Chapter 6
Colossians 1:15–20
Notice what Colossians 1:20 puts together. It names the widest possible scope: "all things." And it names the most particular possible cost: "the blood of his cross." Both in one breath. One sentence. No gap between them.
That is the verse I want us to sit with in this chapter. It is one of the clearest statements of universal reconciliation in the entire Bible. And it is grounded, from the first word to the last, in the costly sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The cross is not the problem for the larger hope. The cross is its ground.
I have heard people say that the hope of universal salvation cheapens grace. That it makes the cross less serious. That a God who saves all must be a God who does not really care about sin. This chapter is, in part, my answer to that charge. Because the very verse that teaches the reconciliation of all things is the same verse that anchors that reconciliation in the blood of Calvary. You cannot have one without the other. The scope is "all things." The means is "the blood of his cross." Paul will not let us separate them.
We will also look at two other great reconciliation texts. In 2 Corinthians 5:18–19, God is "reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them." In Ephesians 1:9–10, God's hidden purpose is to "unite all things in him." Together, these three passages form a cluster. They tell us that God's plan is the reconciliation of everything and everyone. That plan was accomplished at the cross and moves toward its full unveiling.1
Read the verse again. Slowly.
"And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1:20, ESV)
The same "all things" that were created through Christ (v. 16) are reconciled through Christ (v. 20). The one who made everything is the one who brings everything home. And the way he does it is named: the blood of his cross. This is not a bypassing of Calvary. This is Calvary's reach.
Colossians 1:15–20 is often called the "Christ Hymn." Scholars believe these verses may have been an early Christian song or confession of faith, woven into Paul's letter.2 Whether Paul composed it himself or adopted it, he placed it at the very heart of his letter to the Colossians. And it says something extraordinary.
Let me set the full passage before you:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1:15–20, ESV)
The structure of these six verses forms a careful pair. Verses 15–17 describe Christ and creation. Verses 18–20 describe Christ and redemption. Both halves use the same phrase, "all things" (Greek ta panta, "the totality").3 In the first half, all things were created through him and for him. In the second half, all things are reconciled through him and to him. The match is deliberate. Nothing falls outside the scope of creation in verse 16, and nothing falls outside the scope of reconciliation in verse 20.
The Inclusio: Created and Reconciled
The Christ Hymn opens by saying all things were created through Christ (v. 16). It closes by saying all things are reconciled through Christ (v. 20). The same phrase, "all things" (Greek ta panta), appears in both. Whatever was created is reconciled. The scope of redemption matches the scope of creation. This literary bracket is what scholars call an inclusio, and it locks the meaning in place.
The key verb in verse 20 is "to reconcile" (Greek apokatallassō, "to reconcile fully, to restore to a former state of harmony").4 This is a strengthened form of the more common word for reconciliation (katallassō). The prefix apo- adds force: this is a thorough, complete reconciliation, not a partial truce.5 And the object of this verb is, again, "all things."
The phrase that closes the verse tells us how this reconciliation is accomplished: "making peace by the blood of his cross." The word "making peace" (Greek eirēnopoiēsas) appears only here in the New Testament.6 Its related adjective, though, appears in a very famous place: the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers (eirēnopoioi)" (Matthew 5:9).
The word-family carries the sense of bringing peace where there was conflict. And the means named here is "the blood of his cross." Not military conquest. Not forced submission. The voluntary, sacrificial death of Jesus.
The context continues in verse 21. Paul turns to the Colossians themselves and says, "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled." Notice the move. He has just described the cosmic reconciliation of all things in verse 20. Now, in verse 21, he tells the Colossian believers that they are part of that reconciliation. They were once enemies. Now they are reconciled. And the implication is plain: they are a picture of what God plans for everything.7
The first question is the most basic one: what does "all things" mean? The Greek phrase is ta panta. It is one of the broadest terms in the Greek language. It means "the totality, everything, the whole." And Paul does not use it loosely here. He defines it with extraordinary care.
In verse 16, he lists what "all things" includes: "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." He covers every category he can name. Heaven and earth. Visible and invisible. Every rank of power. Nothing is left out on purpose.8
Then in verse 20, when he says God reconciles "all things, whether on earth or in heaven," the parallel is unmistakable. The same "all things" he defined so broadly in verse 16 is the same "all things" reconciled in verse 20. As George Hurd puts it, the Creator of all is also the one who reconciles all. "It is very clear that the 'all' in this passage is indeed 'all,' without any exclusion."9
Hurd on the Scope of Reconciliation
"Here Paul does not spare detail in emphasizing that 'all' means absolutely 'all,' including all in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible—even including invisible thrones, dominions, principalities and powers. All—absolutely all, was created by Christ and for Christ. But the passage doesn't end with the creation of all. It ends with the reconciliation of that same 'all' included in the creation; whether it be on earth or in heaven—all was reconciled through the blood of His cross."
