Colossians 1:20

20. having made peace] Between Himself, the Holy Judge and King, and His subjects. He is thus now “the God of Peace” (Rom_15:33; 1Th_5:23; Heb_13:20); and “we, justified by faith, have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom_5:1).

The Subject of the statement is, as before, the Father. While the Crucified Son is the immediate Agent, the Father “who spared not His own Son” (Rom_8:32), because He “loved the world” (Joh_3:16), is the remoter Agent, Eternal Source of all salvation.

through the blood of his cross] The Cross of the Son. Here first the sacred Atoning Death is explicitly mentioned; its fact and its mode.

“The blood:”—i.e. the Death, viewed as the Ransom-price. Some expositors find in “the blood of Christ” (in the N.T. generally) a reference different from that of “the death of Christ,” connecting it rather with life than with death; with surrender to God, and impartation to man, of the Lord’s vivifying life rather than with the immolation of His life as (because of His undertaking for us) forfeited to the Law. But certainly in this passage, at least, the thought not of vivification but of propitiation is prominent. See the notes just below.—On the subject of “the Blood of Christ” generally the Editor may refer to his Outlines of Christian Doctrine, pp. 85, &c., and to The Blood of the New Covenant, by W. S. Smith, D.D., Bishop of Sydney.

by him] Christ. Lit., through Him.

to reconcile] The Greek verb here rendered “reconcile” occurs elsewhere (in exactly the same form) only in the next verse and Eph_2:16. Its form emphasizes the thought of conciliating back again, after breach of loyalty or amity. Ideally, the whole Church and each individual was (in Adam unfallen) originally at peace with God; then came revolt, and now re-conciliation. On such an ideal view (very different from that of personal conscious experience) see our note on Eph_2:12 (“being aliens.”)

A simpler form of the same verb occurs e.g. Rom_5:10; 1Co_7:11; 2Co_5:18-20. The main notion of both verbs is the propitiation of an alienated superior, so that he accepts offending inferiors, who are thus and then “reconciled” to him. And the superior “reconciles them” so far as he acts on the provided propitiation. Here the Father “reconciles” by constituting His Son the all-sufficient and all-acceptable Lord of Peace. See further our note on Eph_2:16.

all things] For similar language cp. Mat_17:11 (“Elias … restoreth all things;”) Act_3:21, (“the times of the restoration of all things which God spake by … His holy prophets;” i.e. the bringing back of Paradise, and of the Theocracy, in their heavenly and eternal reality). The word “all” is at once glorified and limited by the words, in apposition, just below, “whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens:” see note there. The human and angelic “worlds” are the objects of the “reconciliation” in view here; not “all things” apart from those limits, but “all things” within them. See the closely parallel passage, Eph_1:10.

unto himself] Lit., “unto Him.” But the reflexive English pronoun rightly represents the Greek non-reflexive, in the light of N.T. usage. See Lightfoot’s note.

Here the “reconciliation” of the “all things” is seen to be not (as some expositors, ancient and modern, take it) a reconciliation to one another, so that e.g. angels, alienated by man’s sin, shall again be perfectly harmonized with man. It is a reconciliation of the “all things” to God, in the way of propitiation.

by him, I say] An emphatic resumed reference to the Reconciling Son, standing alone and “preeminent” in His wonderful work.

whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven] Lit., “whether the things,” &c. He refers back to the “all things” just above; see note there.—It is significant that “the things under the earth” are not mentioned in this great phrase. It is surely revealed (1Co_15:28) that all created existence, in the amplest sense, shall in some supreme way be “subdued unto” the Son and unto the Father in Him; there shall be order before the Throne in all the depths as well as heights of being. See Php_2:11, and our note there. But this is another thing from “reconciliation” and “peace.” The universalism of this passage is no negation of the awful warnings of Scripture about the final and irremediable exclusion from “peace” of the impenitent creature.

What then do the words here actually import? We answer with Alford (see the whole of his careful note here): “No reconciliation [of angelic beings] must be thought of which should resemble ours in its process—for Christ … paid no propitiatory penalty [for angels] in the root of their nature, as including it in Himself. But, forasmuch as He is their Head as well as ours … it cannot be but that the great event in which He was glorified through suffering should also bring them nearer to God … That such increase [of blessedness] might be described as a reconciliation is manifest: we know from Job_15:15, that ‘the heavens are not clean in His sight,’ and ib. Col_4:18, ‘His angels He charged with folly.’ In fact every such nearer approach to Him may without violence to words be so described, in comparison with that previous greater distance which now seems like alienation; and in this case even more properly, as one of the consequences of that great propitiation whose first … effect was to reconcile to God, in the literal sense, the things upon earth, polluted and hostile in consequence of man’s sin. So that our interpretation may be thus summed up: all creation subsists in Christ: all creation 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 distance from His unapproachable purity, is lifted into nearer participation … of Him, and is thus reconciled, though not in the strictest, yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense.”—The implied need, even in the angelic world, of the Son’s Work of peace, would have a special point for the Colossians.

Observe, in leaving Col_1:20, the order of the words in the Greek: And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross—through Him, whether the things, &c.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col 1:20. And having made peace through the blood of the cross — The blood shed thereon, by which the design of the ceremonial law having been answered, the obligations of it were abolished, and the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles broken down, in order to their being united in one church; by which blood of the cross also, the sins of men being expiated, peace is made between God and man; by him to reconcile all things unto himself, whether things in earth — Here the enmity began, therefore this is mentioned first; or things in heaven — Those who are now in paradise; the saints who died before Christ came. See notes on Eph 2:15-16. Some commentators, under the expression things in heaven, suppose that the angels are included; therefore, instead of to reconcile all things to himself, Dr. Whitby reads, By him to make all things friendly in him, making peace between them by the blood of the cross; an interpretation which Doddridge thinks expresses “the true sense, and the only sense in which angels could be said to be reconciled; for if it were granted,” according to what some have maintained, “that the angels received confirming grace in Christ, they could not be said, upon that account, to be reconciled: but when a breach commenced between man and the blessed God, the angels, as faithful subjects, must join with him against the rebellious creature, and be ready to act as enemies to him, while he continued the enemy of God.” Macknight, who also thinks that the expression, things in heaven, includes angels, reads and paraphrases the clause, “By him to unite all things to him, whether they be men upon earth, or angels in heaven; that, being joined together in one body for the worship of God, they may be happy through all eternity by that union.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. And—It also pleased God to make him, thus qualified, infinitely transcending in dignity and excellence all possible qualification of any creature, the medium of the reconciliation. This is the second fact in the great plan. “This indwelling,” says Bengel, “is the foundation of the reconciliation.” The Greek order is: And through him (Christ) to reconcile all things unto himself (God), having made peace through the blood of his cross. The emphatic point is, that it is through Christ that God planned and has undertaken the reconciliation of the universe to himself. The reconcile of this verse is parallel with the gather together of Eph_1:10, yet with a broader scope, by as much as Christ’s headship in the universe is broader than his headship in the Church. Yet here, as there, we must distinguish between the divine idea, as framed before the foundation of the world, and its actual realization at the final consummation. The sin which began with the angels has extended to men, and so affected the entire creation that the harmony of the universe is disturbed. Now it is God’s plan that the incarnate Son shall mediatorially restore this harmony of the universe with himself, laying the ground of it in the shedding of his blood on the cross. He is the Lamb of sacrifice foreordained from eternity, 1Pe_1:20. And lest there should be doubts as to how far-reaching the plan is, we are told that the all things embraces the things in earth, and the things in heaven, which terms are identical with those employed in Col_1:16 to designate the entire totality of created things, and can here mean no less. The glorious divine intention, then, was a reconciliation co-extensive with the same universe which the Son mediatorially created. Thus far the plan itself: in its execution the whole tendency is toward a glorious ultimate result. The Reconciler is exalted to the throne of the universe. Myriads upon myriads of men, saints rejoicing on high, and saints serving below, have found his peace. The sinless angels, who never saw God except through the Son, see him now in the glorified Christ, and are brought nearer to him. Of what the final realization will be, the passage does not speak. The resurrection will destroy death; redeemed men and blissful angels will people heaven; and the physical creation be freed from its subjection to vanity. But, reversely, it is in the power of wicked men, freely acting, to trample on the atonement and reject the proffers of peace, thus defeating in themselves the divine plan. Fallen angels, who would seem to have been included in the intended mercy, possibly in their refusal of honour to God’s Son, and their mad, persistent rebellion against him in their day of probation, have thrown themselves out from its benefits, so that they and their dark abode are not included in the reconciliation. Yet lost angels and men will finally be compelled to bow in unwilling subjection to the sceptre of Christ, so that the whole universe will confess him Lord. See note, Eph_1:10.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:20 Through Christ, God has reconciled everything to himself, reestablishing his rule over all creation, including both the spiritual and the earthly realms.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Col 1:20. Ἀποκαταλλάξαι, to reconcile) Eph 2:16.—τὰ πάντα, all things) Eph 1:10.—εἰς αὐτὸν, unto Himself) i.e. unto God, Col 1:22; 2Co 5:19.—εἰρηνοποιήσας, having made peace) Eph 2:14; Eph 2:17. The nominative depends on He has been well-pleased.—διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ) by the blood shed on the cross, and therefore by His death on the cross; or there is an apposition with a Metonymy [see Append.]: by the blood, that is, His cross. The effect of the crucifixion (although not of the crucifixion alone) is the shedding of blood.—διʼ αὐτοῦ, by Him) This repetition both adds to the emphasis, and shows that the all things are straightway explained by it, whether the things which, etc. This phrase, all things, includes also the dead.—ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the earth) It was on the earth that there had arisen the beginning of the enmities; therefore the earth is put first.—τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, the things which are in the heavens) Luk 19:38. It is certain that the angels, the friends of God, were the enemies of men, when they were in a state of hostility against God.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col_1:20.[48] Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis, Bengel. Hence Paul continues: καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα, and through Him to reconcile the whole. As to the double compound ἀποκαταλλ., prorsus reconciliare,[49] see on Eph_2:16. The considerations which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1) that τὰ πάντα may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the universam ecclesiam (Beza), but is, according to the context (see Col_1:16 ff.), simply to be taken as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been created); (2) that the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with his incorrect reference of εὐδόκησε in Col_1:19), but God, who through Christ (διʼ αὐτοῦ) reconciled all things; (3) that consequently ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconciliation of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility among the constituent elements composing τὰ πάντα, but only of the universal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin,[50] as is clearly evident from the application to the readers in Col_1:21. The only correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ. But how far? In answering this question, which cannot be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite (Usteri), nor by the idea imported into ἀποκαταλλ. of gathering up into the unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 257), the following considerations are of service: (a) The original harmony, which in the state of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of the angels, and in consequence of this (2Co_11:3), by means of the transgression of Adam, over all mankind (Rom_5:12). Comp. on Eph_1:10. (b) Not only had sinful mankind now become alienated from God by sin and brought upon themselves His hostility (comp. Col_1:21), but also the whole of the non-rational creation (Rom_8:19 ff.) was affected by this relation, and given up by God to ματαιότης and δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς (see on Rom. l.c.). (c) Indeed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God as it originally existed, since a portion of the angelsthose that had fallenformed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment which is prepared for the devil and his angels. (d) But in Christ, by means of His ἱλαστήριον, through which God made peace (εἰρηνοποιήσας κ.τ.λ.), the reconciliation of the whole has taken place, in virtue of the blotting out, thereby effected, of the curse of sin. Thus not merely has the fact effecting the reconciliation as its causa meritoria taken place, but the realization of the universal reconciliation itself is also entered upon, although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present αἰών the believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the reconciliation, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among the wheat) are not yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still remains in its state of corruption occasioned by sin (Romans 8); and lastly, inasmuch as until the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the devil which has issued from it stillalthough the demoniac powers have been already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of divine triumph (Col_2:15)not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph_6:12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the reconciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the Palingenesia (Mat_19:28) will be transformed into its original perfection, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of δικαιοσύνη (2Pe_3:13) and of the δόξα of the children of God (Rom_8:21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will no longer be anything alienated from God and object of His hostility, but τὰ πάντα will be in harmony and reconciled with Him; and God Himself, to whom Christ gives back the regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the only Ruler and All in All (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:28). This collective reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aorist infinitive ἀποκαταλλάξαι, because to the telic conception of God in the εὐδόκησε it was present as one moment in conception.

