Introduction

15 He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things,
and in Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church,
who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in all things He may have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him,
whether things on earth or things in heaven,
having made peace through the blood of His cross. (Col. 1:15-20)

There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is a key figure for understanding Christianity. Not just as the one who stood at the beginning, but also as the one who gives it a real meaning. That is why all New Testament writers turn the attention of their readers to Jesus, especially to his death and resurrection. Perhaps the most prominent is this emphasis in the theology of the Apostle Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1:22-24; 2:1-2). Paul, however, is not satisfied only with the proclamation of the fact that Jesus died, but he is very concerned with the idea why did he die and what are the consequences.

One of the key terms used by Paul to describe the meaning and result of Jesus’ sacrifice is the word “reconciliation”. This concept, for him, is so crucial that he uses it to express the very essence of the Christian message: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)¹

One of the most remarkable writings Paul’s focused on the central role of Christ in the history of salvation, is his letter to the Colossians. This letter is based on a distinctive introductory Christological hymn (Col. 1:15-20) presenting Jesus, the crucified, as the head of all the universe, the originator of all creation and reconciliation. This key passage is then applied to the lives of believers, specifically to the situation of the Colossian church (cf. Col. 1:21-22).

Looking at contemporary theological research, it seems that there is usually a consensus among the exegetes about Paul’s understanding of the reconciliation brought by Christ to the sinful man. Many commentators, however, hesitate about the meaning of the phrase that the Father sent Jesus “…to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross” (v. 20).

The question is how Christ’s sacrifice could bring the reconciliation to “all… in heaven”. Why “the heaven” needed to be reconciled? To whom? And what (or who) is actually included under the term “all things in heaven”? Was there some kind of alienation even in heaven, requiring reconciliation?²

Moreover, the author of Colossians does not use the usual Greek verb katallassō, “to reconcile”, but its unusual derived form (probably his own neologism) apokatallassō, a word that is very unique in the Biblical context, not appearing anywhere outside the Bible.

So, in order to grasp better the meaning of this “cosmic reconciliation”, there are at least three important steps to be done: (1) the closer study of the key term apokatallassō, its etymology and the way Paul uses it in epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians; (2) the identification of two parties involved in this process of reconciliation; and also (3) the comparison of parallel passages in the letter to Colossians and to Ephesians using the same verb apokatallassō and mentioning the cosmic dimension of Christ’s work.

Reconciliation or Pacification? (Etymological Analysis)

As has already been said, the verb apokatallassō does not occur anywhere in extra-biblical literature, and even in the New Testament it appears only in three verses (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 22). Some scholars therefore believe that it could be an intentional Pauline neologism,³ while others attribute it to the need to maintain the rhythm of the poetic passage. Whatever the answer to this question, the fact remains that due to the very limited occurrence of this verb in the biblical text it is not easy to define its exact meaning.

It is this fact that leads the interpreters to the question of whether it is right to translate this verb in this context as “reconciliation” or whether its meaning is wider. Can it be understood as a pacification of God’s cosmic enemies, that is the victory over the powers of evil?⁴ Such an extension of the original meaning appears to be very significant and raises the question whether it could be linguistically and exegetically justified.

When looking for the meaning of the verb apokatallassō, we need to return to the default adjective allos, “other, another, else” and the cognate verb allassō, “to make different, change, alter, exchange”⁵). From that verb, other cognates with more specific meaning are derived by adding different prefixes (e.g. apallassō, diallassō, exallassō, katallassō, metallassō, parallassō or synallassō). The term apokatallassō, used in Col. 1:20, is thus directly derived from katallassō, “to reconcile, be reconciled to one”, extended (somewhat unusually) by another prefix apo.

Classical Greek

In classical Greek, the various forms of the verb allassō often appear in the sense of changing or exchanging something for something else (e.g. money). In a passive form, however, it can describe also a person reconciled to someone else.⁶ Especially the verbs katallassō and diallassō mostly relate to interpersonal relationships such as a shift from hostility to friendship and mutual reconciliation.⁷ Although the religious context of the verb katallassō is not usual in classical Greek, there are some exceptions as a Sophocles’ text in which the great warrior Aias (Ajax) seeks reconciliation with the gods who were angry with him. Having not reached this reconciliation, he ended his life by suicide.⁸

