Colossians 1:20 — “Peace by the blood of his cross”: cosmic concord or penal payment?
Colossians 1:20 says that it pleased God “through him to reconcile all things to himself … making peace by the blood of his cross.” Read in a Socinian way and with Fausto Sozzini, the verse speaks not of a penalty paid to divine justice, but of the concord established through Christ — the gathering of heaven and earth, Jews and Gentiles, under the one Christ. The decisive point is the grammar of reconciliation: in the New Testament God is always the subject who reconciles, never the placated object. Nowhere does it say that Christ reconciled God to us; everywhere it says that God reconciled us to himself through Christ.
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 1:18–20 (ESV)
Context
Colossians 1:15–20 is a self-contained, hymnically shaped passage that Paul inserts into the letter in order to set out the preeminence of Christ over against the teachings about powers and elements circulating in Colossae. The hymn runs in two stanzas: the first (vv.15–17) about Christ as the “image of the invisible God” and mediator of creation, the second (vv.18–20) about Christ as head of the church, “firstborn from the dead,” and mediator of reconciliation. The reconciliation sentence in v.20 is therefore the closing climax of a hymn of praise to the preeminence of Christ — not the unfolding of a penal theory.
The front against which the letter is written is recognizable: in Colossae a “philosophy” (Col 2:8) was being taught that pushed angelic powers, cosmic elements (stoicheîa), and ascetic ordinances between God and man. Against this cosmic fragmentation Paul sets the gathering of all things under the one Christ. “To reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven” therefore means first of all: the torn reality is brought into concord under one head — heaven and earth, the visible and invisible order.
Immediately before (vv.13–14) Paul has already named the “out of what” and “in what” of redemption: God “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Redemption is here expressly defined as forgiveness — as a gift, not as a settling of accounts. The reconciliation sentence in v.20 is to be read in the light of this preceding definition.
The subject of the whole sentence structure is God the Father: it “pleased” him to let all fullness dwell in Christ and through him to reconcile. Christ is the means and the place (“through him,” “in him”), not a third party who changes the mind of a wrathful God. Whoever reads v.20 as penal substitution must brush this clear subject–means structure of the verse against the grain.
The Socinian Central Thesis
The penal-substitutionary reading understands “peace by the blood of his cross” as the payment of a penal debt to divine justice: only the satisfaction accomplished on the cross makes God reconcilable. Against this two things must be said in a Socinian way. First, Col 1:20 in its immediate sense does not speak at all of the reconciliation between God and man, but of the concord established through Christ between the previously divided realms — as the addition “whether on earth or in heaven” shows.
Second, and more fundamentally: where the New Testament does speak of the reconciliation of God and men (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18–20), the direction is always the same. God is the acting subject who reconciles out of his own love; man is the object who is reconciled. It is never said that Christ reconciled God to us, that is, changed the mind of one who was angry. Sozzini puts it precisely: nowhere is it written that Christ reconciled us to God, but everywhere that God reconciled us to himself through Christ.
With this the inner logic of penal substitution collapses. Reconciliation is not the consequence of a payment that changes God’s attitude, but the expression of a love that already goes before: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). The cross does not placate a hostile God; it is the deed of the already gracious God, who removes the enmity on our side and turns us back to himself.
“To make peace” (eirēnopoiḗsas) therefore does not mean the stilling of a divine wrath by a ransom, but the establishment of a new, ordered relationship — analogous to Ephesians 2:14–16, where Christ “our peace” breaks down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. The blood of the cross is the seal and the proof of this peacemaking, not the purchase price paid to God.
Colossians 1:20 proclaims the concord of the universe established through Christ and the reconciliation of the world with itself proceeding from God himself — not a penalty paid to God. The blood of the cross seals God’s prior love; it does not placate it.