The angels also are necessarily included in τὰ πάντα (comp. subsequently, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς); and in this caseseeing that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 269 ff.), considered in themselves as individuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T.[51]it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category, in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels affected the angelic world viewed as a whole. The original normal relation between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsistswhich has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ (Col_2:14 f; Heb_2:14), but will undergo at length utter separationa result which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the Parousia. The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several objects included in τὰ πάντα, meant partly in an immediate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the ΚΤΊΣΙς affected by mans sin, Romans 8, and to the angelic world affected by its partial fall);[52] the idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι, in presence of the all-embracing τὰ πάντα, is as it were of an elastic nature.[53] At the same time, however, ἀποκαταλλ. is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Bähr, Bleek, and others) to ἀποκεφαλαιώσασθαι (Eph_1:10), which is rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived as merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are not to be thought absolutely pure, Job_4:18; Job_15:15; Mar_10:18; 1Co_6:3) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring itan interpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the elementforeign to the literal senseof confirmation in righteousness: quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati. According to Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522 f., Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in the law-giving on Sinai (Deu_33:2; Ps. 67:18, LXX.), to whom he attributes a deviation from Gods plan of salvation. But this latter idea cannot be made good either by Col_2:15, or by Gal_3:19, or by Eph_3:10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Böhmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with the language of the passage.

εἰς αὐτόν] is indeed to be written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from the standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis would be without a motive; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bähr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Reiche, Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others; comp. Estius, also Grotius: ut ipsi pareant), but to God, constituting an instance of the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek writers (Kühner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 776]), the constructio praegnans: to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no longer separated from God (comp. ἀπηλλοτρ., Col_1:21), but are to be united with Him in peace. Thus εἰς αὐτ., although identical in reality, is not in the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph_2:16; Rom_5:10; 1Co_7:11; 2Co_5:18-20), as Beza, Calvin, and many others take it. The reference to Christ must be rejected, because the definition of the aim would have been a special element to be added to διʼ αὐτοῦ, which, as in Col_1:16, would have been expressed by καὶ εἰς αὐτόν, and also because the explanation which follows (εἰρηνοποιήσας κ.τ.λ.) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ (διʼ αὐτοῦ).

εἰρηνοποιήσας, down to σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, is a modal definition of διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι (not a parenthesis): so that He concluded peace, etc., inasmuch, namely, as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is meant to satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free course, Rom_5:1; Eph_6:15. The aorist participle is, as Col_1:21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with ἀποκαταλλ. (see on Eph_1:9, and Kühner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; Müller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to it (Bähr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consistency with his explanation of Col_1:19 (see on Col_1:19), who, moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with Eph_2:14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between Jews and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject; and this is, as in the whole sentence since the εὐδόκησεν, not Christ (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God. The verb εἰρηνοποιεῖν, occurring only here in the N. T., which has elsewhere ποιεῖν εἰρήνην (Eph_2:15; Jam_3:18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has εἰρηνοποίος, is nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX. Pro_10:10.

διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. τ. σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ] that is, by means of the blood to be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2Co_5:21), became the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace between God and the world. Rom_3:25; Rom_5:9 f.; Eph_1:7. The reason, which historically induced Paul to designate the blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His cross, is to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, who ascribed to the angels a mediating efficacy with God. Hence comes also the designationso intentionally materialof the reconciling sacrificial death, Col_1:22, which Hofmann seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite character of a satisfaction.[54]

διʼ αὐτοῦ] not with the spiritus asper, equivalent to διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, as those take it who refer εἰρηνοποιήσας to Christ as subject (ἑαυτὸν ἐκδούς, Theophylact), since this reference is erroneous. But neither can διʼ αὐτοῦ be in apposition to διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τ. στ. αὐτοῦ (Castalio, per ejus sanguinem, h. e. per eum), for the latter, and not the former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the above given διʼ αὐτοῦ, after the intervening definition εἰρηνοποιήσας κ.τ.λ., in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the διʼ αὐτοῦ which stood at the commencement; through Him, I say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph_1:11; Rom_8:23.

εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γ., εἴτε τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ.] divides, without affected tautology (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting the close of this part of the epistle, the τὰ πάντα into its two component parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on τὰ πάντα; comp. on Col_1:16. We have, besides, to notice: (1) that Paul here (it is otherwise in Col_1:16, where the creation was in question, comp. Gen_1:1) names the earthly things first, because the atonement took place on earth, and primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression εἴτε … εἴτε renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: Jews and Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace through the cross of His Son. The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter misexplanation: that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gentiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits.

Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according to Olshausen, at least the tendency of Christs atonement is assumed to have pointed, see on Eph_1:10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p. 133.

[48] According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author is assumed to have worked primarily with the elements of the fundamental passage 2Co_5:18 f., which he has taken to apply to the cosmical ἀποκαταλλαγή. But, instead of apprehending this as the function of the risen Christ, he has by διὰ τοῦ αἵματος κ.τ.λ. occasioned the coincidence of two dissimilar spheres of conception, of which, moreover, the one is introduced as form for the other. The interpolator reproduces and concentrates the thought of Eph_1:7; Eph_1:10; Eph_2:13-17, bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Eph_1:10) into expression in such a way that he, led by the sound of the terminology, takes up at the same time and includes the thought of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles. In opposition to this view, the exegesis of the details in their joint bearing on the whole will avail to show that the passage with all its difficulty is no such confused medley of misunderstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and contains nothing un-Pauline. The extension of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, in particular, has been regarded as un-Pauline (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.). But even in the epistles whose genuineness is undisputed it is not difficult to recognise the presuppositions, from which the sublime extension of the conception to an universality of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. We may add, that Eph_1:10 is not the leading thought of the interpolation at ver. 16 ff. (Holtzmann, p. 151); in ver. 16 ff. much more is said, and of other import.

[49] As if we might say in German, abversöhnen, that is: to finish quite the reconciliation. Comp. ἀφιλάσκεσθαι, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 873 A.

[50] God is the subject, whose hostility is removed, by the reconciliation (comp. on Rom_5:10); τὰ πάντα is the object, which was affected by this hostility grounded of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant (Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal τὰ πάντα would not be suitable; because the whole universe might, indeed, be affected by the hostility of God against sin, but could not itself be hostilely disposed towards Him. See, moreover, on ver. 21.

[51] According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels also, ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, incur judgment. But this conception of angels needing reconciliation, and possibly even unbelieving, is doubtless merely an abstraction, just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely (Gal_1:8). It is true that, according to 1Co_6:3, angels also are judged; but this presupposes not believing and unbelieving angels, but various stages of moral perfection and purity in the angelic world, when confronted with the absolute ethical standard, which in Christianity must present itself even to the angels (Eph_3:10). Comp. on 1Co_6:3.

[52] The idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι is not in this view to be altered, but has as its necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear from εἰρηνοποίησας and from ἐχθρούς, ver. 21, compared with Eph_2:16! Compare Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: διαλλαγῆναι τῆς ἔχθρας, Soph. Aj. 731 (744): θεοῖσιν ὡς καταλλαχθῇ χόλου, Plat. Rep. p. 566 E: πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω ἐχθροὺς τοῖς μὲν καταλλαγῇ, τοὺς δὲ καὶ διαφθείρῃ. This applies also against Hofmanns enervating weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a good one, or of an action, which makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well to him. In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous view of εὐδόκησε) stand, in Hofmanns view, even the spirits collectively, in so far as they bear sway in the world-life deteriorated by human sin, instead of in the realization of salvation.Richard Schmidt, l.c. p. 195, also proceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the bringing to Christ, inasmuch as he explains the καταλλάσσειν as effected by the fact that Christ has become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfeld, l.c. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the sense, which is at variance with the following context, but adheres, for his own part, to the statement that here the author in a Gnostic fashion has in view disturbances of peace in the heavenly spheres (in the πλήρωμα).

[53] Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 269 f., ed. 2.

