fore-cited scripture, Rom. v. 10. “When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” i.e. Christ’s death did meritoriously or virtually reconcile us to God, who, as to our state, were enemies long after that reconciliation was made. That the application of Christ to us by faith, makes that virtual reconciliation to become actual, is plain enough from Eph. ii. 16, 17. “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. And came and preached peace to you that were afar off, and to them that were nigh. Now therefore (as it is added, verse 19.) Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints,” &c. And that this state of friendship is still continued by Christ’s intercession within the vail, so that there can be no breaches made upon the state of our peace, notwithstanding all the daily provocations we give God by our sins, is the comfortable truth which the apostle plainly asserts, after he had given a necessary caution to prevent the abuse of it, in 1 John ii. 1, 2. “My little children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not; and if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation,” &c. Thus Christ reconciles us to God by his death.

Secondly, And if you enquire why this reconciliation was made by the death of Christ, rather than any other way, satisfaction is at hand, in these two answers.

First, That we can imagine no other way by which it could be compassed. And,

Secondly, If God could have reconciled us as much by another way, yet he could not have obliged us so much by doing it in another way, as he hath by doing it this way. Surely, none but he that was God manifested in our flesh could offer a sacrifice of sufficient value to make God amends for the wrong done him by one sin, much less for all the sins of the elect. And how God should (especially after a peremptory threatening of death for sin) re-admit us into favour without a full satisfaction, cannot be imagined. He is indeed inclined to acts of mercy, but none must suppose him to exercise one attribute in prejudice to another. That his justice must be eclipsed, whilst his mercy shines. But allow that Infinite Wisdom could have found out another means of reconciling us as much, can you imagine, that in any other way he could have obliged us as much, as he hath done by reconciling us to himself by the death of his own Son? It cannot be thought possible. This therefore was the most effectual, just, honourable, and obliging way to make up the peace betwixt him and us.

Thirdly, This reconciliation, purchased by the blood of Christ, is offered unto men by the gospel, upon certain articles and conditions; upon the performance whereof it actually becomes theirs; and without which, notwithstanding all that Christ hath done and suffered, the breach still continues betwixt them and God. And let no man think this a derogation from the freeness and riches of grace, for these things serve singularly to illustrate and commend the grace of God to sinners.

As he consulted his own glory, in the terms on which he offers us our peace with him: so it is his grace which brings up souls to those terms of reconciliation. And surely he hath not suspended the mercy of our reconciliation upon unreasonable or impossible conditions. He hath not said, if you will do as much for me, as you have done against me, I will be at peace with you; but the two grand articles of peace with God, are repentance and faith. In the first, we lay down arms against God, and it is meet it should be so, before he re-admits us into a state of peace and favour; in the other, we accept Christ and pardon through him with a thankful heart, yielding up ourselves to his government, which is equally reasonable.

These are the terms on which we are actually reconciled to God. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” So Rom. v. 1. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” And surely it would not become the holy God to own, as his friend and favourite, a man that goes on perversely and impenitently in the way of sin; not so much as acknowledging, or once bewailing the wrong he hath done him, purposing to do so no more; or to receive into amity one that slights and rejects the Lord Jesus, whose precious blood was shed to procure and purchase peace and pardon for sinners.

But if there be any poor soul, that saith in his heart, it repents me for sinning against God, and is sincerely willing to come to Christ, upon gospel-terms, he shall have peace. And that peace,

Fourthly, Is no common peace, The reconciliation which the Lord Jesus died to procure for broken-hearted believers, it is,

First, A firm well-bottomed reconciliation, putting the reconciled soul beyond all possibility of coming under God’s wrath any more, Isa. liv. 10. “Mountains may depart, and hills be removed, but the covenant of this peace cannot be removed.” Christ is a surety, by way of caution, to prevent the new breaches, 2 John i. 2.

Secondly, This reconciliation with God is the fountain out of which all our other comforts flow to us; this is plainly included in those words of Eliphaz to Job, chap. xxii. 21. “Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace, thereby good shall come upon thee.” As trade flourishes, and riches come in when peace is made betwixt states and kingdoms; so all spiritual and temporal mercies flow into our bosoms, when once we are reconciled to God. What the comfort of such a peace will be in a day of straits and dangers, and what it will be valued at in a dying day, who but he that feels it can declare? And yet such an one cannot fully declare it, for it passes all understanding, Phil. iv. 7. We shall now make some improvements of this, and pass on to the third end of the death of Christ.