George Sidney Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, "Universal Reconciliation"This point is worth pressing. Some readers will want to narrow "all things" to mean only believers, or only the physical creation, or only a general restoration of order. But the text will not let us. The same ta panta that includes every created thing in verse 16 is the same ta panta that is reconciled in verse 20. You cannot expand the scope of creation in the first half and shrink it in the second half. The hymn will not split.10
As Hunter Coates observes, the infernalist must assume that "reconcile" has a double meaning in verse 20. For believers, it means joyful union with God. For the lost, it somehow means forced defeat. But this double meaning is nowhere in the text. The word "reconcile" appears once, with one object: "all things." To read two opposite meanings into a single use of a single word is, as Coates puts it, "lackluster at best and baseless at worst."11
The second thing to notice is how the reconciliation is accomplished. Paul does not say God will reconcile all things by raw power or by force. He says God reconciles all things "making peace by the blood of his cross."
This phrase answers, in a single stroke, the charge that universal reconciliation "eclipses grace." It does the opposite. It plants grace at the center. The scope of reconciliation is "all things." The means of reconciliation is the most costly act in history: the death of Jesus on the cross.
I want to say this clearly, because it matters for everything this book argues. The larger hope does not bypass the cross. It rests on the cross. It says: what Christ accomplished at Calvary is big enough for all things. His blood was shed not just for a few, and not just for many, but for all. The reconciliation is accomplished "by the blood of his cross," and the scope of that accomplishment is every created thing.
The Cross and the Scope
If I were asked to point to a single verse that holds the universal hope and the costly cross together, it would be Colossians 1:20. The scope is "all things." The means is "the blood of his cross." You cannot preach one without the other. Any universalism that sets aside the cross is rightly rejected. And any doctrine of the cross that shrinks its scope below "all things" has not yet heard what Paul is saying.
The word "making peace" (Greek eirēnopoiēsas) deserves careful attention. Some critics have argued that this word should be read against the background of Roman imperial language. In that world, "making peace" often meant "pacifying by conquest." The Roman emperors "made peace" in Gaul and Spain by defeating their enemies and subjecting them by force.12
But Coates offers a strong reply. The adjective form of this very word, "peacemakers" (eirēnopoioi), appears in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:9). There it means those who make peace without violence. Jesus calls them "blessed." Would the author of Colossians take this word and invert it to mean violent conquest? Coates thinks not. As he writes, "this is an entire inversion of the meaning of Christ's words" in "one of the most famous scenes in all the gospels."13
And there is a deeper problem with the "forced pacification" reading. The word "reconcile" (apokatallassō) means, in every other place it appears, the restoration of a broken relationship into a friendly one. Peter O'Brien, himself a critic of universalism, agrees. He notes that in all New Testament references, reconciliation obtains as "a gracious initiating activity of God."14 If "make peace" means forced defeat, it clashes with "reconcile," which means restored friendship. You cannot have both forced subjugation and genuine reconciliation. One must give way. And the New Testament usage of "reconcile" is clear: it points toward the healing of a real relationship, not the crushing of an enemy.15
Paul says the same thing in different words in 2 Corinthians 5:18–19. Here he turns from the cosmic scope to the personal application:
"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:18–19, ESV)
Two things stand out. First, the scope is "the world" (Greek kosmos). God was in Christ reconciling the world, not a subset of the world, not only those who would believe in this life, but the world.16 Second, the manner of this reconciliation is grace: God is "not counting their trespasses against them." This is not the language of forced defeat. This is the language of forgiveness, freely given at God's initiative.
As Hurd observes, Paul makes two things clear here. "Christ will reconcile the entire world to Himself." And "the transgressions of the people of the world will not be a roadblock to reconciliation with God."17 The Calvinist must restrict "world" to mean the elect. The Arminian must add a condition the text does not name: "God offered reconciliation to the world, but only some accepted." The text itself simply says: God was reconciling the world to himself.
Notice, too, who is doing the reconciling. "All this is from God," Paul writes (v. 18). God is the actor. God reconciled us. God was in Christ reconciling the world. God entrusted to us the message. The initiative runs one way: from God to the world. And the scope of that initiative is not limited to those who have already believed. It extends to "the world," with sins not counted, and with ambassadors sent out to call every person home.
Paul then adds something remarkable in verse 21: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The cross is the ground again. Christ bore sin so that we could be made righteous. And the "we" here is not a private circle. It is the world for whom reconciliation was accomplished in the previous verse.
Does this mean the reconciliation is automatic? No. Paul immediately adds, "we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God" (v. 20). There is a call. There is a response required. The reconciliation was accomplished objectively at the cross, but each person must receive it. Hurd makes this distinction with care: "While God made reconciliation once and for all 2,000 years ago by the blood of His cross, it is evident that most have not yet corresponded to that reconciliation, being reconciled to God in their hearts."18 The promise of universalism is that they will. All of them. In God's time.