[54] According to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 362 ff., by the blood of the cross, ver. 20, the death of Christ is meant to be presented as a judicial act of violence, and what befell Him as an ignominy, which He allowed to be inflicted on Him with the view of establishing a peace, which brought everything out of alienation from Him into fellowship of peace with Him. ver. 22 does not affirm the expiation of sin, but the transition of mankind, which had once for all been effected in Christ, from the condition involved in their sin into that which came into existence with His death. Christ has, in a body like ours, and by means of the death to which we are subject, done that which we have need of in order that we may come to stand holy before Him. Not different in substance are Hofmanns utterances in his Heil. Schr. N. T. But when we find it there stated: how far Christ has hereby (namely, by His having allowed Himself to be put to death as a transgressor by men) converted the variance, which subsisted between Him and the world created for Him, into its opposite, is not here specified in detail,that is an unwarranted evasion; for the strict idea of reconciliation had so definite, clear, firm, and vivid (comp. ver. 14, Col_2:13 f.) a place in the consciousness of the apostle and of the church, which was a Pauline one, that it did not need, especially in express connection with the blood of the cross, any more precise mention in detail. Comp. Gal_3:13; Rom_3:25. Calvin well says: Ideo pignus et pretium nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis Christi, quia in cruce fusus.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col 1:20 . To this verse Eph 1:10 ; Eph 2:16 , are partially parallel. It supplies the basis for the Son’s pre-eminence (Col 1:18 ) in His reconciling death. διʼ αὐτοῦ : through the Son. ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν . The choice of ἀποκατ . instead of the more usual καταλλ . is for the sake of strengthening the idea, and by insisting on the completeness of the reconciliation accomplished to exclude all thought that reconciliation by angels is needed to supplement that made by Christ. The reconciliation implies previous estrangement. It is the universal sweep of this passage that makes it at once fascinating and mysterious. Numerous expedients have been devised by exegetes to avoid the plain meaning of the words. The natural sense is that this reconciliation embraces the whole universe, and affects both things in heaven and things on the earth, and that peace is made between them and God (or Christ). The point which creates difficulty is the assertion that angels were thus reconciled. Some have evaded this by interpreting τὰ πάντα of the things in heaven below the angels and those on earth below man. It might be possible to parallel the latter reconciliation with Paul’s prophecy of the deliverance of animate and inanimate nature (excluding man) from the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:19-23 ). But the two are not identical, for one is and the other is not eschatological, and reconciliation is not deliverance from the bondage of corruption. And this helps us little to explain what the reconciliation of all things in heaven is. Nor is any such limitation legitimate; on the contrary, it is precisely in the opposite direction that any limitation would have to be made; for in its full sense reconciliation can only be of beings endowed with moral and spiritual nature. In Col 1:16-17 angelic powers are explicitly included in τὰ πάντα . It is plain that εἰς αὐτὸν excludes the view that a reconciliation of angels and men is intended. This is so even if with Chrysostom and others (including apparently Abbott) we make τὰ ἐπὶ τ . γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ . οὐραν . depend on εἰρηνοπ . For this still leaves unexplained ἀποκ . τ . πάντα εἰς αὐτόν , which makes the reference to angels undeniable. Bengel’s note, “Certum est angelos, Dei amicos, fuisse inimicos hominum Deo infensorum,” may be perfectly true. But it is irrelevant here, for only by forcing the words can εἰρηνοπ … οὐραν . be regarded as other than epexegetical of the preceding clause, and in particular τ . ἐπὶ τ . γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ . οὐραν . as a resolution of τ . πάντα . Abbott’s suggestion that τὰ ἐν . τ . οὐραν . may be inhabitants of other worlds may be true, though for Paul the thought is far-fetched, but does nothing towards excluding the angels. He urges that ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not necessarily equivalent to “in heaven”. But not only did Jewish angelology place the angels in the heavens, but Paul did so too, and has done so only just before in this passage, defining τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐραν . as the various orders of angels (Col 1:16 ). Further, not only is this exclusion of the angels from the scope of reconciliation inconsistent with the terms of the passage, it omits a very important point in Paul’s polemic. To the angels the false teachers probably ascribed the function of procuring 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 intercede 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 cast into hell. But apart from the speculative nature of this explanation, and the injustice it imputes to God, the reference is certainly not eschatological. Godet lays stress on εἰ 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 3:25 ) 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 3:10 , 1Pe 1:12 ). But this interpretation seems to be excluded by the explanation of reconciliation as making peace. And εἰς αὐτὸν was probably chosen instead of αὐτῷ on account of εἰς αὐτὸν (Col 1:16 ), and because 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, Oltramare and others admit a reconciliation of men and angels to God, but without asserting that τὰ ἐν τ . οὐρ . needed reconciliation. 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 reconciliation 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 creation 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 distance 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 (Kl [9] , 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 passage 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, of the angels of the Law. To Jewish thought angels stood in the closest relations 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 number 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 intended, 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 condemned. In answer to it these considerations 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 conceived as physical only, as the destruction 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 reconciliation evil angels are not included is clear from the fact that Paul does not regard it as having had effect on them corresponding to that on men. Lueken points out that Paul adds “through Him” to the words “through the blood of His cross,” and refers the latter to the reconciliation of men and the former to that of angels, so that they are simply said to be reconciled through Christ. But the διʼ αὐτοῦ is an emphatic resumption of διʼ 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 God (so Eph 2:16 , also 2Co 5:18-20 , Rom 5:10 ). We should also have expected διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν if Christ had been meant. On the other hand, the reference to Christ is favoured by the fact that elsewhere in this passage αὐτός always refers to Christ, and by the parallel with Col 1:16 , ἐν αὐτῷ … διʼ αὐτοῦ … εἰς αὐτόν . Decision is difficult; it is perhaps safest to let the Pauline usage determine the reference, and interpret “unto Himself”. εἰρηνοποιήσας . In Ephesians great emphasis is laid on the peace between Jew and Gentile, established by the cross, an emphasis quite to be expected where the unity of the Church is the leading thought; but not to be found here, for the peace is obviously between God on the one side and men and angels on the other; besides which the thought would have no relevance in this connexion. διὰ τ . αἵματος τ . σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ . The combination of the two terms is perhaps for the sake of insisting on the historical fact of the reconciling death against the tendency to seek peace with God through angelic mediators. τὰ ἐπὶ τ . γῆς , probably governed by ἀποκατ ., rather than εἰρηνοπ ., since it and the companion phrase seem to be epexegetical of τὰ πάντα .

[9] Klöpper.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The whole Church.

Now he teacheth how Christ executed that office which his Father joined him, to wit, by suffering the death of the cross (which was joined with the curse of God) according to his decree, that by this sacrifice he might reconcile his Father all men as well them which believed in him to come, and were already under this hope gathered into heaven, as them which should upon the earth believe in him afterwards. And thus is justification described of the Apostle, which is one and the chiefest part of the benefit of Christ.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The Greek order is, "And through Him (Christ) to reconcile again completely (see on Eph 2:16) all things (Greek, 'the whole universe of things') unto Himself (unto God the Father, Co2 5:19), having made peace (God the Father having made peace) through the blood of His (Christ's) cross," that is, shed by Christ on the cross: the price and pledge of our reconciliation with God. The Scripture phrase, "God reconciles man to Himself," implies that He takes away by the blood of Jesus the barrier which God's justice interposes against man's being in union with God (compare Note, see on Rom 5:10; Co2 5:18). So the Septuagint, Sa1 29:4, "Wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master," that is, reconcile his master unto him by appeasing his wrath. So Mat 5:23-24.

by him--"through Him" (the instrumental agent in the new creation, as in the original creation): emphatically repeated, to bring the person of Christ, as the Head of both creations alike, into prominence.

things in earth . . . in heaven--Good angels, in one sense, do not need reconciliation to God; fallen angels are excluded from it (Jde 1:6). But probably redemption has effects on the world of spirits unknown to us. Of course, His reconciling us, and His reconciling them, must be by a different process, as He took not on Him the nature of angels, so as to offer a propitiation for them. But the effect of redemption on them, as He is their Head as well as ours, is that they are thereby brought nearer God, and so gain an increase of blessedness [ALFORD], and larger views of the love and wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). All creation subsists in Christ, all creation is therefore affected by His propitiation: sinful creation is strictly "reconciled" from its enmity; sinless creation, comparatively distant from His unapproachable purity (Job 4:18; Job 15:15; Job 25:5), is lifted into nearer participation of Him, and in this wider sense is reconciled. Doubtless, too, man's fall, following on Satan's fall, is a segment of a larger circle of evil, so that the remedy of the former affects the standing of angels, from among whom Satan and his host fell. Angels thereby having seen the magnitude of sin, and the infinite cost of redemption, and the exclusion of the fallen angels from it, and the inability of any creature to stand morally in his own strength, are now put beyond the reach of falling. Thus BACON'S definition of Christ's Headship holds good: "The Head of redemption to man; the Head of preservation to angels." Some conjecture that Satan, when unfallen, ruled this earth and the pre-Adamic animal kingdom: hence his malice against man who succeeded to the lordship of this earth and its animals, and hence, too, his assumption of the form of a serpent, the subtlest of the animal tribes. Luk 19:38 states expressly "peace in heaven" as the result of finished redemption, as "peace on earth" was the result of its beginning at Jesus' birth (Luk 2:14). BENGEL explains the reconciliation to be that of not only God, but also angels, estranged from men because of man's enmity against God. Eph 1:10 accords with this: This is true, but only part of the truth: so ALFORD'S view also is but part of the truth. An actual reconciliation or restoration of peace in heaven, as well as on earth, is expressed by Paul. As long as that blood of reconciliation was not actually shed, which is opposed (Zac 3:8-9) to the accusations of Satan, but was only in promise, Satan could plead his right against men before God day and night (Job 1:6; Rev 12:10); hence he was in heaven till the ban on man was broken (compare Luk 10:18). So here; the world of earth and heaven owe to Christ alone the restoration of harmony after the conflict and the subjugation of all things under one Head (compare Heb 11:23). Sin introduced discord not only on earth, but also in heaven, by the fall of demons; it brought into the abodes of holy angels, though not positive, yet privative loss, a retardation of their highest and most perfect development, harmonious gradation, and perfect consummation. Angels were no more able than men by themselves to overcome the peace disturbers, and cast out the devils; it is only "by," or "through HIM," and "the blood of HIS cross," that peace was restored even in heaven; it is only after Christ has obtained the victory fully and legally, that Michael (Rev 12:7-10) and his angels can cast out of heaven Satan and his demons (compare Col 2:15). Thus the point of Paul's argument against angel-worship is, that angels themselves, like men, wholly depend on Christ, the sole and true object of worship [AUBERLEN].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross] Peace between God and man; for man being in a sinful state, and there being no peace to the wicked, it required a reconciliation to be made to restore peace between heaven and earth; but peace could not be made without an atonement for sin, and the consequence shows that the blood of Christ shed on the cross was necessary to make this atonement.

To reconcile all things unto himself] The enmity was on the part of the creature; though God is angry with the wicked every day, yet he is never unwilling to be reconciled. But man, whose carnal mind is enmity to God, is naturally averse from this reconciliation; it requires, therefore, the blood of the cross to atone for the sin, and the influence of the Spirit to reconcile the transgressor to him against whom he has offended! 2Co 5:19, c.