(From: “Works”)

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)

It is a vain distinction of Mr. Denne, who would have a reconciliation of God to man, and of man to God; 1. Because we read that man is reconciled to God, (Rom., v, 10; 2 Cor., v, 18-20; Col., i, 20, 21; Eph. ii, 16). Man is the enemy, whereas in Adam he was a friend, and in Christ, the second Adam, he is made a friend. But that God is reconciled to man, or changed toward his own elect from an enemy, and a God that hateth their persons, into a friend and lover of them, I never read: if at any time God be said to be comforted toward his people, or eased, these are borrowed speeches. 2. Love of election, yea, the love that putteth God on work to redeem, call, justify, sanctify the elect, is no love bought with hire, yea, the price of redemption which Christ gave for sinners, cannot buy eternal love. Blood, and the blood of God shed, cannot wadset [or mortgage] ancient love; all the sins of devils, of men, cannot forfeit it: make sins, floods and seas, and ten thousand worlds of rivers, they cannot quench that eternal coal and flame in the breast of so free a lover as God;– in a word, the shed blood of Christ is an effect, not a cause of infinite love. 3. What, then, doth reconciliation place any new thing in God? No. Doth it turn him from a hater into a lover? No. Reconciliation active on the Lord’s part, is a change of his outward dispensation, not of his inward affections. “Fury is not in me,” he saith himself, (Isa., xxvii, 4). He cannot wax hot and fiery in the acts of his spotless and holy will. Reconciliation turneth not the heart, but the hand of the Lord upon the little ones, as he speaketh, so that he cannot deal with or punish his elect, as otherwise he would do. The Lord’s justice may be satisfied, his love cannot be bribed or hired, and the effect of justice, the inflicting of infinite wrath, is diverted, as a river that runneth east, hath been made to run west, and an issue of blood in one member of the body, hath been diverted to run in another channel. Justice was to run through the elect of God in the due and legal punishment of the sinner, (which yet is extraneous to the just and eternal will of God;) but infinite wise mercy, caused that river to run in another vein, through the soul of Jesus Christ.

(From: “The Trial and Triumph of Faith”)

Robert Shaw (1795-1863)

He [i.e. Christ] purchased reconciliation for his people. This necessarily flows from the former; for if justice is fully satisfied, God’s judicial displeasure must be turned away. It is sin which separates between God and sinners; and, therefore, Christ made reconciliation by satisfying divine justice for sin–the cause of the separation. God was not merely rendered reconcileable, but fully reconciled, by the death of Christ. If God were only reconcileable, then some acts of our own must be the proper ground of our reconciliation. But such a sentiment is subversive of the gospel, which everywhere declares, that Christ made reconciliation by his death.–Rom. v. 10. From this, however, it will by no means follow, that the elect are in a state of actual reconciliation, either from the time of Christ’s death, or from the first moment of their own existence. The Scripture represents them as being “by nature children of wrath, even as others.” A sure foundation for their reconciliation was laid by the death of Christ; but they are only actually reconciled to God when, by that faith which is of divine operation, they accept of pardon and peace as obtained by Christ, and freely exhibited to them in the gospel. “We joy in Christ,” says an apostle, “through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement,” or rather the reconciliation.–Rom. v. 11.

(From: “An Exposition of the Confession of Faith”)

George Smeaton (1814-1889

1. Reconciliation, denoting a NEW RELATION toward God, presupposes a state of alienation between God and man; that is, an alienation which was mutual. It was not exclusively on man’s side, nor was it brought to a termination by a change of moral disposition on the part of man. It was mutual estrangement: on man’s side by sin and enmity (Rom. viii. 7); on God’s side by the wide of gulf of separation which sin inevitably makes (Isa. lix. 2), and by the wrath which cometh upon the children of disobedience (Eph. v. 6). There was mutual hostility, in the proper sense of the word, between God and man: we, on the one side, were alienated and enemies in our minds by wicked works (Col. i. 21); and God, on the other side, was provoked to anger, and under the necessity of visiting man as the object of His wrath (Rom. v. 9).

2. The change of relation implied in the term reconciliation was effected by the atonement, the great fact intervening between divine wrath and the objects over whom the wrath impended. This is the objective ground of reconciliation, as the special word rendered atonement in one passage properly means (Rom. v. 11); it is the divinely provided fact which is received from God, and the ground of the new relation or favourable disposition of God toward us. It must be observed that we are said to be reconciled to God by the death of His Son as a divine person (Rom. v. 10), or reconciled in the body of His flesh through death (Col. i. 22). And the apostle’s words, which further announce that we are saved from wrath through Christ, plainly intimate that reconciliation, in the proper sense, is by the work of Christ, not by our change of disposition (Rom. v. 9). The favour of God is won for us by the blood of Christ, otherwise we should have been given up to condemnation.