Already and Not Yet
Paul often speaks in what scholars call the "already/not yet" pattern. The reconciliation is already accomplished at the cross. It is not yet fully received by every person. Believers are the "firstfruits," the first wave of a harvest that God will complete. The writer of Hebrews captures this: "He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him" (Hebrews 2:8). The victory is won. Its full outworking lies ahead.
A third passage rounds out the picture. In Ephesians 1:9–10, Paul writes:
"Making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." (Ephesians 1:9–10, ESV)
The phrase "to unite all things" translates the Greek word anakephalaiosasthai (literally, "to bring together again under one head").19 It is a compound word. The prefix ana- means "again," and kephalē means "head." The sense is re-gathering, re-uniting, putting back together what was scattered. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines it as God's act "to bring together again for himself all things and beings (hitherto disunited by sin) into one combined state of fellowship in Christ."20
Hurd sees this as one more piece of the same picture: "The mystery of His will which is being revealed here in Ephesians 1:9, 10 is the final restoration of all when all creation will be eternally reunited in Christ and God will then be all in all."21 The Colossians text says God will reconcile all things. The Ephesians text says God will unite all things under one head. The two phrases describe the same event: everything that has been torn apart by sin is brought back together in Christ.
Some have resisted this salvific reading by arguing that the key word should be translated "to bring under subjection to a head" rather than "to unite" or "to sum up." Parry addresses this argument directly. The problem with deriving the meaning of anakephalaiosasthai from the etymology of kephalē ("head") is that it is a linguistically dubious procedure to determine the meaning of a whole word from one of its component parts. Better to examine the word's actual usage. In Romans 13:9, Paul uses the same verb to say that all the commandments are "summed up" in the command to love. The word there means "bringing together into one," not "subjecting under a ruler." The parallel with Colossians 1:20, where reconciliation is clearly salvific, supports the same reading here. Andrew Lincoln concludes that the two passages "appear to presuppose that the cosmos has been plunged into disintegration on account of sin and that it is God's purpose to restore the original harmony in Christ."21b
And Paul calls this "the mystery of his will." It is not a human wish. It is not a theological projection. It is God's own purpose, "set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time." This is what God has planned all along.22
Paul reinforces the point two verses later: God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). The plan is to unite all things in Christ. And God works all things according to his will. So the plan will succeed. This is not wishful thinking. It is God's decree.23 (For more on the power of God's saving purpose, see Chapter 12.)
Let me pull the three texts together and state plainly what the reconciliation of all things means for the hope this book defends.
It means that every estranged thing will be brought back to God through the cross. Every person who has ever lived, no matter how far they have run, no matter how deeply they have rebelled, will in the end be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus Christ. The scope of the atonement matches the scope of creation. What Christ made, Christ redeems.
But I need to say just as plainly what this hope does not mean. It does not mean reconciliation without the cross. The means is named: "the blood of his cross." Any version of universal hope that sets aside the atonement is not the hope this book defends. The cross is the ground, not an obstacle to be worked around.24
And it does not mean reconciliation that overrides the will. The word "reconcile" (apokatallassō) describes the healing of a relationship. You cannot have a real relationship by force. The reconciliation of all things is the claim that all will freely come to faith in Christ (for more on this free-will question, see Chapter 2 and Chapter 30). God does not drag anyone kicking and screaming into his arms. He draws, persuades, purifies, and wins. And in the end, every heart says yes.25
Think of it this way. If a father and his estranged son are finally reconciled, we understand at once what happened. The hostility ended. The relationship was restored. Trust was rebuilt. The two are in genuine fellowship again. Now imagine someone tells you, "The father and son were reconciled, but the son was locked in chains and forced to kneel." That is not reconciliation. That is conquest wearing a borrowed name. When Paul says God will reconcile all things, he means what the word means. Every broken relationship will be genuinely healed.
Hurd captures the "already/not yet" shape of this reconciliation well. At the cross, God accomplished the objective reconciliation of the world. He made peace. He removed the legal barrier. He opened the way. But each person must respond to that accomplished work. "While it is true that reconciliation will not be fully realized until all are reconciled unto God in their hearts, God has sworn by Himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord."26
That is the shape of the hope: objective reconciliation at the cross, subjective reconciliation in the heart of every person, and God's own oath that the second will one day match the first.
The universalist reading of Colossians 1:20 is not a modern invention. It draws on a long line of careful scholars who have taken the text at its word.