The Septuagint

The default verb allassō describes in LXX mostly changes or exchanges – e.g. the change of clothes (Gen. 35:2; 41:14 or 2 Sam. 12:20), the exchange of one animal for another (Lev. 27:10) or for the corresponding amount of money (Lev. 27:33), or even the change of deities that one worships (Jer. 2:11). Likewise, the verb diallassō indicates changes in the situation, place or attitude. As for the term katallassō, it occurs mainly in 2 Maccabeans (1:5; 7:33; 8:29) describing the change of the personal attitude of God toward people. It can be said, therefore, that all these expressions emphasize the change and the shift in relations. In the case of the word katallassō, there is a mention of a positive change, which concerns the close relationship between God and man, which had previously been disturbed.

Flavius Josephus

Josephus often uses different forms of the verb diallassō to describe the reconciliation among people (Ant. 11:5; 15:136; 16:125, 269; Jwr 1:320, 510), but also in the situation of reconciliation between repentant David and God (Ant. 7:153). Also the verb katallassō occurs in his writings in the context of broken relationships, e.g. within the family (Ant. 5:137; 7:184; 11:195) or, in general, between two alienated people (Ant. 14:278). Several times, it concerns also the relation between God and man – for instance the reconciliation between the disobedient Jews and God (Ant 3:315), or in the prayer of Samuel who begs God to reconcile with Saul (Ant 6:143). Much like LXX, Josephus applies these verbs to a positive shift and recovery in disrupted interpersonal relationships, or in the relationship of God and people (in both directions).

New Testament

There are six occurrences of the verb allassō in the NT. In five cases it has a basic meaning of the change or transformation of things or situations (Acts 6:14; Gal. 4:20; 1 Cor. 15,51, 52; Heb. 1:12), once it expresses the exchange of God’s glory for the worship of a human-made image (Rom. 1:23). The same situation is in the same pericope described also by the cognate verb metallassō (Rom. 1:25, 26). The only verse where the verb diallassō is used, is Matt. 5:24, where Jesus urges those who are willing to bring their gift to the Lord, to be reconciled first to their brother.

The verb katallassō is used in the NT exclusively by Paul, six times.⁹ One of these occurrences deals with marital problems and subsequent reconciliation of the couple (1 Cor. 7:11). The other five occurrences are found in two important passages that focus on a sinful man who, through God’s initiative, is called upon to reconcile with the Lord (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-20). It is noteworthy that Paul, unlike LXX, never associates this verb with God, who should be reconciled with men, but uses it to expresses a positive change in the relationship of man toward God.

Apokatallassō

As it was already mentioned, with the exception of three occurrences in the New Testament (Col. 1:20, 22; Eph. 2:16), the compound verb apokatallassō nowhere else appears. Its meaning can therefore only be determined on the basis of an etymological connection with the verb katallassō, which is extended by second prefix apo-, and also from the context of the above-mentioned passages.

Such duplication of the prefix (apokata–) is quite unusual. There are, however, two more NT passages with the similar phenomenon. The first could be found in the story of a man with the withered hand. Thanks to Jesus’ intervention, the man’s “hand was restored (apekatestathē) as whole as the other” (Mark 3:5). It seems that the double prefix apokata- reinforces the importance of change, emphasizing the full restoration to the original state. In the book of Acts, Peter preaches about the eschatological “restoration (apokatastasis) of all things” (Acts 3:21). Even in this context, this double prefix can be perceived as an enhanced expression of the restoration of the cosmic order to its original perfect form, which has been broken by the existence of sin.¹⁰

The use of the verb apokatallassō in the letters of the Colossians and Ephesians similarly emphasizes the renewal of the original ideal. In the letter to Ephesians, the writer applies it to the relationship of Jews and Gentiles; Jesus died and rose again “that He might reconcile (apokatallaxē) them both to God in one body” (Eph. 2:16). And the letter to Colossians speaks clearly about people “who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled (apokatēlaxen) in the body of His flesh through death” (Col. 1:21, 22).

Summary

At the beginning of this first section, the question was asked whether it is possible to extend (along with some commentators) the meaning of the verb apokatallassō (Col. 1:20) in order to give it the sense of pacification, i.e. attaining peace not by mutual agreement but by the victory of one side, ending thus hostilities by the defeat of the enemy. After studying the etymological background of this verb, it is obvious that such a shift in meaning would be something unprecedented and difficult to justify. The verb allassō and its derivations, in the context of relationships between God and people, always indicates a change in mutual relationships, accompanied by a positive shift. This also applies to the use of the verb apokatallassō in Col. 1:22. It would be strange if the author used such a specific verb (probably his own neologism) in two very different meanings in a single short passage.