Exegesis: Key Terms and Semantic Field
Four linguistic observations decide the interpretation of Col 1:20:
apokatallássō (ἀποκαταλλάσσω) — “to reconcile fully / to reunite”
The verb in Col 1:20 is the doubly intensified form of katallássō (“to change, to set into a new relationship”). It denotes the restoration of a broken relationship — the return to concord — not the placating of one who has been offended by some performance. That is a different semantic field from hiláskomai (“to make favorable, to propitiate”), which ancient religion used for the appeasement of angered deities.
This distinction is materially decisive. Katallagḗ (reconciliation) is relational language: enemies become friends. Where the NT applies the root katallag- to God and man, God always stands as the one reconciling, man as the one reconciled. Penal substitution, by contrast, needs the logic of hiláskomai (to change someone’s mind) — and slips it under the word katallássō, which does not yield it.
In Col 1:20, moreover, the grammatical subject is the whole acting God (“it pleased him … to reconcile”). Christ is the means (“through him”) and the goal (“into him / toward him”). A reading that makes Christ the payer of a price directed to God reverses this sentence structure.
tà pánta (τὰ πάντα) — “all things / the universe”
The object of reconciliation is not “the sinners,” but “all things, whether on earth or in heaven.” This cosmic horizon bursts the penal narrowing: a criminal trial reconciles guilty persons, not “things in heaven.” Sozzini holds that it is precisely the addition “on earth or in heaven” that fixes the interpretation on concord, not on satisfaction.
Within the horizon of the letter, tà pánta means the reality previously torn apart by cosmic powers, which is now gathered into order under the one head, Christ (cf. Col 1:16–17; 2:10,15). Reconciliation here means: the restoration of the one order directed toward God — the economy of salvation, “that all things might be united in him.”
Whoever narrows tà pánta to a forensic remission of debt must either ignore the heavenly half of the object or turn it into a speculation about the reconciliation of the angels which the text does not support. The concord-reading accounts for both halves of the object without strain.
eirēnopoiḗsas (εἰρηνοποιήσας) — “making peace”
The participle “making peace” ties in with the Old Testament and prophetic shalom notion: saving wholeness, an ordered relationship, well-being. It is relational, not penal, language. Peace is “made” by removing what divides and establishing a new togetherness — not by paying a sum of money or a penalty.
The closest parallel is Ephesians 2:14–16: Christ “is our peace,” who breaks down “the dividing wall of hostility” between Jews and Gentiles and “kills the enmity.” There it is demonstrably the hatred between groups of people, not God’s wrath. Since Col 1:20 uses the same language of peace and reconciliation, the same interpretation suggests itself.
“To make peace by the blood of the cross” therefore means: through the covenant sealed on the cross the torn reality is pacified and gathered under Christ. The blood is the proof and seal of God’s peacemaking, not the price by which a peace is purchased from God.
di’ autoû / eis autón (δι’ αὐτοῦ / εἰς αὐτόν) — “through him / toward him”
The prepositions define Christ’s role precisely: he is the means (“through him”) and the goal (“toward him / into him”) of the reconciliation, whose subject remains God the Father. Thus Christ is neither an independent financier nor the recipient of a payment, but the person appointed by God in and through whom God carries out his own work.
Concerning the Greek construction Sozzini notes that “into himself (or: into him)” cannot, without bending the accusative, be reinterpreted as a placated God as the end point. Grammar and context therefore together point to the concord-reading, not to satisfaction.
This means-and-goal structure corresponds exactly to 2 Cor 5:19: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” God acts; Christ is the place of this acting; the world is its object. Three roles, no penal proceeding.
Comparison of the Interpretations
Reference to Fausto Sozzini
Fausto Sozzini treats Colossians 1:20 expressly in his principal work, in the place where he examines the proofs drawn from the term “reconciliation.” He sets the verse alongside Ephesians 2:16 and shows that both speak not of the reconciliation between God and man but of the concord established through Christ — and that wherever the NT does speak of the reconciliation of God and men, it is always God who is the reconciling subject.
But what is to be said when it is manifestly proved that Christ reconciled neither us to God nor God to us, but rather that God himself was the one who accomplished this reconciliation, so that nowhere at all is it read that Christ reconciled us to God, but everywhere, openly or tacitly, that God reconciled us to himself through Christ?