George Sidney Hurd, in both The Triumph of Mercy and A Defense of Biblical Universalism, treats Colossians 1:15–20 as one of the strongest texts in the Bible for universal reconciliation. He stresses the parallel between creation and reconciliation: the same "all" that was created is the same "all" that is reconciled.27 He also makes the important point that "reconciliation" is a relational term. It refers to the restoration of broken relationships between persons. Only moral beings who are at enmity with God need reconciliation. And so the reconciliation of "all things" must include all such beings, not just the physical universe or the animal kingdom.28
Hunter Coates, in Grace Abounds, offers a sustained engagement with the opposing arguments. He challenges the "forced pacification" reading of "making peace." He traces the word-family back to Matthew 5:9 and shows that the biblical usage favors genuine peace, not violent conquest.29 He also presses the logical problem with reading "reconcile" as having a hidden double meaning. The word is used once, with one object. It should carry one meaning. To split it into "joyful union for believers" and "forced defeat for the lost" is to impose a gap the text does not make.30
Robin Parry (writing as Gregory MacDonald), in The Evangelical Universalist, gives one of the most careful treatments of this passage. Parry reads the Christ Hymn as a Jewish monotheistic confession, structured around two parallel stanzas: creation (vv. 15–17) and redemption (vv. 18–20). The verbal and thematic parallels between the two halves are deliberate and controlling, Parry argues. The "all things" created in verse 16 are, he says, the same "all things" reconciled in verse 20: "every single created thing." This is not "all without distinction" (some of every kind) but "all without exception" (every single thing in creation). Parry insists that there is "no overriding reason internal to Colossians to reject the most natural interpretation" of the text as teaching the reconciliation of the entire cosmos.31
Parry on the Scope of Reconciliation
"That reconciliation should be seen in salvific terms is underscored by the fact that the poem expands on the notion of reconciling all things in terms of making peace through the blood of his cross. The reconciliation of all things brings peace with God—a notion that, for Paul, clearly expresses salvation. . . . One could hardly imagine Paul supposing that one of Christ's enemies suffering eschatological punishment was in a state of peace with God!"
Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., p. 52Parry also presses an important point about the church's role. In Colossians, believers are the firstfruits of the cosmic reconciliation, not its limit. "The church," he writes, "is a present sign of the reconciliation that the whole creation will one day experience." The reconciliation the Colossian believers now enjoy (1:22) is a foretaste of the reconciliation that has been won for "all things" (1:20). Just as the firstfruits of the harvest are the beginning of a crop that God will bring to completion, so the church is the beginning of a reconciled creation.31b
Thomas Talbott, in The Inescapable Love of God, presses a further argument that strengthens the universalist reading. He notes that Peter T. O'Brien, himself a conservative scholar, concedes that reconciliation is "a gracious initiating activity of God." But O'Brien then argues that the principalities and powers are "reconciled through subjugation," not salvation. Talbott replies that O'Brien has attributed to Paul an incoherent idea. You cannot subjugate a will against itself. So long as a single will remains in rebellion against Christ, at least one power in the universe is not yet in subjection to him. The only way to bring a will into genuine subjection is to transform it, so that it voluntarily places itself under Christ. What O'Brien calls "subjugation" is either a contradiction in terms or, in the end, the very thing the universalist claims: the transformation of every rebel heart into a willing worshiper.31c
On the other side, James De Young, in Exposing Universalism (chapter 13), offers several attempts to limit the scope of "reconcile all things." At one point he suggests the phrase refers only to inanimate creation. At another, he expands it to include the animal kingdom but not humans. At yet another, he argues that all will be reconciled, but some "by conquest," as "conquered opponents who have refused to exercise faith."32
Hurd responds that De Young appears "undecided as to what to do with this passage." He also notes that what De Young calls "reconciliation by conquest" is not reconciliation at all. "That may be subjugation, but it isn't reconciliation, making peace by the blood of His cross by any stretch of the imagination."
De Young also attempts to limit the scope of 2 Corinthians 5:19. He writes that God's purpose of reconciling the world in Christ "is accomplished for the 'world' that will believe and receive Christ." But as Hurd responds, the text itself draws a clear line between "the world" (the whole of humanity being reconciled) and "us" (the believers entrusted with the message). Believers are a subgroup chosen out of the world for the benefit of the rest. We are ambassadors sent to carry the good news of a reconciliation that has already been accomplished for all.33
Michael McClymond, in The Devil's Redemption (§12.3, "The Problem of Grace," V 2, pp. 1025–31), raises a different concern. He argues that universalism, across its many historical forms, tends to "eclipse grace." He traces this pattern through four categories. The first is the gnostic "spark of the divine" that returns to God by nature. The second is the eternal solidarity with Christ that makes salvation a given. The third is the purgatorial self-expiation that shifts the saving work from Christ to the sinner. And the fourth is the divine fiat that simply overrides every human choice. In each case, McClymond argues, what looks like "all grace" turns out to be "no grace" (V 1, p. 24).34 This is a serious charge, and I want to answer it directly. I agree with McClymond that any universalism which makes grace automatic, makes it a product of human nature, or shifts the saving work from Christ to the sinner's own suffering is in error. But the universalism this book defends does none of those things. It insists that every person must freely receive the reconciliation Christ accomplished at the cross. The claim is that all will receive it, not that none need to. (For the full engagement with McClymond's "eclipse of grace" charge, see Chapter 29.)
Let me state the strongest objections to the reading I have just laid out, as fairly as I can.