Things in earth, or things in heaven.] Much has been said on this very obscure clause but, as it is my object not to write dissertations but notes, I shall not introduce the opinions of learned men, which have as much ingenuity as variety to recommend them. If the phrase be not a kind of collective phrase to signify all the world, or all mankind, as Dr. Hammond supposed the things in heaven may refer, according to some, to those persons who died under the Old Testament dispensation, and who could not have a title to glory but through the sacrificial death of Christ: and the apostle may have intended these merely to show that without this sacrifice no human beings could be saved, not only those who were then on the earth, and to whom in their successive generations the Gospel should be preached, but even those who had died before the incarnation; and, as those of them that were faithful were now in a state of blessedness, they could not have arrived there but through the blood of the cross, for the blood of calves and goats could not take away sin. After all, the apostle probably means the Jews and the Gentiles; the state of the former being always considered a sort of Divine or celestial state, while that of the latter was reputed to be merely earthly, without any mixture of spiritual or heavenly good. It is certain that a grand part of our Lord's design, in his incarnation and death, was to reconcile the Jews and the Gentiles, and make them one fold under himself, the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. That the enmity of the Jews was great against the Gentiles is well known, and that the Gentiles held them in supreme contempt is not less so. It was therefore an object worthy of the mercy of God to form a scheme that might reconcile these two grand divisions of mankind; and, as it was his purpose to reconcile and make them one, we learn from this circumstance, as well as from many others, that his design was to save the whole human race.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. And by him to reconcile all things to himself. This, also, is a magnificent commendation of Christ, that we cannot be joined to God otherwise than through him. In the first place, let us consider that our happiness consists in our cleaving to God, and that, on the other hand, there is nothing more miserable than to be alienated from him. He declares, accordingly, that we are blessed through Christ alone, inasmuch as he is the bond of our connection with God, and, on the other hand, that, apart from him, we are most miserable, because we are shut out from God. Let us, however, bear in mind, that what he ascribes to Christ belongs peculiarly to him, that no portion of this praise may be transferred to any other. Hence we must consider the contrasts to these things to be understood — that if this is Christ’s prerogative, it does not belong to others. For of set purpose he disputes against those who imagined that the angels were pacificators, through whom access to God might be opened up.

Making peace through the blood of his cross. He speaks of the Father, — that he has been made propitious to his creatures by the blood of Christ. Now he calls it the blood of the cross, inasmuch as it was the pledge and price of the making up of our peace with God, because it was poured out upon the cross. For it was necessary that the Son of God should be an expiatory victim, and endure the punishment of sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21.) The blood of the cross, therefore, means the blood of the sacrifice which was offered upon the cross for appeasing the anger of God.

In adding by him, he did not mean to express anything new, but to express more distinctly what he had previously stated, and to impress it still more deeply on their minds — that Christ alone is the author of reconciliation, as to exclude all other means. For there is no other that has been crucified for us. Hence it is he alone, by whom and for whose sake we have God propitious to us.

Both upon earth and in heaven. If you are inclined to understand this as referring merely to rational creatures, it will mean, men and angels. There were, it is true, no absurdity in extending it to all without exception; but that I may not be under the necessity of philosophizing with too much subtlety, I prefer to understand it as referring to angels and men; and as to the latter, there is no difficulty as to their having need of a peace maker in the sight of God. As to angels, however, there is a question not easy of solution. For what occasion is there for reconciliation, where there is no discord or hatred? Many, influenced by this consideration, have explained the passage before us in this manner — that angels have been brought into agreement with men, and that by this means heavenly creatures have been restored to favor with earthly creatures. Another meaning, however, is conveyed by Paul’s words, that God hath reconciled to himself. That explanation, therefore, is forced.

It remains, that we see what is the reconciliation of angels and men. I say that men have been reconciled to God, because they were previously alienated from him by sin, and because they would have had him as a Judge to their ruin, had not the grace of the Mediator interposed for appeasing his anger. Hence the nature of the peace making between God and men was this, that enmities have been abolished through Christ, and thus God becomes a Father instead of a Judge.

Between God and angels the state of matters is very different, for there was there no revolt, no sin, and consequently no separation. It was, however, necessary that angels, also, should be made to be at peace with God, for, being creatures, they were not beyond the risk of falling, had they not been confirmed by the grace of Christ. This, however, is of no small importance for the perpetuity of peace with God, to have a fixed standing in righteousness, so as to have no longer any fear of fall or revolt. Farther, in that very obedience which they render to God, there is not such absolute perfection as to give satisfaction to God in every respect, and without the need of pardon. And this beyond all doubt is what is meant by that statement in Job 4:18, He will find iniquity in his angels. For if it is explained as referring to the devil, what mighty thing were it? But the Spirit declares there, that the greatest purity is vile, if it is brought into comparison with the righteousness of God. We must, therefore, conclude, that there is not on the part of angels so much of righteousness as would suffice for their being fully joined with God. They have, therefore, need of a peace maker, through whose grace they may wholly cleave to God. Hence it is with propriety that Paul declares, that the grace of Christ does not reside among mankind alone, and on the other hand makes it common also to angels. Nor is there any injustice done to angels, in sending them to a Mediator, that they may, through his kindness, have a well grounded peace with God.

Should any one, on the pretext of the universality of the expression, move a question in reference to devils, whether Christ be their peace maker also? I answer, No, not even of wicked men: though I confess that there is a difference, inasmuch as the benefit of redemption is offered to the latter, but not to the former. This, however, has nothing to do with Paul’s words, which include nothing else than this, that it is through Christ alone, that, all creatures, who have any connection at all with God, cleave to him.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(20) Having made peace through the blood of his cross.—On this verse, where St. Paul returns to the subject of the Atonement, with which he began, comp. Eph_2:13-18, and Notes there. In the Ephesian Epistle the treatment of the subject is fuller, and in one point more comprehensive, viz., in bringing out emphatically the unity of all, Jews and Gentiles alike, with one another, as well as their unity with Christ. But, on the other hand, this passage involves deeper and more mysterious teaching in this—that it includes in the reconciliation by the blood of Christ, not merely all humanity, but “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” This is, indeed, only a fuller exposition of the truth that “God was in Christ reconciling the world (the kosmos) to Himself” (2Co_5:19); and that “the whole creation waiteth,” “in constant expectation,” “for the manifestation of the sons of God,” and “shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom_8:19-21). But it is couched in more distinct and striking terms, opening to us a glimpse of the infinite scope, not merely of our Lord’s Mediatorship, but of His Atonement, which, while it almost bewilders, yet satisfies the thoughtful understanding, and more than satisfies an adoring faith. As there seems to be a physical unity in the universe, if we may believe the guesses of science, so, says Holy Scripture, there is a moral and spiritual unity also in Jesus Christ.

Col_1:21-23 apply this truth of the Mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus Christ to the especial case of the Colossians. The subject here touched is more fully worked out in Eph_2:1-2; Eph_2:11-18; the alienation is there described as not only from God, but from His covenanted people; the reconciliation is with God and man in one great unity.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And by him to reconcile all things to himself,.... This depends upon the preceding verse, and is to be connected with that phrase in it, it pleased the Father, Col 1:19; and the sense is, that it was the good will and pleasure of God from all eternity, as to lay up all fulness in Christ for his chosen people, so to reconcile them to himself by him; and which is another reason why Christ is, and ought to be considered as the head of the church, whose reconciliation he has procured, and why he ought to have the chief place in all things, and among all persons. Reconciliation supposes a former state of amity and friendship, and in such an one man was originally with God; and a breach of that friendship, which was made and issued in real enmity in the heart of man; and also a restoration to friendship again: and it is to be understood not of a reconciliation of God to men, which the Scriptures nowhere speak of, but of men to God; and is a reconciliation of them, not to the love of God, which his elect always shared in, but to the justice of God, offended by the transgression of a righteous law; and is indeed properly a reconciliation, atonement, and satisfaction for their sins, and so of their persons, and whereby all the perfections of God are reconciled to and agree with each other in the salvation of such sinners: now this takes its first rise from God the Father; it is owing to his sovereign good will and pleasure; he took the first step towards it; he knew what a state of enmity and rebellion his people would fall into; his thoughts ran upon their peace and reconciliation from everlasting; he called a council of peace about it, and in it drew the model of it; he entered into a covenant of peace with his Son, and, in consequence of it, sent him in the fulness of time to effect it, laying on him the chastisement of their peace; it was his pleasure that this affair of reconciliation should be brought about, not by the means of angels, in whom he could put no such trust and confidence, and who, though they rejoice at peace being made on earth, could never have effected it; nor that it should be done by men, who have no knowledge of the way of it, no inclination to it, nor power to make it; but "by him", his Son Jesus Christ, whom he appointed and called to this work, and sent to do it; and who is therefore, in prophecy, before this reconciliation was actually made, styled "Shiloh", the Prince of peace, and the peace: and this, when made, was made "to himself"; meaning either to Christ, in whom all the elect were gathered together, as in one head, and were reconciled in one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, through him; or rather to God the Father, to whom they were enemies, yea, enmity itself, and to whom the satisfaction and atonement were made; it being his law that was broken, and his justice that was injured, and to whom they are always in Scripture said to be reconciled; though not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, the one God with the Father: moreover, the sense of this phrase may be, that the reconciliation of the elect made by Christ, in a way of full satisfaction to law and justice, is to the glory of God, the glory of all his perfections; as of his grace and mercy, wisdom, power, and faithfulness, so of his righteousness and holiness: the means by which Christ has enacted it are, his sacrifice, sufferings, and death, expressed in the following clause,

having made peace through the blood of his cross. This was what man could not do, what Christ was appointed and sent to do, and what he was every way qualified for as God and man; as man he had blood to shed, and could make reconciliation for sin in the nature which had sinned, and, as God, could draw nigh to his Father, and treat with him about terms of peace, and perform them; and so a fit daysman and Mediator between, God and man: this peace he has made by his "blood", that is, by the shedding of it, by his death as a sacrifice, which he underwent on the cross; partly to denote the shame, and chiefly to signify the curse he endured in the room of his people: all which shows the malignant nature of sin, the strictness of justice, and that peace is made in a way of full satisfaction, is upon honourable terms, will be lasting, as it is joyful, being attended with a train of blessings:

by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven: by which are intended not the whole universe and fabric of the world, all creatures and things, animate and inanimate, rational and irrational, which have been cursed for the sin of man, and have proved unfriendly to him, but, in consequence of redemption and reconciliation by Christ, will, as some think, in the time of the restitution of all things, be restored to their former state, and to their friendly use to mankind; nor elect men and elect angels, and their reconciliation together, for the apostle is not speaking of the reconciling of these things together, but of the reconciling of them to God, which though it is true of elect men, is not of elect angels, who never fell, and though they have confirming grace, yet not reconciling grace from Christ, which they never needed; nor Jews and Gentiles, for though it is true that God was in Christ reconciling the world of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews to himself, and the chosen of God among both are actually reconciled to God by the death of Christ, yet the one are never called things in heaven, or the other things on earth, in distinction from, and opposition to each other; but rather all the elect of God are here meant, the family of God in heaven and in earth; all the saints that were then in heaven, when actual reconciliation was made by the blood of Christ, and who went thither upon the foot of peace, reconciliation, and redemption, to be made by his sacrifice and death; and all the chosen ones that were or should be on the face of the earth, until the end of time; all these were reconciled to God by Christ: and then the apostle proceeds particularly to mention the Colossians, as also being instances of this grace, good will, and pleasure of God by Christ.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Ver. 20. To reconcile all things] That is, all the saints, who are worth all, better than all, more worth than a world of wicked men, Heb 11:38. The Jews have a saying, that those seventy souls that went with Jacob into Egypt, were as much as all the seventy nations in the world. What account God maketh of them in comparison to others, see Isa 43:3-4.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And having made peace - Margin, “making.” The Greek will bear either. The meaning is, that by his atonement he produces reconciliation between those who were alienated from each other; see the notes at Eph 2:14. It does not mean here that he had actually effected peace by his death, but that he had laid the foundation for it; he had done that which would secure it.

