The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-07-24
ga STUMBLING BLOCK TO COM
MENTAToRS."

suggestive NIUE OH OOl. L, ~, IN regard
to the future reconciliation of all things
to God through Christ, which runs as
follows: This statement of the in
finite extent of Christ's redemption
(which may well fill US with reverential
awe) has been stumbling block to
many commentators, who have devised
various land some very ingenious)
modes of explaining it away" The
passage thus commented on is as fol-
lows: For it pleased the Father that
in him should all fullness dwell and
having made peace through the blood
of his cross by him to reconcile all
things unto himself; by him, | say,
whether they be things in earth or
things in heaven"
1t would be difficult for any modern
master of expression to originate set
of words more explicitly teaching the
sublime truth of final reconciliation, or,
more properly, the Final Reconciliation,
than these. The passage is sufficiently
explicit as it stands, but with the
emendations of modern scholarship it
becomes even more impressive. In the
original the words 'the Father" do not
appear, but are supplied to make the
sense more clear. CoDybeare and How
son, however, read into the text the
Trinitarian idea and make Christ equal
with God, translating, For He willed
that in Himself should all the fullness
of the universe dwell'-the capitaliza-
tiOn marking the Trinitarian idea. But
the sense of the passage is undoubtedly
that God wills that all necessary full
ness should reside in Christ for the
purpose of reconciliation. Thus Sharpe
reads, "For He was we'll pleased that in
him all fullness should dwell; and hav-
ing made peace through the blood of
his cross, through him to reconcile all
things to Himself = through him,
whether they be things on earth or
things in heaven" If the reader will
observe this capitalization the exact
meaning will be evident. 1t is God
who wills or is we'll pleased that Christ
should reconcile, and it is " unto Him
SELF (God) that all things are to be
reconciled through the one Saviour in
whom ''all fullness dwells' for that
purpuse-a purpose which is co-exten-
sive with " things on earth and things
in heaven"
If the plain import of language is
considered, we cannot escape the con-
clusion that this passage unerringly
points to the reconciliation of the uni
verse to God. 1t can teach nothing
short of this unless it is shorn of its
distinctive features, unless limited by
the sectarian prejudices of those who
regard the Scriptures in other passages
as teaching contrary doctrine and who
are unwilling to believe that Gods will
is to be fulfilled in the salvation of all
mankind. 1t is hence that the passage,
as observed by Conybeare and Howson,
has been ''stumbling-block to COM
mentators' of the various orthodox
schools, whose ingenuity has been exer
cised to escape from the conclusion
which the apostle so clearly sets forth.
1t has been explained away" many
times BY these ingenious scholars, but
it still remains glowing declaration of
the divine word, endorsing and con-
frming the most magnificent hope that
can fill the human heart, and giving
positive assurance of the final result
of Christianity as an operative force
throughout the ages.
Rev. Albert Barnes, the Presbyterian
commentator, is one of those who en-
deavor to break the force of this pas
sage, and struggles vainly to limit its
universal declarations. In his notes on
the passage he remarks: "Where it
is said that it pleased the Father by
Christ to reconcile all things to himself,
the declaration must be understood
with some limitations" And he pro-
ceeds forthwith to give reasons why the
divine word should be thus limited.
He makes three "points " against the
inspired apostle, as follows:
l. 1T relates only to those things which
are on earth and heaven. Nothing is said
of the inhabitants of hell, whether fallen
angels or the spirits of wicked men who
are there.
2. 1t cannot mean that all things are
actually reconciliation that has never
been true. Multitudes on earth have re-
manned alienated from God and have
lived and died his enemies.
3. 1t can mean then, only, that he had
executed plan that was adapted to this;
that il fairly and properly applied, the
blood of the cross was fitted to secure
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.
Such are the considerations which this
Presbyterian scholar urges against re-
ceiving the words of the apostle in an
unlimited sense; such the argument
which he uses to break the force of the
universally of the passage and bring it