A psychological ynooei of rape for victim ank offender
4.2 AN OUTLINE OF RELEVANT ASPECTS OF PAUL'S THEOLOGY
4.2.5 RECONCILIATION
For Ridderbos (1977:182), "reconciliation" appears in more than one place as a parallel to
"justification". An example is "we are justified by his (Christ's) blood" (Rom 5:9) parallelled by "we are reconciled by his death" (Rom 5:10). 2 Corinthians 3:9 also parallels 2 Corinthians 5:18, where "ministration of righteousness is parallelled by "ministration of reconciliation".
Ridderbos (1977 :182) does not see justification as subordinate to reconciliation or vice-versa.
Rather he sees reconciliation as "peace with God", as a result of justification (Rom 5:1). For him "justify" is used by Paul more as a "religious-forensic-concept" and the meaning of
"reconciliation" (in the sense of KawtXXayi] "originates from the social-societal sphere (cf.
1 Cor 7:11) and speaks in general of the restoration of the right relationship between two parties". According to Ridderbos (1977:182), "it has a less qualified meaning in theological parlance" and "Reconciliation is often used positively in conjunction with "peace" " (cf. Rom 5:1,10; Eph 2:15 ff; Col 1:20 fit).
In the reconciliation pericope of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, God is the Author and Initiator of reconciliation (Ridderbos 1977:182). This reconciliation is not only made on an individual, personal basis but mention is also made of the church being reconciled (Rom 5:10) (: 183).
According to Ridderbos, "...The apostles [have] been entrusted the ministry [dispensation;
distribution] of reconciliation (Siaicoviav if)<; KaTaAAocync; )• In Eph 2:16 and Col 1:20, 22, Christ in God reconciled both Gentiles and Jews to each other. Paul uses reconciliation in pronouncements over against "enmity" and "alienation" (cf Rom 5:10 ; Eph 2:14 ff. and Col
1:22).
The eschatological nature of Paul's understanding of reconciliation is also prominent (Ridderbos 1977:183). While "reconciliation", does have reference to the "disposition" of
man, it is used primarily to indicate reconciliation between God and the "world". "World" is here referred to in its fullest, most comprehensive sense as I have described earlier.
Reconciliation then refers to the eschatological restoration of all things. Colossians 1:20 crystallizes this clearly, when it says, "...And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven [italics mine], making peace by the blood of his cross". My interpretation of Kasemann (1971:43) is that he holds a converse view. He says that although reconciliation originally meant the end of enmity with the world "...Paul crystallizes the message, relating it more strictly to the church and the individual Christian..." I disagree with Kasemann's strict view but I think this view of Kasemann does lend support to my case for contextualizing reconciliation in Paul to a personal level between victim and survivor.
For Ridderbos (1977:184), when Paul refers to "all things", he does not refer to the "right disposition"of apostate spirits for example, but rather "of the div ine government over all".
This happens in a measure because powers have been stripped of their authority by God, through Christ. For Ridderbos, Paul repeatedly denotes "peace" as a condition for
reconciliation. This peace is meant by the condition of "shalom" ie. "an all embracing gift of salvation". This shalom refers to "the pacification of the powers hostile to God as well as the restoration of peace between Jews and gentiles". These are but two examples and this
"shalom" stands in direct contrast to the wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish of the eschatological divine judgement (Rom 2:9,10).
It is in this broad context of reconciliation, that we ought to look at reconciliation between God and human- kind at a personal level. Reconciliation refers to the removal of enmity of
"the mind of flesh against God" (Rom 8:8) (Ridderbos 1977:184). Paul also, in Colossians 1: 21,22 says, "And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, [toward him]...he has now reconciled...". But for Ridderbos, this reconciliation must not only be looked at from a sense of human disposition. It refers to more than this. It refers to "an enmity" of God - not only in the active but also in the passive sense of the word. Bultmann (1952-1955, 1:286), agrees with the idea of the enmity being "active" and "passive". He refers to the active sense as meaning "hostile" (Rom 8:7) and passive as being "hated" (Rom 5:10; 11:28). His view is that there is a connection between the two as indicated by Romans 8:7 ff. He argues that "the latter is the consequence of the former" ie. passive enmity consequent to active enmity. (I will comment on this enmity further, in my exegesis of the Rom 5:1-11 text.)
