Your God isn’t the God of the Bible,
if your theology requires your culture.
For God’s word is ever applicable;
to the past, the present, and future.

Be careful about what means you use,
not everything is truly neutral.
Don’t gather for an experience,
but to grow by all that’s truthful.

If it’s used to shape your emotions,
doing so apart from God’s living truth,
it’s replaced God in your devotions,
and become an idol under his roof.

At the end of first John we read just this:
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols;”
Don’t put your brother’s faith at risk;
Seek God, not by style, but by Bible.

Note to those thinking of buying: Sorry, these vehicles are strictly not for sale, they are given only as free and unmerited gifts.

M’Cheyne’s plan, for example, goes through the OT once in seven years, and the NT twice. The plan uses four readings a day.

As a taste of what it would look like, for the first seven months of the lectionary – unadjusted for season, the readings would be:

• First reading: Genesis 1 to 32 (cont)
• Second reading: Matthew 1 to 28, then Mark 1 to 3 (cont)
• Third reading: Ezra 1 to 10, Nehemiah 1 to 13, Esther 1 to 8 (cont)
• Forth reading: Acts 1 to 28, Romans 1 to 3 (cont)

Whilst during daily Bible study it is reasonable to place the Psalms within the main body of the reading plan, I suggest that for Sunday use it is appropriate to remove them and use a separate (complete) Psalm cycle within Sunday services. This ensures that there is always a Psalm on a Sunday, and creates around thirty empty slots in the lectionary. The Church year demands around ten slots to provide seasonal readings at major points, leaving about twenty empty slots to allow the preacher to subdivide some readings across multiple weeks for better exegesis.

The four readings of the M’Cheyne plan are typically between twenty and thirty minutes length in total, leaving plenty of time for the rest of a Sunday service. Optionally, the readings might be split between morning and evening services, with the first two columns (originally for family use) used in the morning and the (originally secret use) columns used in the evening – but this would require the establishment of a culture in which most of the congregation habitually returns to the church for evening prayer on a Sunday (the first step in encouraging this is to ensure that evening prayer isn’t just a repeat of the readings and sermon from morning prayer… and sharing Holy Communion but once a day!)

No response which denies that a thing exists is honouring to that thing. Indeed, the most necessary part of honour is admittance; if I will not admit something, then I do not honour it.

It may be that someone honours the belief that someone else has in something, but that action does not honour the thing denied but the belief of others.

It may be that someone honours the concept of something apart from its factuality; but the concept of something is not the thing itself.

It may be that someone honours a thing for the value of supposing it exists; but again, the thing has been removed and it is just a concept that remains.

Thus: nobody honours Christ who denies that he is the Son of God, who – as historical objective fact – took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, and will return to judge both the living and the dead.

No honour is given to Christ by anyone who denies this; for that which they seek to honour is but abstract concept. Indeed, in so denying Christ, they have already delivered him the greatest dishonour.

The Gospel of John (3:16-18) speaks directly to this – saying:

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Here we see the factuality of the incarnation and work of Christ to save the world set out; and every response divided into two categories. The first category those who believe in him, and the second those who do not. Of those who do not – those who deny him, God declares that they are condemned already for this denial. There is no category for those who deny the the historical factual Christ described here but supposedly honour him by their lives, actions, prayers, or anything else. Whoever does not believe is condemned already.

But surely I am being too harsh? Aren’t deeds more important than creeds? Isn’t it love in your heart and in your hands that matters most?

What does God say? In 1 Corinthians 15, we find a very similar question addressed – the factuality of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection life to come. I’ll quote verses 17-19, and 32b – please do read the full chapter yourself:

¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
³² … If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Here the Apostle, without flinching, declares that faith apart from the factual historical resurrection of Christ is futile and of no effect. Nobody can be saved unless Christ was actually and factually raised from the dead. Indeed, the conclusion in verse 32 is that it is only because of the factuality of this that the Christian life is even relevant. If the dead are not raised, then it doesn’t matter: God tells us by the Apostle Paul that if Christ did not actually die for us and was not actually raised from the dead, then the best way to live your life would be to party as much as possible.

Because of this, we should not be encouraged by ‘honour’ or ‘respect’ supposedly shown to Christ, the Bible or the Christian faith by leaders or even pastors so long as they fail to affirm belief in the actual, factual, and objective work of Christ (and not just some concept of Christ). If a person talks about the marvellous moral impact of Christianity, the humbling example of the Gospel narratives, the inspiration they get from the story of God becoming an baby in a lowly stable – or any such like, but treats its factuality as optional or doubtful, what they are actually saying is that Christ doesn’t matter. Truly, if someone holds objective and historical factuality as optional, they necessarily hold that God did not need to give his only Son to save the world. Obtaining the benefits of Christ’s death, according to anyone who denies its truthfulness, did not require Christ to die.

