kalatasso (2)

I think that kalatasso was a strange word to choose for what Paul was describing in these verses. Several things stand out.

• Unlike barter or money changing, the exchange is not equal. God had very little to gain from the transaction, and humans had everything to gain.

• When two people have fallen out, the one who was in the wrong has to eat humble pie in order to put things right. Yet in both Romans and Corinthians, it is God who takes the initiative. He is the subject of the verb, whereas humans are the object. God takes action, and humans are the recipients. That is not the normal process of katalasso.

• The reconciliation took place while we were still enemies of God. This is unusual, because the usual first step towards reconciliation between enemies is for both sides to let their enmity go. In contrast, God did not wait for us to give up our enmity towards him. He took decisive action without waiting for humans to seek peace.

• In normal usage, katalasso is used when two estranged parties (friends, spouses, business partners, even warring cities) made peace and restored normal relations. For that to happen, both sides have to concede and give up things that they had been hanging onto. God did something quite different. The difference was Jesus. He died, acting as a human, to put things right and restore the relationship between humans and God.

• People reading Paul’s letter would have been jarred by the use of katalasso for what happened, because it is so different from the usual exchange/putting right. They would get a sense of how shocking God’s actions were. In contrast, we assume that the word is a perfect description of our reconciliation of God.

• Paul said that we are ambassadors for Christ. This is consistent with the diplomatic meaning of katalasso. We are envoys for God, proclaiming the diplomatic settlement with the world that Jesus established to end hostilities between the parties.