ἀποκαθίστημι, ἀποκατάστασις
[in ABRIDGED KITTEL]

† ἀποκαθίστημι.^{* [}apokathistēmi]

The basic meaning is “to restore to an earlier condition.” From this derive the following main senses:

1. “to restore” or “return”:

a leasehold estate, P. Oxy., II, 278, 17 (17 a.d.);

something borrowed, Xenoph. Resp. Lac., 6, 3: ἱερὸν ἀποκατασταθῆναι αὐτοῖς: 2 Macc. 11:25; with a personal obj., P. Oxy., I, 38, 12 (49/50 a.d.): ὑφʼ οὗ καὶ ἀποκατεστάθη μοι ὁ υἱός;

so also Hb. 13:19: ἵνα τάχιον ἀποκατασταθῶ ὑμῖν, “that I may be restored to you the sooner.”

2. “To restore”

a. buildings etc., Inschr. Priene 12, 8: στήλη νῦν ἀποκαθισταμένη; a canal, Ditt. Or., 672, ibid., 90, 18: ἀπεκατέστησεν εἰς τὴν καθήκουσαν τάξιν;

b. mid. “to heal,”

Diosc. Mat. Med., I, 64, 4;

esp. in the Bible, e.g., of lepers:

Ex. 4:7; Lv. 13:16; Job 5:18; Mk. 3:5 and par.: ἀπεκατεστάθη ἡ χείρ, Mk. 8:25;

cf. also the Mithras Liturgy in Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 629 f.: ὅταν ἀποκατασταθῇ σου ἡ ψυχή;

c. cosmologically “to renew the world,” Herm. Trismeg., in Lact. Inst., VII, 18 (the demiurge of the first and only God after general expiation and purification) ἤγαγεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον καὶ ἀποκατέστησεν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κόσμον;

d. politically “to reconstitute a state”:

Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 15:3: ὅπως ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτήν (the kingdom of the fathers). Cf. Jos. Ant., 13, 261 and 408; Vit., 183.

From 2. d., and probably with some influence of 2. c., there developed the specific Messianic and ethical biblical usage. The term becomes a technical one for the restoration of Israel to its own land by Yahweh: Jer. 16:15: ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτοὺς εἰς τῆν γῆν αὐτῶν; 23:8; 24:6 (Jos. Ant., 11, 2); Hos. 11:11, cf. Jer. 15:19; Ez. 16:55; with dat. and acc. ψ 15:5; Δα. 4:33. This was increasingly understood in a Messianic and eschatological sense. On the other hand, under prophetic influence it was more fully perceived that inner restitution is the condition and crown of the outer. The people must work for this (Am. 5:15). Yet from the time of Mal. 3:24 (4:5) the returning Elijah seems to have been expected as its true representative: ἀποκαταστήσει (הֵשִׁיב) καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱόν κτλ.¹ There is a notable parallelism between the Heb. and the Gk. terminology. Both go back to an ancient oriental doctrine of the dissolving aeons and the saving restoration of all things to their original condition as created. Offshoots of this mythical conception of the world may be traced right up to the Fourth Eclogue of Vergil and the Metamorphoses of Ovid. The OT expression שׁוּב שְׁבוּת, not understood in the LXX, means technically “to execute a turn” or “to bring about a change of times” (Dt. 30:3; Jer. 31:23; Ps. 14:7 etc.). It no doubt comes from the hiphil of שׁוּב. Usually the LXX renders it ἀποκαθιστάναι, which would suggest → ἀποκατάστασις to the Gk. ear.

From the corresponding Aram. תוּב the Samaritan Messiah derived his name Taheb. Although we have only later attestation of it, this expectation of the Taheb seems to be very old. It is possibly a relic of the Messianology which was not systematically connected with the house of David and which found an echo in Jewish expectation of Messiah ben Joseph. For the antiquity of this expectation of the Taheb we may refer not only to Jn. 4:25 but also to the legend of the concealment of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle in Gerizim as found in Samaritan texts and mentioned in Jos. Ant., 18, 85. Later Samaritan texts² attribute the name Taheb to the fact that the one who is expected will convert men, or even himself, as the “one who leads back” or the “penitent.” Since, however, there is no instance of a causative significance for part. qal תָהֵב, ³ and since the figurative use of תוּב is highly uncertain, the basic meaning is simply he who returns; the reference is to one of the princes of the past, usually Joshua.⁴ Kingly and prophetic functions are ascribed to the Taheb, but he is subordinate to the priesthood. He will subdue eleven peoples and powerfully protect the true cult of Yahweh, also teaching and building a synagogue. After 110 years he will die and be buried, leaving his throne to his descendants. Only later did the doctrine of the resurrection, still denied by the Samaritans, and a cosmic eschatology come to be linked with this belief in the Messiah. In the interpretation of the name in terms of conversion we see a more inward turn of thought which reminds us of the twofold meaning of ἀποκαθιστάναι in the Bible.