Denial precludes honour: if the objective historical factuality of Christ and his person and Work is denied, nothing else said or done regarding Christ honours him. Whatever is being honoured, respected, or responded to – it is not Christ – but an idolatrous invention of man to take his place.

The ESV bible has extensive cross-references to Leviticus; in fact there are a total of 3227 references to verses in Leviticus – of which 239 are from the New Testament. As would be expected of a book that sets out foundational theology and principles, the bulk of New Testament references are thematic (135), in addition there are 95 word or phrase references, and six direct passage quotations.

In my opinion, the book of Leviticus is a very important book for Christians to have explained to them in their regular Sunday preaching. It is a book which points to Christ in clear and important ways, and one which adds greatly to an understanding of what Christ did on the cross.

What might we find if we were to read more of it?

Within the book we find the concepts of offering, sacrifice, priesthood, and through these catch a glimpse of the great offering of Christ, the one perfect sacrifice by our Great High Priest. We find the wonderful Gospel lesson in the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 – with the two goats, one bearing the sin of the people and the other cleansing them from sin by its blood.

We learn why Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to make offering (this would be a great reading for last Sunday – the feast of the Circumcision of Christ… which somehow had new-year readings assigned). We are taught – by the figure of ceremonial uncleanness, all about sin; in fact, if I were to summarise this book, it would be this: a book about sin, its consequence, and its only remedy by grace in Christ’s death.

Yet, all this is just scratching the surface of this rich and important book.

So, is Leviticus irrelevant, or is the lectionary (as I have suggested before) in urgent need of revision? Do you, as a Christian, agree that it is reasonable for God’s people to just not know about the content of Leviticus? The fact is that in this era of long hours and cable TV many Christians don’t get to hear from Scripture if it is not preached on Sunday – and so leaving things out leaves them with serious holes in their knowledge of God’s word.

If the Bible is God’s word, then can God’s people please get to hear it?

This review is suitable only for adults.

The subject matter is arranged into three sections; one which focuses upon concepts of marriage, one that focuses specifically on sex, and one which looks at planning life and lives as a whole. Particularly central in the earlier discussion is the theme of friendship as an interpretive key to a good marriage- this is particularly useful and a very helpful insight into marriage; I hope to hear more on this topic as it is a great way to look at the many underlying dynamics of a marriage. The way in which this introduces fresh Scripture to our understanding of marriage is particularly encouraging.

Later portions of the text focus upon pornography and abuse, both important topics. The treatment here leans heavily upon psychological and sociological concepts, but is (so far as I can tell) well researched and seems helpful. The Biblical response offered is, in general, based upon ‘confessing and talking things through’. Whilst there are useful examples and illustrations, Biblical work here is light, and I was left confused as to the Scriptural foundations behind what Pastor Driscoll teaches.

The final section seems to drop the Bible almost entirely as the teaching text, and presents the authors’ own method for ‘reverse engineering’ a life. (In mitigation, I should mention that the text does explain that this method was revealed specifically by God to Pastor Driscoll via a message God gave a friend of his.) I have not tried the method recommended so I cannot speak to its merit, although it seems (in general) like a fair mix of common sense, thoughtful advice, and the concept that some planning is better than no planning.

In terms of genre, my impression is that this book tries to be a Biblical commentary, a sociological text, and a how-to marriage book – all in one. This means that as you read it, there will be sections which are derived from Scripture, sections which lean quite heavily on contemporary sociological theory and research, and sections which are the Driscolls telling you things they think might be a good idea. In places, you will even find all three intertwined.

Personally, and it may be just a reflection of Pastor Driscoll’s specific church context, to me the book seems very unbalanced. To put it crudely, if a married couple spend half an hour every single day enjoying carnal relations – that’s 2% of their married lives… yet, this book gives the impression that marriage is all about sex. Sex comes up just about everywhere, and even gets the major section of the book devoted to it. In fact, if I were to guess what Pastor Driscoll thinks marriage is mostly about (based on this book alone), I’d have to say that it seems he believes that marriage is about sex… and that the more this features in a marriage, the better the marriage is. Somehow, sex seems to be offered as both the underlying problem (lack thereof) and solution (more thereof) to too many of the problems discussed in this book.

In fact, it goes further. This book does not just discuss sex. The authors saw fit to go through a list of specific sex or sex-like acts they think married couples might possibly want to engage in. In turn, they discuss whether other people are doing these things, and whether they fit into a specific Biblically-derived grid. If the Scripture (according to Pastor Driscoll) technically allows something – then he gives it the green light, with cautions as he thinks required.

What did I think of that section? I’ve had difficulty working out how to put the statement best, so I’ll try analogy. Imagine you sat down to watch a DVD entitled ‘Moses’, as recommended by a respected pastor – only to turn it on and find it to actually be pornography. That response of shock, betrayal, and disgust approximately matches mine in sitting down with great hopes of learning about Real Marriage from a highly respected pastor only to find it to contain such open and explicit sexual crudity that it I sincerely doubt it could be legally read aloud on television. St. Paul writes to the Ephesians saying “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29). I suggest that the right place for this kind of discussion is on occasions where those who hear will be built up by the discussion, and given grace – such as in a private pastoral counselling session or in pastoral counselling resources: not in a mainstream publication for all married couples without distinction.