Objection: "Reconcile All Things" Means Pacification, Not Salvation
The traditional reading, defended by De Young (chapter 9), argues that "reconcile all things" includes pacification by conquest. Rebels are subdued, not saved. "All things" means the cosmos is restored to proper order, with the wicked judged within it, not every person brought to saving faith. De Young writes that Paul's words include "not only those who believe the gospel (such as the Colossians, explained in vv. 21–23) but also those who are reconciled by conquest and become the footstool of Jesus Christ's future reign. They are conquered opponents who have refused to exercise faith."
I grant that the language of "making peace" can, in the Roman imperial context, carry overtones of military conquest. And I grant that at the final judgment, Christ's authority is absolute. Every knee will bow (Philippians 2:10–11). But the question remains: is that bowing forced or free? Is the "peace" made here the peace of a prison, or the peace of a healed relationship?
The text answers that question clearly. The word "reconcile" means the restoration of a broken relationship into a friendly one. Every time Paul uses this word-family, it describes genuine relational healing, not the crushing of an enemy.35 And the means of making peace is "the blood of his cross," the very language of atoning sacrifice. This is not the language of a general subduing a province. This is the language of a Savior dying for those he loves.
Furthermore, as Hurd points out, a "reconciliation" that leaves vast numbers of people eternally at war with God empties the word. If God "reconciled all things" and yet billions remain in unending hostility toward him, then Paul has used a word that cannot deliver on its own meaning.36 A reconciliation that does not reconcile is no reconciliation at all.
A second objection comes from the other side. McClymond (§12.3, V 2, pp. 1025–31) argues that universalism, in its many forms, tends to make salvation a matter of nature, necessity, or self-expiation rather than free divine grace. He writes that the graciousness of grace "has always been linked to particular divine actions viewed as contingent rather than necessary" (V 1, p. 24). If reconciliation is automatic, it ceases to be grace.
I share McClymond's concern about any universalism that treats salvation as automatic. But I disagree that the hope I am defending does that. McClymond's four categories of grace-eclipsing universalism are the gnostic spark, the eternal divine-human solidarity, purgationist self-expiation, and ultra-universalist fiat. The hope this book holds fits none of them. The reconciliation was accomplished objectively at the cross, not by nature or by human effort. It is applied personally as each individual freely responds to God's gracious appeal. The claim is not that no one needs to say yes. The claim is that God, who knows what every heart needs (see Chapter 12), will in his time bring every heart to that free yes. Grace is not eclipsed. Grace is magnified. The cross reaches not just the few, not just the many, but all.37
A third objection narrows the scope. Some have argued that "all things" in Colossians 1:20 refers to the physical creation or the cosmic order, not to individual persons. De Young at one point suggests it applies only to "inanimate" creation or to "non-human creation."38
But this will not work, for two reasons. First, "reconciliation" is a relational word. Inanimate objects do not need reconciliation with God. Only moral beings who are at enmity with God need to be reconciled. Second, verse 21 immediately applies the cosmic reconciliation of verse 20 to the Colossian believers: "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled." Paul himself treats the "all things" of verse 20 as including persons, because in verse 21 he includes specific persons as examples of that reconciliation.39
The Hope, Not the Counterfeit: The Cross at the Center
The universalism this chapter defends is grounded in the costly cross of Christ. McClymond (§12.3) identifies four ways universalism eclipses grace: the gnostic spark that saves by nature, the eternal divine-human solidarity that saves by metaphysics, the purgationist self-expiation that saves by suffering, and the divine fiat that saves by decree. The hope this book holds is none of these. It does not bypass the atonement; it trusts the atonement to reach its full scope. It does not make grace automatic; it insists that every person must freely receive the reconciliation Christ accomplished. And it does not set aside the need for faith; it trusts that the God who reconciled the world at Calvary will bring every heart, in his own time, to a free and genuine yes. If McClymond is right that those universalisms "eclipse grace," we agree. This is the hope that grace is wider than we dared to imagine, because the cross is stronger than we knew. (See Appendix B for the full boundary statement.)
Let me draw together what we have seen. Three of Paul's letters say the same thing in different words. In Colossians, God reconciles "all things" through the blood of the cross. In 2 Corinthians, God reconciles "the world" to himself, not counting their sins. In Ephesians, God plans to "unite all things" in Christ at the fullness of time. The scope is always total. The means is always the cross. And the initiative is always God's.
This is not a theologian's wish. This is the apostle Paul, writing under inspiration, telling us what God has done and what God will finish. The reconciliation of all things is not a soft doctrine. It rests on the hardest reality in the universe: the blood of the cross. It takes sin so seriously that it required the death of the Son of God to overcome it. And it trusts that sacrifice to accomplish what it was offered for: the reconciliation of everything he made.
In the next chapter, we will hear another side of the same promise. Paul says not only that all things will be reconciled, but that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And he says this confession will be "to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11). That is not the sound of forced surrender. That is the sound of worship.
