To what does “to unite all things in him” refer?

Explanation:

Paul uses the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) to explain that it is God’s will to unite all things in Christ. This verb is rare in the New Testament, only used in one other passage (Romans 13:9), so it is important to look to other Greek sources contemporary with Paul to understand the meaning. When we do this, we find that the verb often carries one of two meanings. In the first place, it is used in the sense of summarizing the disparate points of an argument in a concise manner.^4,5,6 Quintilian was a Roman educator who lived during the first century, and he writes that the related noun ἀνακεφαλαιώσις has to do with the repetition and grouping of the facts.⁷ He explains that when an argument is brought before a judge, the disparate facts might make little impression, while the summarized argument as a whole carries a cumulative effect.⁸

Another similar use for the Greek is mentioned by Origen. He explains that bankers would use the noun in relation to summing up accounts related to expenses, payments, and receipts.⁹ He illustrates this point by imagining one who spends fifteen denarii at one time, five at another, and so on, so that if one were to ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) all of the expenses, one would reach a summary figure. With this definition in mind, Origen suggests that all the mysteries and every ancient dispensation which has occurred not only on earth but also in heaven have been completed in the passion of Christ.¹⁰

To summarize, there were two common uses for the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) and the related noun ἀνακεφαλαιώσις. One had to do with summarizing disparate arguments into a concise statement, and the other had to do with summing up numbers. In either case, Paul is using the term metaphorically to suggest that God’s plan is to unite all the disparate aspects of creation through Christ.¹¹

Counterargument:

If we take the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) at face value, it is taken in the sense of summing up an argument or money. The problem is that it is not clear how to transfer this meaning onto the work of Jesus. What does it mean for Jesus to sum up all the things in heaven and earth as one sums up numbers or an argument? This seems to be an obscure notion that is not easy to understand.¹²

Response to counterargument:

Paul is not asking his reader to take the meaning of ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) and apply it literally to the work of Jesus. Rather, his point is for the term to be applied metaphorically. In the same way that the seemingly disparate points of an argument can be summarized into a powerful statement, or the change in your pocket can be totalled into one united sum, so all things in heaven and earth will be summarized and united by Christ.

Explanation:

The verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω is only used in one other verse in the New Testament, in Romans 13:9, where Paul uses it to summarize the law of God. He explains that the commandments, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not murder, are summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) in these words You shall love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, Paul uses the verb to show that the seemingly disconnected aspects of God’s laws are, in reality, the expression of one overarching law, which is to love one’s neighbour as oneself.

If we apply the way Paul uses the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) in Romans to Ephesians 1:10, Paul is suggesting that all of the things on heaven and earth that are now disconnected will be summed up and presented as a totality in Christ.¹³

Counterargument:

When Paul uses the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω to explain that the various laws are summarized under one law, he is taking things that are of like manner and categorizing them under one main heading. In other words, none of God’s laws is antithetical to another, even when each is considered in and of itself. Each law is a good law as it stands on its own, and each of these good laws can be summarized under the one main law. While it is the case that Christ will unite the aspects of the universe that are formerly disconnected but not antithetical (natural created universe, humanity, angels), he will also unite through his work of forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7) those things that were formerly antithetical (sinful humanity). In this sense, Paul uses ἀνακεφαλαιόω to draw more substance and nuance in Ephesians 1:10 than he does when he uses it in Romans 13:9.¹⁴

Response to counterargument:

Paul might be using the term in Ephesians 1:10 to draw more nuance than when he uses it in Romans 13:9, but Ephesians 1:7 is not enough to show this. In fact, the context of the passage suggests that Paul’s attention is on God’s grand redemptive work. He explains how God chose believers before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless (Ephesians 1:4), predestined us to be his sons and daughters (Ephesians 1:5), forgives us through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7), and makes known the mystery of his will (Ephesians 1:9) before stating that God planned to ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) all things in Christ. In other words, Paul is not describing the fact that Christ will unite aspects of reality that are of like kind and antithetical; rather, he is explaining that the summary of God’s grand redemptive work is accomplished in Christ.

The one weakness with this view is that it does not account for any nuance in Paul’s use of the term ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up). At the same time, it is not straightaway clear what it means that Jesus sums all things up in the sense of totalling figures or summarizing an argument.

Explanation:

When the ἀνα prefix is used in Greek it often has to do with the notion of restoration.¹⁸ This seems to have influenced the patristic writers because, according to Stephen Fowl, theologians such as Jerome and Tertullian argued that Paul used the term to describe the renewal of all things.¹⁹ The idea for these writers is that God’s created order is in a state of disorder, and Jesus will restore all things to himself.

Irenaeus (born AD 130) is often cited as a theologian who thought that Paul used the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω in the sense of renewal. In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus makes mention of Ephesians 1:10 and how Jesus gathers all things in one in a beautiful summary of the faith that mirrors, yet predates, the Apostles’ Creed by centuries. There he states that Christ will gather all things into one so as to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race.²⁰ While Irenaeus is not specific, the notion of renewal is present.