Two Sides of the Reconciliation

If reconciliation implies a positive shift in relationships, we must necessarily identify two sides of this process. The text says that it pleased to the Father to reconcile “all” (ta panta), on earth or in heaven, to Him[self] (eis auton). It is clear that this text does not describe mutual reconciliation among humans (cf. Eph. 2:16), but reconciliation to God. Or to Jesus? Moreover, those who are supposed to be reconciled “to him” are not just people but also heavenly beings. But what kind of heavenly beings and why would they need to be reconciled to God?

Reconciliation “to Him”

When the apostle Paul uses the verb “katallassō” in his writings, it is usually followed by a dative.¹¹ Nevertheless, in Col. 1:20, the accusative form is used: eis auton „to Him“. This expression at other places of the NT indicates usually the direction or relation to someone. E.g. John’s Gospel uses this term regularly to describe the fact that someone has believed or disbelieved in Jesus.¹² In some verses of the NT, it is used also with the meaning “for Him”, in the sense of purpose or intention,¹³ eventually in the connection with the love shown to someone (2 Cor. 2:8). In Colossians, this term expresses a positive relationship of love for all the saints (Col. 1:4), as well as the situation when some people lie to one another (Col. 3:9). According to Jean-Noël ALETTI, the expression “eis auton” in Col. 1:20 could thus be translated as “with respect to”, “in view of” („en vue“) or „for Him “ („pour lui“).¹⁴ The absence of usual dative in verse 20 could be explained by an attempt to preserve the rhythm and poetic structure of the whole hymn. However, the deliberate retention of the term “to Him” may at the same time refer to both the identification of one side and the purpose of this activity.

Several Bible versions translate the expression “eis auton” as “to Himself”, referring thus to the Father as the one to whom all should be reconciled. Such a translation, however, is quite problematic. The pronoun autos, “He”, occurs in our hymn (Col. 1:15-20) 12 times.¹⁵ In the first part of verse 20, it is used twice (kai di’autou apokatallaxai ta panta eis auton). It is obvious, that at the beginning of the verse it refers undoubtedly to Christ. From a linguistic point of view, it seems thus very strange if Paul used the same pronoun in the same phrase for two different characters.

If the author of the letter to Colossians wished to emphasize that one side of this reconciliation is God the Father, he would have the opportunity to express it more clearly, for instance by using the expression eis heauton, “to Himself” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18).¹⁶ He had the possibility of clearly distinguishing two different characters, but he did not.

If the pronoun autos was used intentionally, then it refers specifically to Jesus as one side of the reconciliation. This interpretation is also supported by SCHWEITZER¹⁷ who recalls the important parallels of the first and second parts of the hymn, where the same expressions “en autō”, “dia autou“ and “eis auton“ occur:

As both pronouns in verse 16 relates to Christ and his role in the creation of the universe, it is quite logical to infer that they also refer to Jesus in verses 19 and 20, in the context of reconciliation. If all things were created through Jesus and for Him, then it is also true that everything was reconciled by Jesus and to him. Neither creation nor reconciliation can be separated from the person of Christ, whether we are talking about their origin or intent.¹⁸

The idea of reconciliation to the Father is not excluded in this text, but it is not emphasized. It should be noted, finally, that by getting the pronouns right, one is not thereby ‘dethroning’ God, as it were, since God the Father is not the focus at any point in the entire ‘hymn’. Rather, what one does is properly to ‘enthrone’ the Son.”¹⁹

All on earth

If it was difficult to identify the side of reconciliation that offers it, then determining the other side of the process is much easier. The text Col. 1:20 mentions ta panta, “all”, specifying that they are “on earth” as well as “in heaven”.