Fausto Sozzini, On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), section “Refutation: Reconciliation” (on Col 1:20)
Sozzini’s observation is at first purely philological: he has examined all the passages in which the NT speaks of the reconciliation effected through Christ, and established that the grammar is everywhere the same. God reconciles, man is reconciled. A passage in which Christ would have “reconciled God to us” — that is, changed the mind of one who was angry — does not exist. With this the presupposition without which penal substitution cannot do is removed.
On Col 1:20 itself Sozzini judges: “These words, however, like the preceding ones, are not about the reconciliation between God and men, but about the concord brought about through Christ between them.” It is precisely the addition “whether on earth or in heaven” that confirms this reading; a forensic remission of debt cannot meaningfully carry “the things in heaven” as its object.
And concerning the reconciliation God–man (Rom 5:10) he holds: “for while we were still his enemies, we were reconciled, that is, turned back to him, and we enjoy his friendship.” Reconciliation is here a turning back to God, which God himself effects — the removal of our enmity, not the settling of a divine penal claim. That takes nothing away from the weight of the cross; it merely preserves the theological consistency.
Overview of the writings of Sozzini
Logical Arguments
From Col 1:20 and its context the following arguments arise against the penal-substitutionary reading:
- Argument from the cosmic object. The object of reconciliation is “all things, on earth or in heaven” — not primarily guilty persons. A criminal trial reconciles no “things in heaven.” The cosmic horizon demands the reading as gathering and concord, not as remission of debt.
- Argument from the subject structure. The subject of the sentence is God the Father: it “pleased” him to reconcile. Christ is means (“through him”) and goal (“into him”). Penal substitution makes Christ the payer and God the recipient and thereby reverses the grammar of the verse.
- Argument from the word choice apokatallássō. The verse uses the semantic field of the restoration of a relationship (katallag-), not that of cultic appeasement (hiláskomai). Reconciliation means: enemies become friends — not: one who is angered is changed in mind by a performance.
- Argument from the parallel Eph 2:14–16. There the same language of peace and reconciliation demonstrably builds on the hatred between Jews and Gentiles, not on God’s wrath. “He is our peace … killing the enmity.” Since Col 1:20 carries the same language, the same interpretation suggests itself.
- Argument from the preceding verse (Col 1:14). Paul has already defined redemption: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Redemption is thus defined as forgiveness — and forgiveness is materially incompatible with the settling of a paid penalty. Whoever is paid does not forgive.
- Argument from the consistent NT grammar of reconciliation. Nowhere does Christ reconcile “God to us”; everywhere God reconciles “us to himself through Christ” (Rom 5; 2 Cor 5). But penal substitution needs precisely the missing direction. The sum of the evidence refutes it.
- Argument from the concept of the mediator/reconciler. A reconciler is not one who pays off the entire debt of another — that would be a surety or debtor — but one who leads the estranged into concord. The very concept excludes the penally vicarious full payment, as Sozzini shows.
- Argument from the prior love of God. “God shows his love in that Christ died for us while we were still sinners” (Rom 5:8). Love is the cause, not the consequence, of the cross. A reconciliation obtained only through payment diminishes precisely this love which Paul wishes to praise.
Biblical Cross-References
The following passages are essential for the correct understanding of Col 1:20:
2 Corinthians 5:18–19 — God reconciles the world to himself
“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself … in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” Here the direction of reconciliation is unmistakable: God is subject, the world object, Christ the means. The “not counting” of sins is forgiveness — the opposite of an accounted payment. This key passage governs the interpretation of Col 1:20.
Romans 5:8–10 — reconciled while we were still enemies
“While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” The context (v.8) names the cause: God’s prior love. Reconciliation is the turning of the enemy into a friend, effected by God, not the settling of a divine penal claim. Cf. the entry on Romans 5:8–10.
Ephesians 2:14–16 — Christ, our peace
“He is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down the dividing wall … by killing the hostility.” The enmity here is that between Jews and Gentiles, not that between God and man. Since Col 1:20 uses the same language of peace and reconciliation, the concord-interpretation is materially secured.