The name Taxo in the Ass. Mos., 9, 1 may be traced back to τάξων and signifies the “one who puts in order.” Since he is of the tribe of Levi he is not the Messiah but His direct predecessor in the sense of Mal. 3:24, though without any reference to the prophet Elijah.⁵

The original politically Messianic sense of ἀποκαθιστάναι may be clearly seen in the question of the disciples to the risen Jesus in Ac. 1:6: εἰ καὶ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. The answer is worth noting, for, though it forbids inquisitive investigation of the times and seasons, it does not repudiate the expectation as such, but simply deprives it of political significance and refers it to the pneumatic sphere. We should also note that in all the other passages in the NT in which it occurs (though cf. → ἀποκατάστασις in Ac. 3:21), the concept of ἀποκαθιστάναι is not applied to the Messiah coming in power but to his forerunner, to John the preacher of repentance, in whom Jesus recognises the promised Elijah (Mk. 9:12 and par., cf. 6:15 and par.; 8:28 and par.; 1:2; Mt. 11:10, 14; Jn. 1:21). The πάντα in Mk. 9:12, which in itself is to be taken as comprehensively as possible in connection with the expectation depicted, is in fact restricted to the religious and ethical field,⁶

† ἀποκατάστασις.^*

The only passage in which this word appears in the NT is Ac. 3:20 f.: ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων ὧν ἐλάλησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπʼ αἰῶνος αὐτοῦ προφητῶν. On rather dubious grounds this statement has been the basis of the theological use of the word from the time of Origen.

A. ἀποκατάστασις in Secular Usage.

The basic meaning is “restitution to an earlier state” or “restoration” (e.g., of a temple, Ditt. Syll.³, 695, 13 and 23; of a way, Ditt. Or., 483, 8 → 387). From this derive specialised uses: 1. in medicine, Aret., I, 10, 4, p. 13, 13; VII, 5, 16, p. 159, 14, Hude: τῆς φύσιος ἐς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἀποκατάστασιν (→ 387); 2. in law (the returning of hostages to their own cities, Polyb., III, 99, 6; or tech. in pap. the restoration of property, P. Leid. B., 3a, 15; P. Oxy., I, 67, 9 [338 a.d.]; P. Flor., I, 43, 12 [370 a.d.], etc. → 387); 3. in politics, the reconstitution of the political order, Polyb., IV, 23, 1; Preisigke Sammelbuch, 4224, 3 (1st century b.c., → 387); also more generally of personal betterment, P. Par., 63, VIII, 40 f.: μετὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων νυνεὶ ἀποκατάστασειν (sic).

4. Also significant is the astronomical usage to describe the return of the constellations to their original position (→ ἀποκαθίστημι, 387). Vett. Val., II, 2, p. 57, 5, Kroll; Ps.-Plat. Ax., 370 b: The shining again of the sun or moon after obscuration. Esp. ἀποκατάστασις is a technical term for the restitution of the cosmic cycle, whether by the conjunction of Sirius and the sun after every 1461 years as in Egyptian chronology,¹ or by the reattainment of the original relation between the points of the equinox and the zodiac in consequence of the so-called procession of the sun, which the Babylonian astronomer idinnu had already worked out fairly accurately in 314 b.c. to involve the period of 25,800 years fixed by modern astronomy,² or finally in connection with the variously calculated periods of the Phoenix.³ In Corp. Herm., VIII, 4 the maintenance of the order of the οὐράνια σώματα is attributed to ἀποκατάστασις. In Corp. Herm., XI, 2 ἀποκατάστασις and ἀνταποκατάστασις are called the ἐνέργεια τοῦ κόσμου. A period of time of this kind was called the great year (Arius Did. Fr., 37 [II, 184, 35, v. Arnim]: τὸν μέγιστον ἐνιαυτόν, Plin. Hist. Nat., X, 2: cum huius alitis [sc. Phoenicis] vita masni conversionem anni fieri prodit Manilius). The characteristic feature of this view of time, often advanced with political and Messianic expectations, is the fact that it entails belief in endless recurrence. This is the Stoic doctrine: γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν τοῦ παντὸς οὐχ ἅπαξ, ἀλλὰ πολλάκας· μᾶλλον δὲ εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ ἀτελεύτητον τὰ αὐτὰ ἀποκαθίστασθαι. Everything is restored exactly as it was before (II, 190, 19 f., v. Arnim).⁴ Parsee belief seems to be the only exception with its hope that after the destruction of Ahriman there will be a new creation of all things (frash̄kereti, frashegerd, “transfiguration”). This stimulated Judaism to the development of its teleological eschatology (→ ἀνίστημι, 368 f.).