As for all those who are “on earth”, they are identified in verses 21 and 22 as human beings “who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death”. It is quite logical that reconciliation is needed for people, the inhabitants of the earth, whose relationship with their Lord has been disturbed by the existence of sin. But does this reconciliation refers only to human beings, or does it refers also to “all creation, animate and inanimate”?²⁰ This would correspond to Paul’s belief that all creation was in some way affected by sin (cf. Rom.8:19-22).²¹ Nevertheless, the theme of reconciliation (and related verbs) is always used in the biblical context only in relation to intelligent beings with free will. It seems, thus, better to translate the term ta panta as “all beings”, rather than “all things”.²²

All in heaven

The question who should be reconciled to Jesus “in heaven” is a little more complicated. Who are those intelligent heavenly beings that needed the reconciliation brought by Christ? Once again, it will be useful to take into account the parallel structure of the hymn which presents two key divine works: creation (v. 15-18) and reconciliation (v. 19-20).

The term ta panta, “all [beings]”, in verse 16, unambiguously refers to all those who were created; whether they are visible or invisible, “whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers”. The parallel verse 20, dealing with reconciliation, then mentions only ta panta, without any further specification. It is therefore very likely that even this term describes also heavenly “thrones, dominions, principalities and powers”.

This “list” of heavenly powers in Colossians reflects the ancient Jewish angelology and demonology, as it is attested especially in Jewish pseudepigrapha (e.g. 1 and 2 Enoch, Testament of Levi). Since Paul mentions these heavenly entities also in other texts (Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 2:10, 15) and in a different order, it seems that he refers generally to their diversity rather than their exact systematical hierarchy.²³ As they are also connected with angels (cf. 1 Pet. 3:22), we may conclude that Paul depicts here the wide range of created heavenly beings of spiritual nature.

A large number of commentators consider these words as a reference to heavenly spiritual powers that are hostile to both God and man.²⁴ Such argumentation is usually based on the text Col 2:15 that mentions Jesus who “having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it”. It is then inferred from this that also the references in chapter 1 should analogously refer to forces and powers of evil which, through Christ’s death and resurrection, can be referred to as defeated enemies.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t fit well into the immediate context of the hymn. One of the key terms of the entire passage Col. 1:15-20 is the Greek adjective pas, “all” (8 occurrences: v. 15 [1x], v. 16 [2x], v. 17 [2x], v. 18 [1x], v. 19 [1x] and v. 20 [1x]). In the first part of the hymn, this adjective depicts clearly the creation as a whole. Jesus is thus presented as a supreme head of all created beings, without any exception, whether they remained loyal to God or not. Similarly, it would not make sense if we tried to limit the “all” in v. 20, in the context of reconciliation, to only some of heavenly beings, for instance, to demonic powers.

Another argument for refusing to identify these celestial powers only with the powers of evil is a closer look at the terms used to describe these forces (thrones, dominions, principalities and powers).²⁵ Although sometimes they can be used in negative contexts (1 Col. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; 6:12; Col. 2:15; Rev. 13:2; 16:10), in many cases their meaning is neutral, or even positive (Dan. 7:9; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 2 Pet. 2:10; Jude 1:8; Rev. 4:4). Generally speaking, the positive or negative understanding of these heavenly powers is always dependent on the context, and cannot be limited, in advance, only to the forces of God’s enemy.

“We may conclude that the terms thronoi, kyriotētes, archai, and exousiai, far from conveying to the Colossians the idea of hostile forces of the universe or of malevolent spirits, would have at most described beings whose status was neutral, requiring definite signs from the context to be interpreted in an evil sense. Indeed most uses of this language made these beings the angelic host of God, who are mentioned in order to establish God’s awesome majesty and power.”²⁶

So if the letter to Colossians says that at one of the sides of reconciliation are even all beings (ta panta) in heaven, it refers to all of them, without distinction – whether they stand on the side of God or show their hostility against him.

Summary

Having analyzed the biblical passage, we may conclude that both sides of the process of reconciliation can be well identified. First of all, the text mentions the Father who decided to send Jesus and to “reconcile all (beings) to Him”. Based on the analysis of the use of the pronoun “He” (autos), it is likely that it is a reference to Christ. The use of dative indicates that this reconciliation takes place “in relation to Him”.

As for the other protagonists, the hymn refers to two groups – “all” beings on earth and in heaven. These beings “on earth” should be undoubtedly identified with sinful humanity, as confirmed by the subsequent application of this idea to the experience of the Colossian Christians (Col. 1:21, 22).

The heavenly beings are described in v. 16 as “thrones, dominions, principalities and powers”. However, the overall context (as well as the analysis of their use in other biblical and extra-biblical sources) does not allow us to limit them only to evil spiritual forces hostile to their Creator. The repetition of the adjective pas leads us to the application of the cosmic aspect of reconciliation to all created heavenly beings.