By the blood of his cross - By his blood shed on the cross. That blood, making atonement for sin, was the means of making reconciliation between God and man. On the meaning of the word “blood,” as used in this connection, see the notes at Rom 3:25.

By him to reconcile all things to himself - On the meaning of the word reconcile, see the Mat 5:24, note; Rom 5:10, note, and 2Co 5:18, note. When it is said that “it pleased the Father by Christ to reconcile all things to himself,” the declaration must be understood with some limitation.

(1) It relates only to those things which are in heaven and earth - for those only are specified. Nothing is said of the inhabitants of hell, whether fallen angels, or the spirits of wicked men who are there.

(2) It cannot mean that all things are actually reconciled - for that never has been true. Multitudes on earth have remained alienated from God, and have lived and died his enemies.

(3) It can mean then, only, that he had executed a plan that was adapted to this; that if fairly and properly applied, the blood of the cross was fitted to secure entire reconciliation between heaven and earth. There was no enemy which it was not fitted to reconcile to God; there was no guilt, now producing alienation, which it could not wash away.

Whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven - That is, to produce harmony between the things in heaven and in earth; so that all things shall be reconciled to him, or so that there shalt be harmony between heaven and earth. The meaning is not, that “the things in heaven” were alienated from God, but that there was alienation in the universe which affected heaven, and the object was to produce again universal concord and love. Substantially the same sentiment is found in Eph 1:10; see the notes at that verse. Much has been written on the meaning of this expression, and a great variety of opinions have been entertained of it. It is best, always, unless necessity require a different interpretation, to take words in their usual signification. If that rule be adopted here,” things in heaven” will refer to God and the angels, and perhaps may include the principles of the divine government, “Things on earth,” will embrace men, and the various things on earth which are now at variance with God and with heaven. Between these, it is designed to produce harmony by the blood of the cross, or by the atonement. As in heaven nothing is wrong; as it is not desirable that anything should he changed there, all the change that is to take place in order to produce reconciliation, is to be on the part of men and the things of this world. The only effect of the blood of the atonement on the “things” of heaven in effecting the reconciliation is, to render it consistent for God to be at peace with sinners. The effect on earth is, to dispose the sinner to a willingness to be reconciled; to lead him to lay aside his enmity; to change his heart, and to effect a change in the views and principles prevailing on earth which are now at variance with God and his government. When this shall be done there will be harmony between heaven and earth, and an alienated world will be brought into conformity with the laws and government of the Creator.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

To reconcile all things unto himself,...through the blood of his cross, (i.e. which Christ shed on the cross) both as to the things on earth, and....in heaven: not that Christ died for the Angels, but, says St. John Chrysostom, the Angels were in a manner at war with men, with sinners, as they stood for the cause and glory of God; but Christ put an end to this enmity, by restoring men to his favour. (Witham) --- In heaven. Not by pardoning the wicked angels did Christ reconcile the things in heaven, but by reconciling good Angels to man, who were enemies to him before the birth of Christ. (St. Augustine)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Some, from the Greek, would (not have that clause we read in a parenthesis to come next the copulative and, but) have it: And by himself he should reconcile unto himself (in or to himself) all things, (having made or obtained peace through the blood of his cross), I say, &c. But the reading of that sentence in the parenthesis after, or before the reconciliation of all things, as we do, because of the next following distribution, is not very material as to the sense of the thing, redemption, Col 1:14, or rather, the manner or means of reconciliation unto God by Christ, in whom the fulness of all Divine and human perfections was sealed for the bringing of heaven and earth together.

Having made peace through the blood of his cross: God the Father, for bringing enemies nigh unto himself in the kingdom of his dear Son, Col 1:13,19,21, was in him, 2Co 5:18,19, who having took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb 2:16, and because without shedding of blood there could be no remission, or being brought nigh, Eph 2:13; Heb 9:12,22,23, according to his Father’s ordination and agreement with him for the expiation of sin, became obedient unto death, that cursed death of the cross, Isa 53:5; Gal 3:13; Phi 2:8; and by that bloody sacrifice of himself, there once perfected, Heb 9:14; 10:10,14, obtained peace: that by a figure being put to express his most perfect merit, as being the finishing of his obedience and passion, Col 2:14; Rom 3:25; 5:10; Eph 2:16; Heb 9:12.

By him; which alone could satisfy his offended Father’s demands: angels could not shed blood which was necessary to make peace and reconcile enemies; and though some false apostles might seduce to the worshipping of them, their obedience could not be meritorious.

To reconcile all things unto himself; God designing an atonement to himself. i.e. God the Father, (and, by consequence, to the whole Trinity), did it by Christ, in whom all fulness dwelling there was a proper fitness upon his Father’s call, Isa 42:1,4,6, with Heb 9:1-28, for so perfect a work as to take away the enmity of those alienated from God, and to bring them into favour again. The great inquiry is about the extent of this reconciliation, because the apostle mentions all things (rather than all persons); and then, having emphatically repeated by him, viz. Christ as God-man, and none other, Act 4:12, he adds a distribution of all things, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. To answer which, all things may be understood, either:

1. Restrictively to the subject, the universal church of which Christ is the Head; so he doth not mean all things whatsoever, unlimitedly, but with respect to the subject matter, as, Col 1:21, all things which being alienated from God are reconciled to him; i.e. whatsoever things are reconciled are by him reconciled, all relating to the subject matter of reconciliation, (as all made to creation, Col 1:16), all the real subjects of his kingdom, whether gathered and gone to heaven before in hope of the Messiah to come, or now and hereafter shall be gathered, Act 15:11; Rom 3:25; Eph 3:15; Heb 11:39,40; 12:23; yet this doth not altogether satisfy some, by reason of the sublimity of the apostle’s word in the distribution; and ordinarily in Scripture, by things in heaven are meant the angels, whose natural seat it is, spirits of just men made perfect being advanced thither only by God’s gracious vouchsafement. Or:

2. Largely, as comprehending the good angels, especially if upon the foundation of reconciliation considered strictly, we take reconciliation here more generally, (as the apostle doth in his Epistle to the Ephesians, expatiating more upon this matter there than he doth here, writing more concisely and contractedly), for recapitulation, (or analogical reconciliation), bringing all under one head, the recomposing or reuniting of creatures terrestrial or celestial, upon the atonement for sinners by Christ; so that all his subjects, those that divide the state of his kingdom, are at an agreement amongst themselves and with each other; God did so by Christ conjoin miserable men with himself, that now also the holy angels are conjoined, they come under the same Head, Christ, Col 2:10; Eph 1:22, whom they worship as at his first, so second coming, Luk 2:13,14; Heb 1:6.

As men cleave to him by faith, so the angels by vision {1Ti 3:16} look upon him their Head; yet is he not their Redeemer, Col 1:14; Eph 1:3; not partaking of their nature, they are not his members as believers are (as God is the Head of Christ, yet is not he a member of God, 1Co 11:3); Christ beareth a more special relation to them, than he doth unto these principalities and powers, Eph 5:23,30,31; however, they, being under a hypothetical possibility of falling, should seem to have need of a preventive kind of reconciliation, upon that account, if their standing is otherwise secured to them, they abiding in their purity could not be friends to impure creatures, Gen 3:24; but upon the satisfaction of their Lord, their distaste and dissatisfaction is removed, they being reduced into a corporation, under Christ, with those whom he hath reconciled, Eph 1:10. As they, to the glory of the supreme Majesty, rejoiced when Christ came to seek these lost ones, so they are ministers to them that he hath made willing, Heb 1:14; they delight in the ministry of reconciliation, Eph 3:10; 1Pe 1:12, attend the service with their brethren, (in doing their office), Rev 19:10; 22:9, further the work, Act 8:26, rejoice when it takes effect, Luk 15:10, and carry those that are perfected to the place of their own residence, Luk 16:22, to their own innumerable assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb 12:22; waiting on Christ, (according to the typical representatives, Exo 25:19; 26:1; 1Ki 6:23,29), with those that are with him, and made like to him at his throne, Mat 22:30; Mar 12:25, where he sits as the Son of man, and the holy angels (as he saith) are continually ascending and descending upon him, Joh 1:51; he fills them, as the rest of his subjects,

all in all, Eph 1:21,23; they have grace by way of participation, having it from him their Head, who hath it of himself, Joh 5:26. So that upon the matter, this reconciliation of things in heaven, seems most to accord with Eph 1:9,10, and is not much unlike that in Eph 2:13,16; that which is separately said there by his blood, Col 1:13, and by the cross, Col 1:16, is here conjoined by

the blood of his cross. There is making peace in one simple word; here, (in the Greek), in a compounded one. There, that he might reconcile both unto God; here, that he might