Is there any further connection between "reconciliation" and "justification" ? For Ridderbos (1977:186) reconciliation "can be understood as starting from justification" while Bultmann (1952-1955, 1:286) sees reconciliation as " a consequence of righteousness". In this state man's relationship of guilt before God, is first of all abrogated "since his sin is not imputed to him". (2 Cor 5:19). Man ought to respond to God's "word of reconciliation" which has gone out to them. They ought to let "themselves be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20), rather than remain enemies under God's wrath. This "peace" (the condition of reconciliation) brings about "an inner peace of the heart that pervades the whole man in all his doings (Rom 15:13). It "restrains the hearts and minds of believers (Phil 4:7) and...gives judgement in their hearts when they find themselves in uncertainty or inner discord" (Col 3:15 ; cf 2 Thes 3:16)
Beker (1980:257) relates "justification" and "reconciliation" in the following way ' : For him, Paul uses the oriental image of legal relations in dealing with justification and the law. One of the significances of this image is that here, " legal justice is...a manifestation of the benevolence of the person in power".
For Beker (1980:257- 258), reconciliation stresses the contrast between enmity and peace, hate and love (cf. Rom 5:1-12 ; 8:31-39 ; 2 Cor 5:14 -21). The basic metaphors used with
reconciliation (KaxaA,A,ayf) )are "peace" and "love" (ie. e'ipf]vr] ; dLydnr]) (:258). Bultmann (1952-1955, 1:287), agrees. He says, "God's "reconciling is His restoration of peace" by no longer letting his "wrath" prevail." Beker (1980:258) describes justification as taking place
"vertically" eg :-judge and sinner are placed on two different levels" while "reconciliation operates horizontally". He refers to reconciliation as the "language of "appeal" (2 Cor 5:20). He feels that Paul's understanding is that "powers" are hostile because they separate rather than oppress" (Rom 8:35- 39).
4.2.6 CHRIST'S DEATH AS ATONEMENT. (KCXTCxUcxYtfj and iXac\idq)
I will round off this discussion of Paul's theology, by commenting on the atonement provided by Christ's death. Apart from Christ's death having a general forensic meaning, Paul also
1 The relationship between justification and reconciliation is a complex one. For (Barth 1956-1969, 4:523), the issue of "justification" relates only to one aspect of the Christian message of reconciliation. For comprehensive treatment of "The problem of the Doctrine of Justification" see (Barth 1956-1969, 4:514 - 527).
speaks of God having made Christ openly "to be a means of propitiation in his blood (Rom 3:25), as well as being "justified by his blood" (Rom 5:9) (Ridderbos 1977:186). A significant question then is what is the connection between God's reconciliation to the world and the death of Christ.
For Ridderbos (1977:187), "justified by his blood" and "reconciled by the death of his Son" is best explained by connecting it to Romans 3:25 which says that God "made (Christ) openly to beameansofpropitiationinhisblood". Ridderbos prefers to translate iAaaxfjpiov as
"means of propitiation" although in a footnote ', he refers to others "who wish to translate" by using "mercy seat"2. For Ridderbos, while KaxaA,A,aylj originates in the social-societal sphere, U,aarr|piov is derived from the cultus, particularly from the propitiatory sacrifice that took place there. Thus Ridderbos reasons that Christ's blood is "propitiatory blood".
Romans 5:9 goes on to say that justification has been accomplished by his "propitiatory death". Other texts also point to Christ's death as a sacrificial death. An example of this is
"our paschal lamb" referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:7.
Ridderbos (1977:188-189) also discusses the view of some theological thinkers who propose that the propitiatory sacrifice enters substitutionally between God and man. Here "the life given up in the sacrifice through the attendant shedding of blood covers sin before the face of God and in this way atones" (: 188). On the other hand it is posited that Paul spoke of the death of Christ in a figurative way and that there is no cultic significance to Christ's death (:189).
Ridderbos vehemently argues against this and I tend to concur with him. Kasemann (1971:42- 43) for one takes "the middle of the road approach". He says, "The idea of the sacrificial death has often been unduly stressed" (:42). But he does not eradicate, totally, the idea of sacrifice. He feels however that Paul "never definitely called Jesus' death a sacrifice, particularly since it was in general accounted as God's action and God cannot very well sacrifice to himself (:42). My interpretation of Hengel (1981:45 - 46) is that the cultic and substitutionary notions are not mutually exclusive. He sees both themes in the death of Jesus.
I differ from the above comment of Kasemann in my contextualization of Paul in point "11",
Ridderbos, pg. 187, footnote 15.
2 For further debate on this, see Dunn (1974:131) for his argument as opposed to Kasemann's about the translation to "mercy seat".
Chapter Five [pg. 94]. There I argue that this sense of self sacrifice on God's part is what provides a powerful motif for survivors if they can analogously identify with the character of God in the texts.