Nevertheless, the important question still remains: In what sense needed these heavenly beings to be “reconciled” to Christ?

Cosmic Reconciliation in Colossians and Ephesians

Studying the texts of Colossians, one cannot overlook the very close relationship that exists between this letter and the epistle to Ephesians. If we compare them, we can see not only certain identical passages and a significant part of the vocabulary, but even a similar basic structure.²⁷

It is particularly noteworthy that both letters deal with the subject of alienation and reconciliation (Col. 1 and Eph. 1-3). But these are applied somewhat differently in both letters – while in Colossians the emphasis is rather cosmologic, the letter to Ephesians focuses more on ecclesiological consequences. In both cases, the reconciliation process can be simplistically expressed in a similar basic model:

1. Alienation (or hostility)

2. Christ’s sacrifice

3. Reconciliation (as its outcome)

4. Impact on humanity and heavenly beings

Alienation

The theme of the alienation of the two sides is expressed in these letters with the verb apallotrioō, “to alienate” (which occurs in NT only in these two epistles), implying broken relationship. So the Colossians once were “alienated” from God (Col. 1:21). As for the Ephesians Christians, they were once also without Christ, “being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12). Later, Paul speaks about Gentiles who were “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). Although the context of these verses differs, both letters speak of the disruption of the relationship to God, which is then reflected in interpersonal relationships. This alienation thus leads to a hostile attitude towards God, and then, as a result, to hostility towards people.

Christ’s sacrifice

It is also clear from both letters that the only solution to the alienation problem caused by the presence of sin in the universe was the death of Jesus Christ. That is why both epistles focus readers’ attention on Christ and his cross. Thanks to Him, sinners have “redemption through His blood” (Col. 1:14), the “peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:20). Christ’s sacrifice thus brings the solution of their alienation: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13), being thus reconciled “both to God in one body through the cross” (Eph. 2:16).

Reconciliation

The reconciliation which we are dealing with in this study, is the obvious result of Christ’s sacrifice. It is remarkable that the verb apokattallassō appears only in these two letters. First of all, it pleased the Father “to reconcile all things” to Christ (Col. 1:20). As for human beings, those “who once were alienated,… now He has reconciled” (v. 21). And one of the other consequences of this reconciliation is its application at the level of interpersonal relationships: Jesus died so that “He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph. 2:16).

Impact on heavenly beings

An important topic, to which only little attention has been paid in commentaries, is the subsequent impact of the work of reconciliation not only on humans but also on heavenly beings. This subject is present in both letters, which is evident from the almost identical use of terms referring to heavenly powers and dominions. This crucial parallel between these texts could serve as a guideline for their correct interpretation.

The hymn Col. 1:15-20 mentions all heavenly beings (“whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers”). Not only that they were all created through and for Christ but they are also, in some way, connected by the reconciliation brought about by the sacrifice of Jesus.

A similar idea appears in the epistle to Ephesians, where Jesus is also introduced as the Lord of all these celestial powers, this time not by virtue of his role in the creative work, but above all by virtue of his death and resurrection:

“[God] raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:20-23)

In the third chapter, however, one more important and significant text appears, which again speaks of these heavenly beings. Their shift in the perception of God is introduced here as a consequence of what Christ did on the cross:

“…to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. 3:10-11)

The epistle to the Ephesians mentions these heavenly powers even in other places (2:2; 6:12), but only here in the context of reconciliation and their relationship to God. From this point of view, it seems that this parallel text could be a key to understanding the cosmic aspect of reconciliation.

Although there is no explicit mention of reconciliation in these verses, they are very close to our topic. The deeper understanding of God’s wisdom by the heavenly powers is presented here as the result of the fact that they can watch the life of the earthly church – the fellowship of those who, through Christ, have been reconciled to their Savior. It is, therefore, also a consequence of what Jesus did. In this sense, it is possible to speak not only about parallel but also about the development and completion of the idea of reconciliation.