The cross is not the problem. The cross is the hope. And its reach is all things.40
↑ 1. The three texts treated in this chapter (Colossians 1:15–20; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19; Ephesians 1:9–10) form what might be called Paul's "reconciliation cluster." They share vocabulary (katallassō / apokatallassō), scope (ta panta, kosmos), and agency (God, through Christ, at the cross). The propitiation texts (1 John 2:2; John 1:29) are treated in Chapter 11.
↑ 2. On the hymnic structure of Colossians 1:15–20, see the standard commentaries. The passage is marked by rhythmic parallelism, relative clauses ("he is... he is..."), and a two-stanza shape (creation in vv. 15–17, redemption in vv. 18–20) that suggests a pre-Pauline or Pauline liturgical composition. See, e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 55–70.
↑ 3. Greek ta panta (τὰ πάντα): the neuter plural of pas with the definite article, "the all things, the totality." BDAG defines ta panta in this context as "the sum total of everything." It appears in both vv. 16 and 20, creating the literary bracket (inclusio) that controls the scope of the passage.
↑ 4. Greek apokatallassō (ἀποκαταλλάσσω): a strengthened compound of katallassō ("to reconcile"), with the prefix apo- intensifying the action. The word occurs only three times in the New Testament: Colossians 1:20, 22; Ephesians 2:16. Hunter Coates traces the broader katallassō word-family through Romans 5:10–11; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19. See Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds: A Holistic Case for Universal Salvation (2024), "The Universal Reconciliation."
↑ 5. Whether the apo- prefix carries intensifying force or simply marks a variant form is debated in the commentaries. The effect in context, however, is clear: the reconciliation described in Colossians 1:20 is complete and thorough, not partial.
↑ 6. Greek eirēnopoiēsas (εἰρηνοποιήσας): an aorist active participle meaning "having made peace." This is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament (it appears only here in verb form). The related adjective eirēnopoioi (εἰρηνοποιοί, "peacemakers") appears in Matthew 5:9. The verb also appears in the Septuagint at Proverbs 10:10. See Coates, Grace Abounds, for a detailed analysis of the word-family.
↑ 7. Coates makes this point at length: verse 21 draws the Colossian believers into the cosmic reconciliation described in verse 20, showing that individual human beings are included in the scope of ta panta. See Coates, Grace Abounds, "The Universal Reconciliation."
↑ 8. The categories listed in verse 16 ("thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities") denote both human and spiritual powers. The phrasing "visible and invisible" and "in heaven and on earth" exhausts the created order. See George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism (2019), ch. 7 on Colossians 1:16–20.
↑ 9. George Sidney Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ (2014), "Universal Reconciliation."
↑ 10. The commentator M. R. Vincent makes the same point: the "all things" of verse 20 "must be taken in the same sense as in vv. 16, 17, 18, the whole universe, material and spiritual." Quoted in David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed., on Colossians 1:20. Burnfield notes that you cannot argue that Paul means all things in vv. 16–18 but only believers in v. 20.
↑ 11. Coates, Grace Abounds, "The Universal Reconciliation." Coates argues that the infernalist must assume an "implicit double meaning" in verse 20 where "reconcile" means joyful union for believers and eternal torment for the damned. He calls this assumption "lackluster at best and baseless at worst."
↑ 12. The Roman-imperial reading of eirēnopoiēsas is developed most fully by Charles Talbert, who cites Plutarch on Alexander the Great and the Res Gestae Divi Augusti as parallels. See the detailed response in Coates, Grace Abounds.
↑ 13. Coates, Grace Abounds, "The Universal Reconciliation." Coates writes: "Since the author of Colossians was a follower of Christ, it is unlikely he would twist the words of Christ like this, so much so that they quite literally mean the opposite of what Jesus called for in one of the most famous scenes of his life."
↑ 14. Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), pp. 56–57. Coates cites O'Brien's observation and then tests it against four New Testament passages (Ephesians 2:16; Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19), confirming that reconciliation consistently involves the gracious activity of God overcoming estrangement. See Coates, Grace Abounds. For a direct philosophical rebuttal of O'Brien's claim that the powers are "reconciled through subjugation," see Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), who argues that O'Brien has accepted a true premise (only those who gladly receive reconciliation experience it) but drawn a fallacious inference (that therefore not all will gladly receive it).
↑ 15. Coates presses the logical problem: "How is there a friendly relationship if there is also forced pacification?" If "make peace" means forced conquest, it clashes with "reconcile," which in every NT usage means the restoration of a previously hostile relationship into a friendly one. The two cannot coexist. See Coates, Grace Abounds.
↑ 16. Greek kosmos (κόσμος): the standard Pauline term for the entire human world. Hurd notes that 2 Corinthians 5:19 distinguishes "the world" (the whole of humanity) from "us" (believers entrusted with the message). Believers are a subgroup of the world, not the world itself. See Hurd, The Universal Solution (2016), "Unlimited Atonement."
↑ 17. George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7, on 2 Corinthians 5:18–19. Hurd notes that Paul makes two things clear in this passage: the scope of reconciliation is the whole world, and sin will not prevent God from completing that reconciliation. See also Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed., on the same passage.