3. The apostle represents the reconciliation as ORIGINATING WITH GOD, who took the step to bring it about. And this leads me to notice a marked difference between the two words PROPITIATION and RECONCILIATION. The former is applied to Christ as the great sacrifice, and the priest of His own sacrifice; the latter is applied to God as the originator of the reconciliation. The Father is the Reconciler in the proper sense, for the benefit emanates from His love; and the mode by which it was accomplished was the non-imputing of our trespasses on the part of God, who was not a mere passive spectator, but an active party in all the reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 19). His love reconciled us, and His anger was pacified. The great fact interposed between His holy anger and our sin was the atoning work of Christ, provided in the exercise of compassion and love. The Lord’s atonement effected the removal of these sins; by which means the anger of God was brought to an end. That is the apostle’s doctrine, as will be evident from several texts which will come before us.

On the contrary, it is argued by the interpreters who have come under the influence of Socinianizing opinions, that the idea of reconciliation does not involve a new relation toward God, or restoration to divine favour. It is held that reconciliation does not indicate any change on God’s side, but only a termination of enmity on man’s side; that God is never called man’s enemy; and that the New Testament never speaks of the reconciliation of God to man, but from the other side of the relation, of the reconciliation of man to God. The whole opposition to the doctrine is based on this mistaken view of the phraseology. Though Scripture describes reconciliation from our side, this can readily be explained. The reconciliation is a divine fact, originating in the love of God; but from its nature it presupposes a displeasure not to be averted but by satisfaction or atonement. The mere fact that reconciliation is not absolute, but by the death of His Son (Rom. v. 10), proves that love is not the only element in the transaction, but that a new relation must be formed, or a transition from wrath to favour. This, too, is the uniform expression in the language of common life, which describes reconciliation from the side of the offending party. Thus, an offending subject is said to be reconciled to the prince or superior, whose displeasure has been incurred. That is the uniform phraseology. But the nature of the case involves a restoration to divine favour: for what is wanting in the case of those who were without reconciliation, and what is conferred by those who receive it, but the full removal of estrangement caused by some offence? And what do they possess who are reconciled to God, but the remission of sins, the removal of guilt, the restoration to a new relation, consisting in the participation of divine favour? There is a new relation on God’s side, that of friendship consequent on forgiveness.

But, it is asked, is not God immutable, the absolute Love? and how can He at once be regarded as loving and hating, as disposed to visit with love, and yet estranged by our conduct to such a degree, that He cannot but treat us as under His wrath? To this the simple answer is: Scripture affirms both, and we must believe both. They well enough consist together, when we recall the twofold relation which man occupies to God, as a creature and as a sinner. God cherishes love to man, whether we think of man merely as he is the creature of God, or still further regard him as in a Surety, or in union with the beloved Son, according to that eternal covenant by which Christ and the redeemed come before God’s eye as one. That man is an object of displeasure, is not less evident to one who knows ought of divine justice; for sins could not but provoke His anger, and bring down punitive visitation in the exercise of His moral government.

Nor is it strange that anger and love co-exist, when we duly distinguish according to the twofold relation already noticed. We may trace the analogy to a far greater extend than is commonly done between God, and man made in the image of God. Thus, for example, David loved Absalom as his son, and gave strict commands to spare him in the midst of that rebellion which, on the highest moral grounds, must needs be repressed with stern severity. We see the father, and yet the righteous king, subjecting that wayward son to his frown on several occasions, because he hated his wickedness, and was provoked to deep displeasure. He loved him as his son, but as a righteous governor mingled punishment with mercy. In the same way, God loves His creatures; yet He cannot but cherish just anger against sin, and against sinners because of sin, as will be sufficiently evinced by the everlasting punishment striking on all who are out of Christ. And this can more easily be conceived, when we reflect that love and wrath are in God an eternal, constant will, expressive of His nature: love being ever active to do His creatures good, so far as it is not obstructed; wrath being active, to visit sin with punitive justice. The atonement is nothing else than a provision to effect the removal of those obstructions or impediments which stood in the way of the full exercise of grace; and it consists in the satisfaction to justice in every respect.