Colossians 1:13–14 — redemption as forgiveness
Immediately before the hymn Paul defines: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Redemption is forgiveness, and forgiveness is grace, not a settling of accounts. This definition governs the understanding of “peace by the blood” in v.20.
Colossians 1:16–17 — all things held together in him
“All things were created through him and for him … and in him all things hold together.” The first stanza of the hymn presents Christ as the center of the universe. “To reconcile all things” in v.20 corresponds to this gathering: the reality torn apart by the powers is brought back into concord under the one head.
1 John 4:10 — he loved first
“In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son.” The initiative lies with God. Reconciliation proceeds from the love of God, not from an act that first brings this love about. Cf. 1 John 4:10.
Matthew 26:28 — covenant blood, not penal blood
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The blood stands under the sign of the covenant (Ex 24:8), not of a penal proceeding. So too the “blood of the cross” in Col 1:20 is the seal of the covenant of peace. Cf. Matthew 26:28.
Objections and Socinian Answers
Objection 1: “Making peace” surely presupposes a prior war of God against us!
If Christ “makes” peace, there must previously have been enmity. This enmity is the wrath of God over sin. The blood of the cross stills this wrath — therefore the verse teaches satisfaction.
The presupposition is not compelling. “Making peace” presupposes an estrangement, but says nothing about on which side the enmity lies. Scripture regularly locates the enmity in man: we are “enemies in mind, doing evil deeds” (Col 1:21). But God loves “while we were still enemies” (Rom 5:8,10).
In the closest parallel, Ephesians 2:14–16, the enmity that is killed is expressly that between Jews and Gentiles, not that between God and man. Since Col 1:20 uses the same language, the objection does not bear its burden. Peace is established by removing what divides — the hatred, the torn order, the sin on our side.
Even where there is talk of a “wrath” of God, Scripture means his righteous repulsion of evil, not an affect that can be stilled with money. This wrath God turns away by turning the sinner back and forgiving — not by letting himself be paid by Christ. Peace is the fruit of forgiveness, not its precondition.
Objection 2: “By the blood of his cross” — the blood is the price of reconciliation.
The verse expressly names the blood as the means of reconciliation. Blood is a means of atonement; therefore the reconciliation is an atonement paid by blood in the sense of satisfaction.
That the blood is the means of reconciliation is undisputed — the question is how. In the covenant context blood seals a covenant (Ex 24:8; Mt 26:28). “Peace by the blood of the cross” then means: through the covenant sealed with his life on the cross God establishes peace. The blood is seal and proof, not purchase sum.
Sozzini formulates this precisely: the blood of Christ counts “as it were as a price” — but not “because his blood somehow served as a ransom,” but because Christ’s death was the causal ground of our liberation. The metaphor of the price denotes the causality, not a real payment to a recipient.
Furthermore, Scripture directly connects the “blood” and the “forgiveness” (Col 1:14; Mt 26:28). But where there is forgiveness, there is not at the same time a collecting of the debt. A paid penalty and a freely given forgiveness exclude each other; the verse chooses the language of forgiveness.
Objection 3: Without satisfaction God’s justice remains unsatisfied.
God’s justice demands that sin be punished. If Christ does not bear the penalty, justice is violated. Col 1:20 shows how this demand is fulfilled on the cross.
The premise presupposes that “justice” necessarily means penal retribution. But the biblical word means first of all God’s saving covenant faithfulness (tsedeq): the faithfulness with which God raises up his people. Cf. the entry on Romans 3:25–26, where it is shown that “the righteousness of God” is saving faithfulness.
In the Old as in the New Testament God forgives many times without a penalty being executed on a substitute: David after Psalm 51, Manasseh after 2 Chron 33, the father in the parable of Luke 15. The father of the prodigal son demands no payment; he runs to meet the one returning home. That is the image of divine justice that Jesus himself draws.