Tertullian gets at the concept of renewal as Paul seems to use it in Ephesians 1:10 in a unique way in his work On Monogamy. There he uses the passage in conjunction with the notion that from the beginning God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and it was because of a hardness of heart, that is to say, a distortion, that Moses allowed divorce. He goes on to explain that as things were in the beginning, so Paul writes to the Ephesians that God, at the appointed time, recalls all things back to the beginning in Christ. In other words, through Christ there is a sort of going back to how things were at the beginning of creation.²¹

Counterargument:

While it might be true that the ἀνα prefix often has to do with restoration, this does not entail that it always has to do with restoration. Rather, the ἀνα prefix can also denote something like above or upward as in ἀναβαστάζω (to hold up high). This means that the best way for us to understand the meaning of the verb is to look not to the prefix but to how the verb is used in other contexts. When we do this, we find that the verb is not used to describe something that was damaged and later repaired, but to describe the orderly summation of what were formerly separate pieces.²²

Response to counterargument:

While it might be true that the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω is often used to denote the summary of separate pieces, this does not rule out that it can also be used in the sense of restoration. Irenaeus was an early Greek writer, which means that he is a good source for understanding the term. In Against Heresies, he alludes to the notion that the summing up of all things by Christ has to do with renewal on at least two occasions. He does this in Book I, as was noted above, and also Book V, where he writes that Christ summed up all things in himself by uniting natural man to the Spirit.²³

Once again, Irenaeus uses the term in the sense of restoration and renewal.

Explanation:

When Paul explains that it was God’s will to unite all things in Christ, he goes on to reveal some of the distorted aspects of creation that require restoration. For explain, in Genesis we read that God created the universe good (Genesis 1:31), and that death was caused by the fall (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:22). When we reach Ephesians 2:1–5, we read that even though we were dead in our sins, God made us alive together with Christ. This indicates something like a renewal of the status that humans enjoyed before the fall into sin. Further, we read in Ephesians 2:12–15 that the Gentiles who were once alienated from God’s promises to Israel have been reconciled to God through Christ, who broke down the dividing wall of hostility. Once again, the notion here is that the Gentiles, who would have been God’s people had Adam not sinned, are now restored into the covenant community through the blood of Christ.

Counterargument:

There is no clear indication from Paul that he means to suggest that Jesus is restoring creation. In fact, New Testament writers explain that the earth as it stands will pass away (2 Peter 3:7, 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 51:6), and those who are redeemed in Christ will eventually live in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2). This is not to say that Christ does not restore humanity’s prior relationship to God; indeed he does. But Paul is referring to more than just the restoration of humanity’s relationship to God, for he states that all things…things in heaven and things on earth are ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) in Christ.

Response to counterargument:

While Scripture does explain that the earth as we know it will pass away at Christ’s second coming, one need not press the notion of restoration so that it is beyond recognition. When Irenaeus suggests that God is restoring creation back to the beginning, no one who takes him seriously thinks he means that God will reestablish the Garden of Eden, and rewind the clock of time. The fact is, the creation belongs to God, and although humans freely rejected God’s provision in the Garden of Eden, Jesus’ work brings reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18–19). Reconciliation carries the sense of order, which has become disordered, being brought back to order. In the same way, all things will be restored when they are ἀνακεφαλαιόω in Jesus Christ.

The weakness of this view is that it relies mostly on how one takes the prefix ἀνα. If the prefix carries a nuance other than restoration or renewal in this instance, then the view seems to fall flat. Still, there is good reason to take the prefix ἀνα as an indication of return/restoration, because it is not at all clear how to apply the alternative sense of ἀνα (above/upward).

Explanation

The verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) is comprised of a prefix ἀνα and a root κεφάλαιον (main point). The root κεφάλαιον is related to the noun κεφαλή (head). This might not be of interest if it were not for the fact that in Ephesians 5:23, Paul will explain that Christ is the head κεφαλή (head) of the church. This implies that not only is Christ the main point through whom all things are summarized, but he is also the head.²⁴

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that κεφάλαιον (main point) and κεφαλή (head), although comprised of the same root κεφαλ-, carry different meanings. Further, common usage of the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up) has to do with totalling figures or summarizing an argument. This means that if Paul is using the verb to convey headship, he is using it in a way that carries a special nuance that might not be obvious to his readers.

Of course, it is possible for Paul to use a verb in a special way to offer greater depth to his message, but in this case it seems unlikely. This is because the special meaning that Paul is supposed to convey would only make sense after one reads Ephesians 5:23, but this is found much later in Paul’s letter. It does not make much sense for him to expect his reader to understand the special meaning before he has introduced the concept that is supposed to clarify that meaning.²⁵

The problem with this view is that most of our authors reject it as what one author calls an unwarranted etymological adventure.²⁶ In other words, even if it is tempting to smuggle meaning into a verb based on themes present in a book, it is important to determine whether or not the meaning has real or just perceived merit. In this case, many of our authors argue that κεφαλή (head) cannot be transferred to κεφάλαιον (main point), which is the proper root for the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω (to unite/sum up).