↑ 18. George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. Hurd distinguishes between the objective accomplishment of reconciliation at the cross and the subjective experience of reconciliation in each person's heart. The already/not yet distinction is central to Paul's soteriology.
↑ 19. Greek anakephalaiosasthai (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι): an aorist middle infinitive from anakephalaioō. The word is composed of ana- ("again") and kephalaioō (from kephalē, "head"). Hurd notes that it is "best translated as 'to reunite or unite again under one head,' since only this rendering retains the meaning of the prefix ana." See Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 20. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), s.v. anakephalaioō. Cited by Hurd in A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 21. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 21b. See Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., pp. 217–220 (Appendix 1: "Ephesians"). Parry surveys the usage of anakephalaiōsis in the rhetorical textbooks of Aristotle (Fragments 123), Quintilian (6:1), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De Lysia 9), and in Paul's own usage at Romans 13:9, where the love-command "sums up" the other commands. On the translation "to comprehend under one head" (Markus Barth, Ephesians, 89–92), Parry objects that it is "a linguistically dubious procedure to determine the meaning of the word on the basis of the etymology of one of its component parts." The Lincoln quotation is from Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 33. See also Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 60, who speaks of Christ as "the unifying power of the universe."
↑ 22. The word "mystery" (Greek mystērion) in Paul does not mean a puzzle humans cannot solve. It means a secret God has now revealed. The mystery of God's will, revealed in Christ, is the cosmic gathering-up of all things. See also Ephesians 3:9–11.
↑ 23. The sovereignty theme of Ephesians 1:11 ("works all things according to the counsel of his will") is developed fully in Chapter 12. See also Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: "The story of the ages ends by saying in essence: 'And they lived happily ever after, Amen!'"
↑ 24. This is the fundamental answer to McClymond's "problem of grace" (§12.3 of The Devil's Redemption, V 2, pp. 1025–31). McClymond argues that universalism "eclipses grace" by making salvation a matter of nature or necessity rather than costly, freely received grace. His thesis at §0.10 (V 1, pp. 23–25) states that "the graciousness of grace has always been linked to particular divine actions viewed as contingent rather than necessary." Colossians 1:20 refutes this charge head-on: the reconciliation of all things is accomplished by "the blood of his cross," which is precisely a particular, contingent, costly, and gracious divine act. The scope of the atonement (all things) does not lessen the cost of the atonement (the cross). It magnifies it. For the full engagement with this charge, see Chapter 29.
↑ 25. The non-coercive character of the universal hope is central to this book's distinction from necessitarian universalism (see Chapter 1 and Appendix B). The reconciliation is free, not forced. For the role of middle knowledge in explaining how God brings free creatures to a free yes, see Chapter 29.
↑ 26. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. Hurd is referencing Philippians 2:10–11 and Isaiah 45:24. The "every knee" and "every tongue" texts are treated fully in Chapter 7.
↑ 27. See Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, "Universal Reconciliation"; and Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 28. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. Hurd writes that reconciliation "is exclusively a relational term, referring to the restoration of broken relationships. Only fallen rational moral beings are in need of reconciliation with God."
↑ 29. Coates, Grace Abounds, "The Universal Reconciliation." Coates traces the eirēnopoieō word-family from Matthew 5:9 to Colossians 1:20 and argues that the biblical usage favors genuine peacemaking, not forced pacification.
↑ 30. Coates, Grace Abounds, "The Universal Reconciliation." Coates also notes that the argument from a "holistic view of Paul" (AHVP) fails because even if Paul is the author, his consistent use of the katallassō word-family always points toward gracious reconciliation, never forced subjugation.
↑ 31. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade), pp. 48–54. Parry's treatment of the Christ Hymn opens with N. T. Wright's analysis of its Jewish monotheistic structure ("Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1:15–20," in Climax, 99–119) and then moves through creation, fall, and redemption. On the scope of ta panta, Parry writes: "The 'all things' that are reconciled in v. 20 are, without any doubt, the same 'all things' that are created in v. 16. In other words, every single created thing. It is not 'all without distinction' (i.e., some of every kind of thing) but 'all without exception' (i.e., every single thing in creation)" (pp. 51–52). His conclusion: "So there is no overriding reason internal to Colossians to reject the most natural interpretation of the reconciliation of the cosmos in chapter 1" (p. 54). On the salvific nature of reconciliation, Parry draws on J. D. G. Dunn (Colossians, 104) and links apokatallassō in Colossians 1:20 with the same verb in Ephesians 2:14–16 and the broader katallassō word-family in Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:11; and 2 Corinthians 5:18–20 (p. 52).