5. ἀποκατάστασις is finally used of the individual soul, though rarely in the soteriological sense. Among the Neo-Platonists it seems to denote the new entry of not yet redeemed soul into the cycle of generations. To be sure, Joh. Lyd., IV, 149 says of Iamblichus: ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς περὶ καθόδου ψυχῆς πραγματείας καὶ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως αὐτῶν μέμνηται. Here ἀποκατάστασις is reached by way of καθαρμός. Yet the reference is not too precise. Iamblichus says (Myst., I, 10): τί δεῖται αὕτη (ἡ ψυχν̀) τῆς ἐν τῇ ἡδονῇ γενέσεως (conception) ἢ τῆς ἐν αὐτῇ εἰς φύσιν ἀποκαταστάσεως (return to earthly life) ὑπερφυὴς οὖσα καὶ τὴν ἀγέννητον ζωὴν διαζῶσα. To the same effect is Procl. Inst. Theol., 199: πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐγκόσμιος περιόδοις χρῆται τῆς οἰκείας ζωῆς καὶ ἀποκαταστάσεσιν, if here too we are to think of reincarnations. Redemption in the Neo-Platonic sense is not so much the restoration of the soul as its release from matter. Yet the διάλυσις of the material body is called in Corp. Herm., VIII, 4 the ἀποκατάστασις of earthly beings and set in parallelism with the ἀποκατάστασις of the heavenly bodies. Clement of Alexandria knows this soteriological sense (Strom., VI, 9, 75, 2): γνωστικὴ ἀγάπη, διʼ ἣν καὶ ἡ κληρονομία καὶ ἡ παντελὴς ἕπεται ἀποκατάστασις.

B. ἀποκατάστασις in Judaism.

The LXX does not use the word. It is rare in Judaism generally, and its technical meaning is weakly developed. In Ep. Ar., 123 the most that can be said is that certain religious yearnings intermingle with the reference to the return of Jewish emissaries to Jerusalem, When Josephus speaks of the ἀποκατάστασις τῶν Ἰουδαίων he means the return from exile (Ant., 11, 63). Philo first thinks of the redemption from Egypt, but links with it a mystical reference to the ἀποκατάστασις Ψυχῆς (Rer. Div. Her., 293). These meagre results may to some extent be accidental. The technical meaning of the verb is much more strongly attested (→ ἀποκαθίστημι, 387); and in any case the concept of Messianic restitution is current in Judaism. It is debatable whether the cosmological speculations of the world around exercised an influence on the expectation and the linguistic usage.⁵ Mention should be made of the fact that the beginning of a new “great year” was imminent at the time of the Barcochba revolt.⁶ There is no record, however, that this helped to heighten the Messianic expectations of the Jews.⁷

C. ἀποκατάστασις in the NT.

Ac. 3:20 f. should be translated as follows: “That times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah Jesus ordained for you, whom heaven must receive until the time of the restitution of all that of which (or, the establishment of all that which) God has previously spoken through his holy prophets.”

Grammatically ὧν cannot be related to χρόνων but only to πάντων. This means further that πάντων can only be neut. and not masc. This also means that ἀποκατάστασις cannot denote the conversion of persons but only the reconstitution or establishment of things. For the concept of restoration, which is so strong in the term, does not strictly refer to the content of the prophetic promise, but to the relations of which it speaks. These are restored, i.e., brought back to the integrity of creation, while the promise itself is established or fulfilled. The difficulty arises from, but is also solved in, the fact that the two thoughts set out in the translation are linked in pregnant brevity. καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως and χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως stand in correspondence and mutually explain one another, but are not tautological. καιροί marks the beginning of the transformation, whereas χρόνων conveys the thought of the lasting nature of the renewed world. ἀναψύξεως denotes the subjective, ἀποκαταστάσεως the objective side of the matter. The technical meaning of ἀποκατάστασις πάντων is limited by the dependent clause, yet also speaks through it.⁸