reconcile all things unto himself, i.e. God. There he speaks only of men on earth being reconciled amongst themselves, because they had also been reconciled to God; if we take in angles also under those all, we have an allowance from that forecited Eph 1:10; yea, and in favour of the larger acceptation of reconciliation here, it may be considered that the whole creation which was put into disorder and subjected unto vanity, is in earnest expectation of the fruits of this gracious reconciliation, in being brought to a perfect harmony, to the glory of him who is all in all, Rom 8:19-23, with 1Co 15:58.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And (was pleased) through him to reconcile all things unto him. (ver. 16; Eph_1:10; Heb_9:26 Heb_10:12, Heb_10:13; Psa_2:7, Psa_2:8) Not "through Christ unto the Father, as Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot contend. This involves reading "the Father" as subject of ver. 19 (see note). There is nothing in the grammar of this verse to suggest a reference of the same pronoun to two different persons. And the analogy of ver. 16 appears decisive (see note): "Through him and unto him all things were created and reconciled" (De Wette, Conybeare, Hofmann). So Chrysostom: "Lest thou shouldest think that he undertook the office of a minister only, he saith "unto himself." And yet he elsewhere says that he reconciled us "to God. English idiom prefers the reflexive "himself" in such a sentence (so in ver. 19); but it is not necessary in Greek (A. Buttmann, "N. T. Grammar," p. 111, English trans.). Elsewhere katallassw ("reconcile") is construed with prov or simple dative; here with eijv in correspondence with ver. 16, and implying, in contrast with dia ("through"), the end for which rather than the person to whom one is reconciled. (ver. 18 b; also Rom_14:9; 2Co_5:15; 1Co_3:23) Brought back again to peace with God, we are brought into the kingdom of his Son (vers. 13, 14). The rebels are made to "kiss the Son." He wins back his kingdom in them. And so the design of creation as his dominion is answered at last. "Reconcile" ("reconciliation") in New Testament usage implies previous resentment in him to whom the offender is reconciled. (see Cremer"s "Lexicon," and Meyer on Rom_5:10) For such resentment in Christ, comp. (Col_3:13; 1Co_8:12; Luk_19:27; Act_26:14; Rev_6:16; Psa_2:12. Katalla) is "to take into favour or allegiance," and, with ajpo, "to take back into favour." This reconciliation to Christ the King concerns the "all things" of ver. 10, restoring the broken unity of creation (see note on "the things in the heavens," below). And there is an actual reconciliation now being carried on by the Son from heaven (Php_3:20, 21; 1Co_15:25) resting upon the potential reconciliation effected on the cross (compare the same double sense in. (2Co_5:18-21) Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Col_2:13, Col_2:14; Eph_2:13-18; 2Co_5:18-21; 2Co_6:1; Rom_3:25 Rom_5:10; Heb_9:11 Rev_1:5 Rev_5:9; Mat_26:28) The apostle "glories" only "in the cross", (Gal_6:14) the sole means of salvation, viewed from whatever side. (1Co_1:23, 1Co_1:24) Peace is made for those who were "alienated and enemies in wicked works" (ver. 21), who were under the dominion of the enemy of God and his Christ (vers. 13, 14). It begins as the peace of forgiveness. (ver. 14; 2:13; 3:13; Rom_3:24-26 Rom_5:1) and continues as an abiding fellowship with God through the Spirit, in obedience to Christ, the one Lord. (ver. 13; Col_2:6; Rom_5:1, 2 8:5-9, 28; Gal_5:22; Php_4:7; 2Co_10:4, 2Co_10:5; Act_2:32-34) There can be peace only when he is Lord (1Co_15:25; Rev_19:11-16) In this all the present blessings of salvation are comprised (ver. 2). "The blood of the cross" is the one all sufficient atonement which brings men into peace with God, and so puts them back into the kingdom of Christ, who is "Prince and Saviour, Priest and King" (Rom_3:25, 26 14:9; 2Co_5:15; Tit_2:14) Faith, the subjective condition of peace, appears in ver. 23. (Rom_5:1 Rom_15:13) "Having made peace," as a single compound verb, occurs only here in the New Testament. (comp. Mat_5:10) The repeated through him is textually doubtful; copyists were more likely to omit than to insert it here. This emphatic repetition suitably introduces the bold and startling words, whether the things on the earth, or the things in the heavens (ver. 16). The things "in the heavens," as in ver. 16, include the whole creation, spiritual or material, other than "the things upon the earth." In Rom_8:19-21 we learned that the earthly creation shares man"s fall and his redemption. But "sin entered" (Rom_5:12) here from outside, and how far its influence extends beyond our planet we cannot tell. St. Paul does not positively affirm that the reconciliation of the cross embraces other worlds than ours. He speaks hypothetically. Christ"s death is in his eyes an event parallel only to creation in its magnitude, and he can set no limit to its potential efficacy. Its virtue is sufficient to" reconcile all things," wherever such reconciliation is needed and is possible. (yet see Heb_2:16) The difficulty is not to be evaded by putting a milder sense on "reconcile" as applied to "the things in the heavens" (so Alford and others, referring to; (Eph_3:10) "the blood of the cross" forbids any thought but that of the propitiatory atonement (see Meyer). Nor does the text say anything of a reconciliation between "earth and heaven" (Erasmus), "men and angels" (Chrysostom, Bengel), "Jews and Gentiles," "secular and spiritual affairs," etc.; such glosses are opposed to St. Paul"s strict use of the word "reconcile," and to the parallelism of ver. 16.

In vers. 21-23 the apostle descends, with characteristic boldness and suddenness, from the vast generalizations of vers. 15-20 to the closest personal application of his theme from "all things in earth and heaven" to "you". (comp. Eph_1:22-23; Eph_2:1, Eph_1:2) With Lightfoot, we place only a comma, or a colon at most, after ver. 20.

The reconcilation effected by Christ.

having made peace through the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself.

I THE NATURE OF THIS RECONCILIATION.

1. . It implies a prior estrangement. Man "departed from the living God". (Heb_3:12) He is "alienated" from God (ver. 21). "The carnal mind is enmity against God". (Rom_8:7) Even God himself was angry with man. (Psa_7:11) But this prior estrangement implies an antecedent friendship.

1. Though man was first in the breach of this friendship, God was first in the reconciliation. This blessed restoration of broken relations is traced to "the good pleasure" of the Father. It is a mistake to say that Christ is the cause of his Father making to us the offer of reconciliation. The atonement is not the cause, but the effect, of God"s love.

2. There was reconciliation on God"s side as well as man"s. There is a change in the Divine relation or mood of mind toward us; for he himself "made peace by the blood of the cross," and his reconciliation of all things to himself is represented as based upon the peace thus made. The death of Christ was a true satisfaction to Divine justice for sin, so that God could be "just and the Justifier of the ungodly.

II THE MEANS OF THIS RECONCILIATION. "Having made peace through the blood of the cross." The reconciliation was not absolute or without mediation. It was "through the blood of the cross the first term suggesting a comparison between Christ"s death and the Old Testament sacrifices; the second, the penal nature of the Redeemer"s death as that of a curse-bearing Substitute. The apostle emphasizes this aspect of truth, because the errorists of his time denied alike a real incarnation and a real atonement.

III THE UNIVERSALITY OF THIS RECONCILIATION. "By him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.

1. "Things in earth" may include more than man.

(1) It may include the whole visible creation, which is "groaning and travailing together in pain until now," and "waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God". (Rom_8:19-21) The curse passed to the ground through man"s sin; through man will the blessing reach it again. It is a significant fact that Christianity in its purest form brings a happy change over those portions of the earth where it prevails.

(2) But, definitely and primarily, "things in earth" refer to man. Man"s reconciliation to God is based upon God"s reconciliation to man. It was in virtue of Christ"s death that the Holy Spirit came to change the hearts, of men and bring them into harmony with God.

2. "Things in heaven. Not angels, as some suppose, for they were never estranged from God and Christ, and the Head of angels as well as men is never represented as the Mediator of angels. A mere increase of knowledge or blessedness on their part, or the confirmation of them in their heavenly obedience, can hardly be covered by the term "reconciliation." The word must be used in its ordinary sense. The apostle has described Christ"s mediatorial function as twofold: as exercised in the natural creation and in the spiritual creation in the universe and in the Church. His object is not to show the extent either of the creation or of the reconciliation, but, the person of the Creator and the Reconciler, and the Church marks the glorious sphere of the reconciliation as it is seen in its two great divisions of living and dead saints. The "things in heaven" seem, therefore, to apply to the saints in glory. T. C.

The great reconciliation.

The world wants not only education, improvement, and development; it has a sorer need the necessity of forgiveness, reconciliation to God, renewal, and restoration. It is the glory of the gospel that it recognizes this deep fact, too often ignored by philosophic schemes of life, and that it provides for it by offering the satisfaction of the world"s great need in reconciliation through Christ and his atonement.

I IT IS GOD WHO BRINGS ABOUT THE GREAT RECONCILIATION. Two errors in regard to this glorious truth are very prevalent.

1. The error of attempting to effect the reconciliation for ourselves. Costly sacrifices, hard penance, prayers, and almsgiving have been resorted to, but in vain. The work is God"s, not man"s. The first mistake is closely associated with another, viz.:

2. The error of supposing that God needs to be reconciled to us. It is commonly thought that the great work is to move God into a favourable consideration for us. But the first step in the reconciliation began with God. He desired it and prepared the way for it before men took any steps towards realizing it. For this reason he first of all sent his Son into the, (Joh_3:16) and is now sending ambassadors and beseeching us by them to be reconciled. We began the separation, for ours was the offence, but God begins the reconciliation. He does not need to be reconciled to us. He waits to be gracious. The necessary reconciliation is on our side. We need to be reconciled to God.

II ALL THINGS IN EARTH AND HEAVEN ARE THE SUBJECTS OF THE GREAT RECONCILIATION.

1. The reconciliation is to be universal. It is God"s good pleasure to reconcile all things. Nothing short of that complete restoration would satisfy him. If ninety and nine sheep are safe, the shepherd will not rest until he has found the hundredth. Nevertheless, though this universal restitution is God"s desire, there is a dark and difficult question as to how far the imperious will of man may stand out against it.

2. The reconciliation begins with things on earth. Here is the great wrong. In this life we become reconciled to God. The full success of Christ will involve the creation of a new earth. Though the laws of nature may not be altered, yet to us the wilderness will become a garden when we become reconciled to the God of nature.

3. The reconciliation reaches up to t/tings in heaven. It unites earth to heaven. Through union with God all beings and all things become united among themselves. Thus peace is established on earth, heavenly mindedness becomes a sympathetic link between the toilers and sufferers in this world and the angels and spirits of the just in the higher world.

III CHRIST AND HIS ATONEMENT ARE THE MEANS THROUGH WHICH THIS RECONCILIATION IS EFFECTED.

1. Christ is the Mediator in the quarrel between us and God, the Peacemaker, (Eph_2:14) the "Daysman" who lays his hand on God and on us. The angel mediators of Colossian Gnosticism could not do this, being neither Divine nor human. Because all fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, he brings God to us in merciful loving kindness; and because he is also" very Man," he, as our Representative, brings us back to God.

2. The sacrifice made by Christ in his death is the atonement which accomplishes our reconciliation. "The blood of his cross" signifies, not merely the fact that Christ died on the cross, but also the peculiar value of his death in the shedding of his precious blood, i.e. in the giving up of his life for us with all its wealth of purity and love. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Through the blood of the cross - The blood shed thereon. Whether things on earth - Here the enmity began: therefore this is mentioned first. Or things in heaven - Those who are now in paradise; the saints who died before Christ came.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Here one special reason is assigned why all fulness dwelt in our Lord the Redeemer, namely, to fit him for the great work and office of a Mediator or Reconciler, that so he might happily make up that breach which sin had made between God and the world, having removed the enmity which was betwixt them by his death and sufferings, called here the blood of his cross, that is the blood which he freely and voluntarily shed upon the cross.