If God’s justice were only “satisfied” by a payment, then the forgiveness that follows would no longer be grace but the receipted consequence of a performance. But that is precisely what contradicts the gospel, which proclaims reconciliation as the free gift of the prior love of God (Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:10).
Objection 4: If God was already reconciled, why then the cross?
If God reconciles us out of pure love, without payment, then the death on the cross is superfluous or merely a moving example — not redemptive.
This alternative — either penal payment or mere example — is too narrow. Christ’s death is the means of reconciliation in a manifold, real way: it reveals and seals God’s love (Rom 5:8), it establishes and authenticates the new covenant (Mt 26:28), it breaks the power of death (Heb 2:14–15) and calls us into repentance and discipleship (1 Pet 2:21).
None of these aspects requires a penalty rendered to God; all of them together yield a full event of salvation. “Making peace by the blood of the cross” denotes precisely this effective establishment of a new relationship — not a legal receipt. The cross is therefore neither superfluous nor merely illustrative.
Sozzini emphasizes at the same time that the reconciliation, without Christ’s death, would not have come about in the way it did: God wanted to confirm his offer of peace “as acceptable as possible” through the blood of Christ. The necessity lies in God’s order of salvation and in our certainty, not in a compulsion to which God would be subject.
Objection 5: Other passages such as Rom 3:25 (means of atonement) secure satisfaction; Col 1:20 fits in.
In combination with Rom 3:25 (hilastḗrion) and Heb 9, vicarious atonement is biblically established; Col 1:20 must then likewise be read penal-substitutionarily.
Each text is first to be interpreted out of itself and its context, not from a dogmatic overall construction. Col 1:20 speaks of “all things, on earth and in heaven,” of peace and concord — all relational language. Out of itself the verse does not carry satisfaction.
The supporting passages adduced likewise do not bear their burden. Romans 3:25 speaks of the hilastḗrion as the place of pardon (mercy seat), not as a penal sum; Hebrews 9:11–14 speaks cult-consecratively of the heavenly high priesthood, not juridically.
A combination of weak proofs yields no strong proof. If every individual passage on careful reading permits or demands a non-penal-substitutionary interpretation, their sum cannot support the doctrine. The consistent line remains: God reconciles the world to himself — out of love, through Christ, for forgiveness.
Theological Consequences
Related Verses
The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation presented here:
- 2 Corinthians 5:19 — “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” — the key passage on the direction of reconciliation.
- Romans 5:8-10 — Reconciled while we were still enemies — out of the prior love of God, not through penal payment.
- Matthew 26:28 — Covenant blood after Ex 24:8: the blood seals the covenant, it is not penal blood.
- Romans 3:25-26 — Hilastḗrion as the mercy seat and dikaiosyne theou as saving covenant faithfulness.
- 1 John 4:10 — God loved first: the initiative of reconciliation lies with God, not with the work of atonement.
- Mark 10:45 — “a ransom for many” as an image of liberation — as here, the work of salvation is self-giving, not payment to God.
Summary
Colossians 1:20 is the closing climax of a hymn to the preeminence of Christ. “It pleased God … through him to reconcile all things to himself … making peace by the blood of his cross”: the subject is God, the means and goal is Christ, the object is “all things, on earth and in heaven.” The cosmic horizon alone forbids the narrowing to a forensic remission of debt.
Read in a Socinian way and with Sozzini, the verse in its nearest sense speaks of the concord established through Christ — as the parallel Ephesians 2:14–16 shows — and, as far as God and man are concerned, of the reconciliation that God himself accomplishes out of his own love. Sozzini’s philological finding stands firm: nowhere does Christ reconcile “God to us”; everywhere “God reconciles us to himself through Christ.”
With this the presupposition of penal substitution collapses. The blood of the cross seals God’s prior love and establishes the new covenant; it placates no one who is angry and pays no purchase price. The verse thereby loses nothing of its splendor — it gains in linguistic and theological clarity: reconciliation is the free deed of the gracious God, who gathers the world under the one Christ into concord and forgiveness.