Thus God represents things and persons as they really are: He does not act in any way at variance with His perfect knowledge of man’s double relation as creatures and as sinners. In so far as they perverted their rational and moral nature, they forfeited His favour, and are guilty before Him; in so far as they are His creatures, they are still the objects of His love. But to put them in a new relation, which was possible only be effecting the remission of sins, He made them by federal union one with His beloved Son, sent into the world to occupy their place, and made sin, as if He had become the very cause of the alienation. When He treated Him as if He were the greatest sinner, or as sin accumulated and personified, we see the reality of the representative position which He occupied. And having provided the arrangement by which His perfections could be vindicated and His honour established, He puts men into a new relation–one of friendship and favour–the moment they receive the atonement (Rom. v. 11). They are made friends of enemies. The analogy from the mode of governing a human family throws light upon the whole transaction: for though we cannot in all respects compare God to man, we may infer God’s mode of action from the action of man made in His likeness; otherwise we could not in many respects know God at all. Can a disobedient son enjoy the favour of a parent in the same way as a son who is a pattern of filial obedience? When the displeasure is exchanged for the opposite by the removal of the offence, then the father restores him to favour. But we must meet the objections to this biblical representation more in detail.

a. It is alleged that God is never called the enemy of man, or said to be made a friend of an enemy; and consequently that the term reconciliation does not intimate any change on God’s side corresponding to a restoration to favour. The reasons why God is not called in Scripture our enemy are, that God is interested in His creatures on the ground of His relation as their Creator; that He cherishes mercy in His heart to the prodigal son; and that an eternal purpose was formed to reconcile them. We are to apprehend equally the heart of God and the government of God. Men living in sin cannot share in the divine favour; and reception into favour is undoubtedly involved in the idea of reconciliation.

b. It is held that we cannot adduce anything from biblical language to prove that reconciliation implies aught on God’s side involving the idea of restoration to His favour. This is of easy answer. The apostle connects reconciliation with an objective fact; and one passage may be adduced here as itself conclusive (Rom. v. 11). Paul teaches that we who were enemies were reconciled,–a statement which plainly announces two conditions: one a relation of wrath; another a relation of favour, based upon the great historic fact of Christ’s death. Not only so: he adds, we have NOW RECEIVED the atonement; that is, as the term signifies, have now received the objective ground of reconciliation; the meaning of which can only be, that we have not received a peculiar relation, or a reception into favour unknown before. He is speaking, not of a change of disposition on man’s side, though that of course immediately ensues, but of a fact provided for us in the love of God. The term reconciliation may be said to comprehend what is mutual, because the alienation was mutual. The passage intimates something on God’s side that carried in its train a restoration to His favour.

c. It is further pertinaciously argued, that the New Testament language contains no such expression as God’s reconciliation to man. This, as has been already noticed, is not necessary; and the entire gospel is in indubitable proof of this. It is nowhere said, in any proclamation of the gospel among Jew or Gentile, that they must reconcile God to themselves; for it is God who is always represented, and in the most natural way, as reconciling men to Himself by Jesus Christ (2 Cor. v. 18-21). But how was this done? Not by granting absolute remission of sins, not by a simple cancelling of the trespasses committed by us; but solely by putting Christ, as a representative, in their place to do what they could not have done, and by inviting men upon the ground of that atonement to be reconciled to Himself in a mediator. The whole transaction shows two things–the love of God’s heart, and the rectitude of His government. All who refuse the atonement are, from the necessity of the case, left standing on their own footing as sinners, and out of divine favour; whereas all who receive the atonement are reconciled. Every other mode of reconciliation is deceptive, unavailing before God, and incapable of affording any firm consolation, because it would remain always uncertain whether God could accept the reconciliation. But as it originates with God, and as God in Christ is the reconciler (2 Cor. v. 19), in the exercise of His prevenient grace, we have full certainty that it is acceptable. Certainly that which is of God must be acceptable to God.

Thus on man’s side nothing further is required, than that he should enter into this relation of reconciliation by accepting the atonement as its ground or cause. Nothing was wanting on God’s side of the transaction; and the whole language bearing on this truth amounts to this, that God turns away His anger from, and shows favour to, all those for whom the atonement was offered.

We can thus, on biblical grounds, explode the whole Socinianizing arguments, which allege that reconciliation consists in a change of our hostile will and disposition toward God, and in that alone. Such an exposition, owing its origin to a foregone conclusion, does not satisfy the texts which put reconciliation in a causal connection with the death of Christ (Rom. v. 10); with His blood; with the body of His flesh through death (Col. i. 22). That there is a change of man’s side also is not denied; for the reconciliation is MUTUAL, as the alienation was mutual. But the change of our side is to this extent distinguished from the other, that it emanates from what God has done.

(From: “The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles”)