Note here, 1. That God and man were once friends, though soon by sin made enemies; reconciliation doth suppose an antecedent friendship.

Note, 2. That though man was first in the breach yet God was first in the offer of reconciliation; It pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himself.

Note, 3. That as there was no possibility of ever making up this breach, but by a Mediator; so no person in heaven or earth was or could be found, in all things fitted or furnished for the work of a Mediator, but only Christ; By him to reconcile all things to himself.

Note, 4. The universality of the subject reconciled, all things both in heaven and in earth: By things in heaven,

1. Some understand the blessed angels; but there being no breach between God and them, Christ was not the author of reconciliation, though he was an head of confirmation to them. Others understand it of a reconciliation between the angels and man, thus: Whilst man continued in his obedience to God, angels and men were in a state of perfect friendship one with another; but when man rebelled against God, the angels became averse to man for that rebellion; but God being reconciled to man by the death of his son, the angels are become friends and ministering spirits to us, and both they and we constitute one church under Christ the head thereof; thus Christ reconciled all things in heaven and earth, that is, the angels in heaven he has reconciled to man on earth.

2. Other, by things in heaven, do not understand the angels, but the saints departed; the patriarchs, prophets, and all the faithful now in heaven, or here on earth, they were all reconciled, in order to their being saved; intimating, that the blood of Christ did expiate the guilt of those persons who lived before him, as well as of those that died after him: He reonciled all things in heaven and earth, capable of reconciliation, appointed to it, and that stood in need of it.

Note, lastly, The instrumental means by which all this was effected, namely, by the blood of the cross; to make up the breach betwixt God and the fallen creature, cost the Mediator no less than his precious blood.

Lord! Who can look upon sin as any other than an infinite and immense evil, which cost the Son of God his life to expiate the guilt of it? How can a little sin be committed against a great God?

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. Having made peace. See notes on Eph. 2:14, 17. Christ came to make peace between Jew and Gentile, man and man, man and God. The means employed was the blood shed on the cross. Through it the law, the partition wall between Jew and Gentile, was removed, and both alike have access to God. By him to reconcile all things unto himself. “It pleased the Father” (verse 19) . . “by him (Christ) to reconcile all things to himself” (the Father). All who accept Christ, are reconciled to him, and found in him, are reconciled thus to God. Whether things in earth. Human beings. Things in heaven. Chrysostom explains: Christ not only reconciles man on the earth, but raises him, who had been an enemy to God, to heaven and gives him a place there at peace with God, so that in the heavens the fruits of reconciliation are seen forever.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

20. [διʼ αὐτοῦ] (2nd) אACDbcKP, Syrr. Boh. Chrys.; omitted by BD*GL, Old Lat. vulg. Orig.

It is difficult to decide, but perhaps the omission is supported too entirely by “Western” authorities to be satisfactory.

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. B and apparently Origen2.760 omit τῆς. Similarly some cursives in Col 3:2 (cf. Heb 8:4). In Col 3:5 there was not the same temptation to omit, for the preceding τὰ μέλη suggested the article, and in Eph 1:10 τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς preceded.

20. καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ. Still emphatic, cf. Col 1:18 note.

ἀποκαταλλάξαι. Col 1:21. Eph 2:16†. Not in the LXX. or the Hexapla fragments, or, as it seems, in profane authors. Notice the following points.

(1) The additional force of ἀπὸ to καταλλάσσω “reconcile” (Rom 5:10 bis; 1Co 7:11; 2Co 5:18-20†) appears to be completeness, thoroughness. Compare ἀπέχειν Php 4:18, ἀπεκδέχεσθαι Rom 8:19. Perhaps however it = “again,” “back,” compare ἀποδίδωμι Rom 2:6, ἀποκαθίστημι, Mat 12:13; if so it only emphasizes the thought of reconciliation.

(2) Its subject may be (a) πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, to be defended theologically by our considering the πλήρωμα of the Father indirectly to mean the Father in His quality of mercy etc.: (b) God or the Father, the infinitive being directly dependent on εὐδόκησεν. This is not hard grammatically, and theologically much more satisfactory.

(3) The time to which the reconciliation refers has been disputed. It may be (a) hereafter, when all are brought in and reconciliation consummated. But more probably it is (b) at the Passion, reconciliation being regarded as essential and ideal, as is further explained in the next clause. Cf. Heb 10:14. In itself the aorist here is probably timeless.

(4) We cannot infer from this verse the final restitution of all men to blessed communion with God. For St Paul is not thinking of this question here.

τὰ πάντα. Col 1:16 note. On the relation of τὰ πάντα to reconciliation, see infra εἴτε … οὐρανοῖς.

εἰς αὐτόν. It is extremely difficult to say Who is intended.

(1) The Father. Though αὐτόν prima facie refers to someone other than the subject of ἀποκαταλλάξαι, yet “the oblique cases of the personal pronoun αὐτός are used in the N.T. very widely, and in cases where we should commonly find the reflexive pronoun in classical authors: e.g. Eph 1:4-5, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς … εἷναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ … προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν.… It would indeed seem that αὐτοῦ etc. may be used for ἑαυτοῦ etc. in almost every connexion, except where it is the direct object of the verb” (Lightfoot). Lightfoot also points out that reconciliation is always represented as made to the Father whether the Father or the Son is said to reconcile, cf. 2Co 5:18-19, and Eph 2:16; cf. Rom 5:10.

(2) The Son. In favour of this is the continual reference of αὐτός in this passage from Col 1:16 onwards, and also the strong presumption that St Paul is following the lines laid down in Col 1:16, that as Creation has the Son both for its means and for its end, so here all things are reconciled both by means of Him and unto Him.

Neither does there appear to be any a priori objection to this theologically; it is only another side of the statement that all things are to become subject to Christ (1Co 15:28), and through Him to the Father.

εἰρηνοποιήσας. Here only in the N.T., cf. εἰρηνοποιός Mat 5:9†. In the LXX. only Pro 10:10, and in the Hexapla fragments only Isa 27:5.

The subject is that of εὐδόκησεν and ἀποκαταλλάξαι, viz. the Father, ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, Rom 15:33; Rom 16:20. The time will be that of ἀποκαταλλάξαι, εἰρηνοποιήσας … σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ forming a parenthesis.

διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. In Eph. the two terms are separate: Col 1:7, ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ; Col 2:16, ἀποκαταλλάξῃ … διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. The direct statement that peace is made διὰ τοῦ αἵματος occurs here only.

τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. The Incarnation alone was insufficient. But doubtless the Gross is also mentioned to familiarise the minds of the Colossians with the fact that however shameful the death of Jesus was, yet it was by this that their peace with God was made; cf. 1Co 1:23-24, and infra Col 2:14-15.

[διʼ αὐτοῦ]. See notes on Textual Criticism. The repetition, if genuine, lays stress on the fact that it was by the Son, and no other, that the reconciliation was made.

τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. See notes on Textual Criticism.

τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Contrast the order of these two phrases in Col 1:16 where St Paul is giving the order of creation. Here reconciliation taking place through the crucifixion is regarded as spreading from the earth to heaven. The addition here of ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς has given rise to much discussion as to how they can require reconciliation.

Probably the answer lies in the universe having moral as well as physical solidarity. Just as, probably, every physical act affects the very furthest bounds of space, so is it with every moral act. If so it cannot but be that sin on earth affected the whole of creation (without necessarily making all creation strictly sinful), and again that the reconciliation of things on earth to God should restore even the things in heaven to that perfect fellowship with God which they once enjoyed. Compare Heb 9:23-26, especially αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια κρείττοσιν θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας, on which passage Dorner says, “The effect of sin and guilt reaches into heaven; it cannot be indifferent to God, His honour is affected thereby. Sin, whether unpunished or unatoned, is a stain, as it were, touching the honour of God and of His temple” (System, III. 420).

Dr Charles (Slav. En. p. xli.) insists that “ ‘the things in the heavens’ that are to be reconciled to God must be either the fallen angels imprisoned in the second heaven, or else the powers of Satan whose domain is the air.” But St Paul’s language is much too indefinite to allow us to be dogmatic on this subject. See also J. A. R.’s note on τὰ ἐπουράνια in Eph. p. 20.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. ἀποκαταλλάξαι. The ἀπο may be intensive, “prorsus reconciliare,” or, as in ἀποκαθιστάναι, may mean “again” (so Alford, Ell., Lightfoot, Soden). “Conciliari extraneo possent, reconciliari vero non alii quam suo,” Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 19. But καταλλάσσειν is the word always used by St. Paul in Rom, and Cor. of reconciliation to God; and of a wife to her husband, 1Co 7:11. See on Eph 2:16.

τὰ πάντα, defined as it is presently after by εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, κ.τ.λ., cannot be limited to the Church (as Beza), nor to men (especially the heathen, Olshausen), nor yet to intelligent beings generally. “How far this restoration of universal nature may be subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate,” Lightfoot. Compare ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων, Act 3:21; also Rom 8:21.

εἰς αὐτόν. If our interpretation of this were to be determined solely by considerations of language, we should have no hesitation in referring αὐτόν to the same antecedent as ἐν αὐτῷ διʼ αὐτοῦ, and αὐτοῦ after σταυροῦ, that is Christ, and that, whatever subject we adopt for εὐδόκησε, but especially if πᾶν τὸ πλ. is not taken as the subject. On this interpretation the ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν would refer back to τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτὸν … ἔκτισται. If ἑαυτῷ was necessary in 2Co 5:19, was it not more necessary here in order to avoid ambiguity?

It is, however, a serious objection to this view that we nowhere read of reconciliation to Christ, but only through Him to God.

This objection is, indeed, somewhat weakened by the consideration, first, that this is the only place in which the reconciliation of τὰπάντα is mentioned. In 2Co 5:19 the words which follow ἐαυτῷ, viz. μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, κ.τ.λ., show that κόσμος has not the wide significance of τὰ πάντα here. Secondly, that already in ver. 17 there is predicated of Christ what elsewhere is predicated of God, viz. διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Rom 11:35). Thirdly, here only is εἰς used instead of the dative after (ἀπο) καταλλάσσειν. The difference is slight, and only in the point of view; but the change would be accounted for by the reference to ver. 17

It deserves notice that some expositors who reject this view use language which at least approximates to the idea of reconciliation to Christ. Thus Alford, speaking of the “sinless creation,” says it “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.”

If πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα is the subject, and αὐτόν be viewed as = τὸν Θεόν, this antecedent would be supplied from πᾶν τὸ πλ. in which, on this view, it is involved. On the other hand, if the subject of εὐδόκησε is ὁ Θεός understood, this, of course, is the antecedent. But the reference of αὐτόν (reflexive) to an unexpressed subject is harsh, notwithstanding Jas 1:12.