“The church, in Ephesians, is God’s masterpiece of reconciliation: it comprises those who have been individually reconciled to God through Christ and who also have been reconciled through the Cross of Christ to each other "in one body" (Eph. 2:14-16). Through this masterpiece of reconciliation "the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" are intended to learn "the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph.3:10) by which He conceived "the plan of the mystery hidden for ages" (Eph. 3:9).”²⁸

At the same time, it has also the impact on the attitude of these powers to God, because the better understanding and appreciation of his wisdom implies undoubtedly a fundamental positive shift in the relationship. In this sense, this change could be perceived as a kind of “reconciliation”.

Already in the 19th century, H. ALFORD drew attention of readers to this possible parallel, expressing the significance of the reconciliation of heavenly beings, powers, and powers to the Lord as follows:

“But, forasmuch as He is their Head as well as ours,- forasmuch as in Him they, as well as ourselves, live and move and have their being, it cannot be but that the great event in which He was glorified through suffering, should also bring them nearer to God, who subsist in Him in common with all creation. And at some such increase of blessedness does our Apostle seem to hint in Eph. iii. 10. That such increase might be described as a reconciliation, is manifest. In fact, every such nearer approach to Him may without violence to words be so described, in comparison with the previous greater distance which now seems like alienation…”²⁹

Summary

Comparison of parallel passages in Colossians and Ephesians implies that the theme of the reconciliation process plays an important role in both letters. It begins with alienation, but thanks to Christ’s death and resurrection there is reconciliation, which has its consequences not only in the life and relationships of people, but it interferes with all created beings in the universe.

One of the key passages is Eph 3: 10,11, which speaks of the celestial beings that are brought closer to their Creator, and their relationship to Him is deepened. This is due to a better understanding of his wisdom and intentions revealed not only on the cross, but subsequently also in the life of the church that connects those who have been reconciled to God and with each other.

Conclusion

In the introduction of this paper, several questions have been outlined, which are related to the cosmic aspect of reconciliation in the Christological hymn Col. 1:15-20: Why does it speak about heavenly beings in connection with reconciliation? What kind of beings did the Apostle Paul mean? Whom should they be reconciled to and in what sense?

A closer view of etymology and the use of the verb apokatallassō and its cognates has shown that it is to be associated with the mutual relationship, not just with the position of humans or celestial beings before someone. Moreover, this verb has always a positive connotation and describes a positive shift in mutual relationships. On these grounds, therefore, we conclude that all the interpretations that try to represent this reconciliation as the pacification of the cosmic hostile forces that ultimately have to submit to Christ’s government, do not respect the real meaning of this verb.

As for the actors of the reconciliation process, the most likely conclusion is that this passage speaks of reconciliation of all creation (both human and heavenly beings) to their Lord, who is not only God the Father, but specifically in the context of the hymn also Jesus. If we are talking about the cosmic aspect of this reconciliation, it must be emphasized that the text speaks of all heavenly beings (ta panta), and the verse 16 unfolds this mention in more detail: “thrones, dominions, principalities and powers”. So it seems that all the heavenly beings created by God, regardless of whether they are friendly or hostile to God, must be included in this category. There is no reason why they should be limited only to the forces of darkness and evil.

Although all heavenly beings are mentioned here, the context does not lead us to interpret this reconciliation as a sort of automatic universality. The same adjective “all” is also used here for the human beings, and yet it would not be right to claim that everyone will be automatically reconciled to his Creator. It is far more likely that Christ’s sacrifice has secured the opportunity for reconciliation to all – to all men, as well as to all heavenly powers. “Through Christ reconciliation is accomplished, but it must be accepted to be realized in each person and being. If this is not the case, the warning to the readers in 1:22-23 – to remain faithful to the gospel they have already receives – loses its force.”³⁰

The deeper meaning of this reconciliation of heavenly beings could be seen if we compare parallel passages of Colossians (Col. 1:15-20) and Ephesians (esp. Eph 3:10). Both letters mention the heavenly powers and God’s purpose to cause a positive shift in their perception of Himself. The basis for this “reconciliation” was unequivocally laid down on Calvary. However, it is a process that has its historical continuation leading to eschatological climax. As “the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” watch now “the church”, the fellowship of those who are being transformed by Christ’s sacrifice, their understanding of God’s wisdom and true character is increasing.

“All creation subsist 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.” ³¹

In the lives of those who accept Christ’s offer of reconciliation, whether people or heavenly beings, the trust in God’s character and wisdom can be restored and deepened because of Jesus’ sacrifice. And in this sense, ultimately, the original harmony will be restored not only on earth, but in the whole universe.