Fundamentally we thus have the concept of the new Messianic creation which was current in Judaism. On the very different question whether the NT teaches a final restoration of all fallen sinners, and even of Satan, to the harmony of all created things in God, no light is shed by this particular text. In general such an idea is just as remote from the NT world of thought as the Jewish. Indeed, the latter thinks that the blessedness of the just is heightened by seeing the torture of the rejected (Ass. Mos., 10, 10; 4 Esr. 7:93, though cf. S. Bar. 52:6). Punishment is often declared to be unalterable (S. Bar. 85:12ff.; also αἰώνιος Da. 12:2; Mt. 18:8; 25:41, 46; 2 Th. 1:9 and cf. Is. 66:24). The thought of destruction or the second death does not point in the opposite but in a similar direction (Eth. En., 97; Ps. Sol. 3:11; Rev. 20:14 → ἀπόλλυμι, ἀπώλεια). Paul sometimes emphasises so strongly the comprehensive saving work of the second Adam as to give rise to the appearance of a final restoration of all (R. 5:18: εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, 11:32; 1 C. 15:22: ἐν τῷ̀ Χριστῷ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται, cf. Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20). Yet in truth the reference is only to a final hope, or perhaps only to a final tendency of the divine work of salvation. It is Paul who also emphasises most strongly the election of grace (R. 8:29; 9:11, 17; Eph. 1:4, 11 etc.). He knows that judgment will have a twofold outcome (R. 2:7 ff.; 2 C. 5:10), and expects the actualisation of the ὁ θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν by means of the powerful overthrow of all opposition (1 C. 15:25 ff.). Thus there remains a strong tension throughout the NT, and, even if there is an underlying universalism, for reasons of admonition the main emphasis falls on the fact that few will be saved (Mt. 22:14; 7:13 f.; Lk. 13:23 ff.; 1 C. 9:24 ff.).⁹

This thought is stated rather more speculatively in 4 Esr. (8:3: “Many are created but few saved”; 8:41). In Parseeism the original dualism seems to have been partially replaced by an optimistic doctrine of apoeatastasis which can find a place for the salvation of the evil serpent Azi Dahâka.¹⁰

D. Apocatastasis in the History of the Church.

From the time of Origen the term has been understood theologically to refer to the restoration of all created beings. In spite of several premises pointing in this direction, Marcion and Irenaeus do not draw such a conclusion, and at most Clement of Alexandria only hints at it. But it became a favourite teaching of the great successor of Clement. His ontological idealism equated the beginning and the end, and he could not, therefore, accept any end which does not lie wholly in God. An end of the world process is conceivable only if it means that all hostile voluntas is taken from that which is against God, even death and Satan, and that the substance which derives from God returns to Him. There are infinite possibilities of development both good and bad. Like aberration from God, theopanism is finally a fluid state. The author was not unaware that the philosophi shared this view, but he believed that their knowledge finally derived from the divine Scriptures (Princ., III, 6, 1).

 Exegetically he relied mainly on 1 C. 15:25 ff. (ὁ θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, Princ., III, 6, 1; 6, 2; 6, 6; 6, 8; in Joh., I, 16, 91); and also on Jn. 17:11 (ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθώς ἡμεῖς, Princ., II, 3, 5).

He took the term from Ac. 3:21, being influenced mainly by the current medical and political senses rather than the astronomical (Hom. in Jer., XIV, cf. also Princ., II, 3, 5: … in restitutione omnium, cum ad perfectum finem universa pervenient … omnium consummatio …).

There is a good summary in the not very literal citation of Leontius of Byzantium from Princ., II, 10, 8, p. 182, 16 ff., Koetschau: γίνεται νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις, καὶ γίνεται κόλασις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀπέραντος. κολαζομένου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος κατὰ μικρὸν καθαίρεται ἡ ψυξή, καὶ οὕτως ἀποκαθίσταται εἰς τὴν ἀρξαίαν τάζιν … πάντων ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πρός γε δαιμόνων ἡ κόλασις πέρας ἕχει. καὶ ἀποκατασταθήσονται ἀσεβεῖς τε καὶ δαίμονες εἰς τὴν προτέραν αὐτῶν τάξιν.

Longer expositions—in spite of the rule that it is dangerous to write such things, since most people do not need them and can be kept from evil only by fear of hell (c. Cels., VI, 26)—may be found in Princ., I, 6, 1–4; III, 6, 1–9; c. Cels., VIII, 72; cf. also Princ., II, 3, 1–5).

Though rejected by official theology, esp. Western and particularly in respect of this doctrine, Origen has found disciples in many great Eastern theologians and even in such Westerners as Scotus Erigena, Hans Denck, J. A. Bengel, F. C. Oetinger, J. M. and P. M. Hahn, F.D. Schleiermacher and more recent Universalists, though not J. Böhme.

Oepke

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2003....x....  ’ “”.