εἰρηνοποιήσας belongs to the subject of the verb, the masc. being adopted κατὰ σύνεσιν, as in 2:19. This was inevitable, since the personal character of ὁ εἰρηνοποιήσας could not be lost sight of.

As it is Christ who is specified in Eph 2:15 as ποιῶν εἰρηνην, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecum. and many moderns, although making ὁ Θεός the subject of εὐδόκησε, have so understood εἰρηνοποιήσας here “by the common participial anacoluthon” but this is a very harsh separation of the participial clause from the finite verb, and introduces confusion amongst the pronouns.

διʼ αὐτοῦ, repeated for the sake of emphasis, “by Him, I say.” This repetition, especially in so pointed a connexion with τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς and τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, still further emphasises the fact that angelic mediators have no share in the work of reconciliation, nay, that these heavenly beings themselves are included amongst those to whom the benefit of Christ’s work extends.

The second διʼ αὐτοῦ is read by א A C Dbc K P and most MSS., Syr. (both) Boh., Chrys., Theodoret. It is omitted by B D* G L, Old Lat., Vulg., Arm, Eth., Theophyl., Ambrosiaster, al. There would be a tendency to omit them as superfluous.

εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. There is much diversity of opinion as to the interpretation of this passage; “torquet interpretes,” says Davenant, “et vicissim ab illis torquetur.” First, are we to understand τὰ πάντα as limited to intelligent creatures, or as including also unreasoning and lifeless things? Alford, Meyer, and many others adopt the latter view, which, indeed, Alford says is “clearly” the apostle’s meaning. Rom 8:19-22 is compared, where it is said that the κτίσις has been made subject to ματαιότης. But it is not easy to see how the reversal of this ματαιότης or the delivery from the δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς can be called “reconciliation to God.” Reconciliation implies enmity, and this cannot be predicated of unreasoning and lifeless things. The neuter τὰ πάντα does not bind us to this interpretation, it is simply the most concise and striking expression of universality. But, further, what is meant by the reconciliation of heavenly beings? Many commentators suppose the meaning to be that even good angels have need to be in some sense “reconciled.” Calvin observes: “duabus de causis Angelos quoque oportuit cum Deo pacificari: nam quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non erant, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati … Deinde in hac ipsa obedientia quam praestant Deo, non est tam exquisita perfectio ut Deo omni exparte et citra veniam satisfaciat. Atque huc procul dubio spectat sententia ista ex libro Job (4:18). ‘In Angelis suis reperiet iniquitatem’; nam si de diabolo exponitur, quid magnam? pronuntiat autem illic Spiritus Summam puritatem sordere, si ad Dei iustitiam exigatur.” Similarly De Wette, Bleek, Huther, Alford, Moule. The last named adopts Alford’s statement: “No reconciliation must be thought of which shall resemble ours in its process, for Christ took not upon Him the seed of angels, nor paid any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature. … But forasmuch as He is their Head as well as ours … it cannot be but that the great event in which He was glorified through suffering should also bring them nearer to God. … That such increase [of blessedness] might be described as a reconciliation is manifest: we know from Job 15:15 that ‘the heavens are not clean in His sight’; and ib. 4:18, ‘His angels He charged [charges] with folly.’ ” The general truth may be admitted without accepting Eliphaz the Temanite as a final authority. But imperfection is not enmity, and the difficulty is in the application of the term “reconciled” in the sense of “lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification” of God. Davenant, followed by Alexander, says that Christ has reconciled angels “analogically, by taking away from them the possibility of falling.”

It is hardly necessary to dwell on the opinion of Origen, that the devil and his angels are referred to; or on that of Beza, van Til, al., that τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς are the souls of those who died in the Lord before the coming of Christ, and who are supposed to have been admitted into heaven by virtue of His work which was to come. Neither opinion has any support in Scripture. (Bengel notes that πάντα “continet etiam defunctos,” but does not suppose them referred to as in heaven.)

A better view is that of Harless (adopted also by Reuss, Oltramare, al.), according to which the reconciliation proper applies only to τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, but the apostle adds τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρ., “not as if there were in heaven any real need of redemption, nor as if heaven were only added as a rhetorical figure, but because the Lord and Creator of the whole body, whose members are heaven and earth, in restoring one member has restored the whole body; and herein consists the greatest significance of the reconciliation, that it is not only the restoration of the earthly life, but the restoration of the harmony of the universe” (Harless, Eph. p. 53).

Ritschl thinks that St. Paul refers to the angels concerned in the giving of the law, to whom he believes the apostle here and elsewhere attributes a certain lack of harmony with the Divine plan of redemption (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522 f.). Compare 2:15.

Meyer’s solution is that the reference is to angels as a category, not as individuals. The original normal relation between God and these higher spirits no longer subsists so long as the hostile realm of demons still exists; whose power has indeed been broken by the death of the Lord, but which shall be fully destroyed at the Parousia.

Hammond argues at considerable length that “heaven and earth” was a Hebrew expression for “this lower earth.” Chrysostom takes the accusatives to depend on εἰρηνοποίησας. This is clear from his question, τὰ δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς πῶς εἰρηνοποίησε; His reply is that the angels had been made hostile to men, seeing their Lord insulted (or as Theodoret more generally says, on account of the wickedness of the many). God, then, not only made things on earth to be at peace, but brought man to the angels, him who was their enemy. This was profound peace. Why then, says the apostle, have ye confidence in the angels? So far are they from bringing you near, that had not God Himself reconciled you to them, ye would not have been at peace. So Augustine (Enchir. 62): “pacificantur coelestia cum terrestribus, et terrestria cum coelestibus.” Erasmus adopts the same construction, amending the Latin version thus: “pacificatis et iis quae in terra sunt, et quae in coelis.” Bengel’s interpretation is similar, and he appears to adopt the same construction, for he compares Luk 19:38, εἰρήνη ἐν οὐρανῷ: and comparing this again with Luk 2:14, ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, he remarks that what those in heaven call peace on earth, those on earth call peace in heaven. This construction does not seem to be open to any grammatical objection. Only two instances of εἰρηνοποιεῖν are cited in the Lexicons, one from the Sept., Pro 10:10, where it is intransitive; the other from Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 984, where the middle is used transitively, τότε καὶ αὐτὴ τὸν ἴδιον δρόμον εἰρηνοποιεῖται. As to the form of the compound, Aristotle uses ὀδοποιεῖν with an accusative, Rhet. i. 1. 2, δῆλον ὅτι εἴη ἂν αὐτὰ καὶ ὁδοποιεῖν. So λογοποιεῖν takes an accus., e.g. συμφοράς, Lys. p. 165, 26; cf. Thuc. vi. 38, al. It is singular that this construction which yields an excellent sense has been entirely overlooked, and the interpretation of Chrys., etc., met with the objection that ἀποκαταλλάξαι … εἴτε τά … εἴτε τά cannot mean to reconcile these two with one another.

May it not be that the difficulty arises from attempting to turn what is practically a hypothetical statement into a categorical assertion? St. Paul has in his mind throughout this part of the Epistle the teaching of the false teachers at Colossae, who knew, forsooth, all about the celestial hierarchy, with its various orders, some of which were doubtless regarded as not entirely in harmony with the Divine will. The apostle no more adopts their view here than he adopts their hierarchical system. The point on which he insists is that all must be brought into harmony, and that this is effected through Christ.

Are we, however, justified in assuming that all τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (which is not necessarily equivalent to “in heaven”) are holy angels, or were so conceived by St. Paul? If there are “other worlds than ours,” would not their inhabitants be reckoned as ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς?

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having made peace [ειρηνοποιησας] . Only here in the New Testament. Having concluded peace; see on Joh 3:21. The participle is parallel with to reconcile, and marks peace - making and reconciliation as contemporaneous. The kindred eijrhnopoiov peacemaker, only in Mt 5:9. The phrase making peace, in which the two factors of this verb appear separately, occurs only Eph 2:15.

To reconcile [αποκαταλλαξαι] . Only here, ver. 21, and Eph 2:16. The connection is : it was the good pleasure of the Father (ver. 19) to reconcile. The compounded preposition ajpo gives the force of back, hinting at restoration to a primal unity. So, in Eph 2:12 - 16, it occurs as in ver. 21, in connection with ajphllotriwmenoi alienated, as if they had not always been strangers. See on Eph 2:12. Others explain to reconcile wholly. For the verb katallassw to reconcile, see on Rom 5:10.

All things [τα παντα] . Must be taken in the same sense as in vers. 16, 17, 18, the whole universe, material and spiritual. 191 The arrangement of clauses adopted by Rev. is simpler.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. The false teachers aimed at effecting a partial reconciliation between God and man through the interposition of angelic mediators. The Apostle speaks of an absolute and complete reconciliation of universal nature to God, effected through the mediation of the Incarnate Word. Their mediators were ineffective, because they were neither human nor divine. The true mediator must be both human and divine. It was necessary that in Him all the plenitude of the Godhead should dwell. It was necessary also that He should be born into the world and should suffer as a man.

δι’ αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as appears from the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ, and the following διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι’ αὐτοῦ]. This expression δι’ αὐτοῦ has been already applied to the Preincarnate Word in relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it is now used of the Incarnate Word in relation to the Church.

ἀποκαταλλάξαι] sc. εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός. The personal pronoun αὐτόν, instead of the reflexive ἑαυτόν, is no real obstacle to this way of connecting the words (see the next note). The alternative would be to take τὸ πλήρωμα as governing ἀποκαταλλάξαι, but this mode of expression is harsh and improbable.

The same double compound ἀποκαταλλάσσειν is used below, ver. 21 and Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual καταλλάσσειν. It may be compared with ἀποκατάστασις, Acts iii. 21. Tertullian, arguing against the dualism of Marcion who maintained an antagonism between the demiurge and the Christ, lays stress on the compound, adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘conciliari extraneo possent, reconciliari vero non alii quam suo.’ The word ἀποκαταλλάσσειν corresponds to ἀπηλλοτριωμένους here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a restitution to a state from which they had fallen, or which was potentially theirs, or for which they were destined. Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 remarks that the word used of the υἱοθεσία is not accipere (λαμβάνειν) but recipere (ἀπολαμβάνειν). See the note there.

τὰ πάντα] The whole universe of things, material as well as spiritual, shall be restored to harmony with God. How far this restoration of universal nature maybe subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate.

J. B. Lightfoot, St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon: a revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations (London: Macmillan, 1875) — public domain. Electronic text from Project Gutenberg (ebook #50857). Covers Colossians and Philemon only (the verse-by-verse notes; introductions and dissertations are omitted); Lightfoot's companion Galatians and Philippians volumes are not included, as the available public-domain scans carry garbled Greek that cannot be faithfully reproduced.