↑ 31b. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., pp. 56–57. Parry writes: "The church, then, is a present sign of the reconciliation that the whole creation will one day experience. It is clear that in Colossians reconciliation is only found in Christ (1:13–14) and that, for now, not all are in Christ; but the vision presented in the hymn is a vision in which one day all will be." Many commentators believe Paul added the words "the church" in 1:18 to explain what he meant by "the body," which originally referred to the cosmos (on the Orphic and Platonic background, see the standard commentaries). This transformation of cosmic-body language into church-body language makes the church a "scale model" of the coming cosmic reconciliation. On the realized-eschatology tension in Colossians, Parry notes the aorist tense in 1:13 and 1:22 (indicating a finished work) alongside the "hope of glory" language in 1:27 and the future-looking statement in 3:4.
↑ 31c. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014). Talbott engages O'Brien's argument (Colossians, Philemon, WBC, pp. 56–57) at length. On the incoherence of "reconciliation through subjugation," Talbott writes: "Insofar as the powers and principalities of which Paul spoke included personal beings with competing wills, these could never be entirely subjugated against their will; for if they should be so subjugated, then their will would precisely not be in subjection to Christ." He illustrates with Milton's Satan, who, even after defeat, finds that "the mind and spirit remains / Invincible" (Paradise Lost, bk. 1, ll. 105–11). Talbott's point: "there is but one way for God to defeat a rebellious will and to bring it into subjection to Christ; he must so transform the will that it voluntarily places itself in subjection to Christ."
↑ 32. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. De Young's treatment of Colossians 1:19–23 and the "reconciliation by conquest" reading appears in Exposing Universalism, ch. 13, "The Apostles on Judgment and Hell" (pp. 208–35), where he discusses Paul's epistles on reconciliation. The quotation about "conquered opponents who have refused to exercise faith" is from p. 210, as cited by Hurd. De Young also touches the "all" language of Colossians in ch. 9, "The Appeal to Texts with 'All' and 'Whole'" (pp. 165–90). Hurd's response: "De Young seems undecided as to what to do with this passage."
↑ 33. De Young's attempt to limit the scope of "world" in 2 Corinthians 5:19 to mean "the 'world' that will believe and receive Christ" appears in Exposing Universalism, p. 239, as cited by Hurd in A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. Hurd responds that the text draws a clear distinction between "the world" (the scope of reconciliation) and "us" (the believers called as ambassadors). See also Hurd, The Universal Solution, "Unlimited Atonement."
↑ 34. Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), §12.3, "The Problem of Grace in Christian Universalism" (V 2, pp. 1025–31). McClymond organizes the problem under four assertions: "I am saved because I am divine" (the gnostic spark), "I am saved because I am human" (eternal Godmanhood in Barth and Balthasar), "I am saved because I suffer" (purgationist self-expiation, especially Bulgakov), and "I am saved because God so wills it" (ultra-universalist fiat). In each case, he argues, grace is compromised or eliminated. His summary at §0.10 (V 1, pp. 23–25) states the thesis plainly: "The great irony of Christian universalism lies in its eclipse of grace. The effort to extend grace to all has repeatedly ended up compromising or even eliminating the notion of grace. What seems to be 'all grace' turns out on inspection to be 'no grace.'" The universalism this book defends falls under none of McClymond's four categories: it affirms Christ's costly cross (not a divine spark), receives grace by personal faith (not automatic solidarity), rests on Christ's atoning work (not self-expiation), and requires a free response (not divine fiat). The full engagement with McClymond's "eclipse of grace" thesis is in Chapter 29.
↑ 35. Coates traces the katallassō / apokatallassō word-family through Ephesians 2:16; Romans 5:10–11; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19. In every case, reconciliation involves the gracious overcoming of estrangement to produce a new, friendly relationship. Not once does it mean forced subjugation. See Coates, Grace Abounds.
↑ 36. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7. Hurd presses this point against De Young's "reconciliation by conquest" reading: subjugation is not reconciliation. To call it such is to empty the word of its meaning.
↑ 37. Compare the pattern of 2 Corinthians 5:18–21: objective reconciliation at the cross (v. 19), followed by the personal call, "be reconciled to God" (v. 20), followed by the substitutionary atonement (v. 21). The pattern is: accomplished universally, applied personally, grounded in the cross.
↑ 38. De Young, Exposing Universalism. In ch. 13, "The Apostles on Judgment and Hell" (pp. 208–35), De Young suggests from Romans 8 that the reconciliation applies to "inanimate" creation only. In ch. 14, "Sixteen Questions" (pp. 236–42), he presses the point further: "When Paul speaks of the whole creation being reconciled does he not explicitly define this as all non-human creation, since it was subjected to frustration or bondage because of human sin?" (p. 237). See Hurd's response in A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 39. Hurd's reply to De Young's attempt to limit "all things" to the non-human creation: "This shows a misunderstanding of what reconciliation actually means. It is exclusively a relational term, referring to the restoration of broken relationships. Only fallen rational moral beings are in need of reconciliation with God." See Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 7.
↑ 40. The propitiation texts (1 John 2:2; John 1:29), which extend the scope of the atonement beyond the church to "the whole world," are treated in Chapter 11. The cumulative case, drawing together the reconciliation texts, the propitiation texts, and the "all in all" texts into one unified witness, is made in Chapter 30.