Theologically, I do not think that Pastor Driscoll does a good job answering the questions either. Without being willing to discuss the details of such crude topics, I will say only that he neither engages properly with Scripture nor applies a theology of natural law to his answers. A simple interpretive grid is a useful tool, but it cannot ever replace proper Biblical theology that takes into account all of Scripture; and it is this latter work that Mark Driscoll, as a pastor of Christ’s flock, should be doing.

As to the rest of the book, although there is a major focus on ‘one-ness’ (particularly through sexual activities), we hear very little about the true foundation of marriage: the reality of man and wife being actually and entirely united by God as one flesh. This being the case, I felt disappointed that the whole shape of the book was one in which couples work to transform ‘where they are’ into a ‘real marriage’, rather than couples already joined by God in ‘real marriage’ working to live out the spousal vocation into which God has called them to His Glory. Stylistically, the lives of the authors are used as examples and illustrations throughout the work, which has the advantage of giving the text some specifics, but the disadvantage of making it seem to be all about Mark and Grace Driscoll rather than all about marriage.

For many of the reasons above, and despite substantial sections of useful and edifying content, I can’t recommend this book to anyone.

So – what is the content of these two short verses which someone apparently saw fit to skip? At the risk of undermining their careful work, allow me to share them with you (ESV):

¹ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ² He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Hang on… aren’t those really important verses? We learn such amazing things here… why cut them from the start of the reading?

1. We learn of the reality of sin in the life of a Christian, and the conflict between what how we are called to live, and how we strive to live – and the fact of continued sin.
2. We learn that if we do sin, God has already appointed us an advocate – Jesus Christ. From this are show the great folly – and even sin – of presuming to appoint and call upon our own advocate, whether Mary, a Saint or anyone else other than Jesus Christ the righteous. When we presume to do so, we stand against the will of God himself and raise someone or something else up into the place of Jesus Christ. As Calvin writes “the intercession of Christ is a continual application of his death for our salvation. That God then does not impute to us our sins, this comes to us, because he has regard to Christ as intercessor.”
3. We are reminded that Jesus Christ is ‘the righteous’; that he alone is without sin, and so that he alone is qualified to reconcile us to God. Any who is guilty of sin is already barred from standing as advocate, indeed it is our sin which requires us to have an advocate in Jesus Christ.
4. We are taught of Christ as our propitiation. Notice that John chooses to tell us of Christ the propitiation, not Christ who propitiates. The sacrifice made as offering and satisfaction for sin is none other than Jesus Christ the righteous, our advocate in heaven. It is true that he offered up the sacrifice once and for all, but also true that he himself was that sacrifice. Thus, we learn not steal from Christ this role – there is no offering, sacrifice, penance or work we can render to God to reconcile us, and if we so much as try we deny Christ: he himself is the only propitiation for our sins.
5. We are told that it is the end of Christ’s death to make propitiation for our sins. Our sins are the problem he died to resolve; and if we explain away his death as to solve some other problem we greatly err. In particular, his death was not an example for us to follow: although we are buried with him that we might rise with him, it is because of his death as the propitiation for our sin that we are able to pass through death in him. We do not, by our life – or by our death – make our own propitation. It is a work that Christ did for us, once and for all, and one which we can only receive with faith and gratitude.
6. And finally, we are assured beyond any doubt, that Christ’s death extends to every single person who receives this Gospel of salvation by faith. His self-propitation is for the sins of the whole world: and is in no way limited to one race, one denomination, or in any other way. If we presume to say that Salvation requires any additional qualifying work or membership beyond what is set out in plain Scripture then we contradict God himself. Nobody has a monopoly on Salvation, and nobody – of any position – has any right or power to place barriers before the Throne of Grace.

For my personal study, I find the M’Cheyne bible reading plan to be a great way to go through Scripture — without missing bits out. I wonder if it’s not time for the Lectionary to be revised to make sure there are no other central and deeply edifying passages missed out from Sunday and weekday readings? At a minimum, given that the majority only hear the Scripture on Sundays, the whole Bible without omissions should be heard on Sundays – even if it takes a few years to go through the cycle. On a related note, the Russian evangelical idea of having two sermons within a service (the second shorter one being for more junior preachers, and for shedding some light on another of the readings) is growing on me, and will likely be the subject of a future post.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the congregation to study the Bible at home with their families; but it is also the responsibility of pastors and teachers to understand that many (most?) don’t do this – and preach accordingly. God gave us all of Scripture, and whilst we may not know the reason we need any given part, yet we should not presume to censor God and cut bits out we don’t like. As A. W. Tozer wrote, “Nothing less than a whole Bible can make a whole Christian”.

Edit notes: I misread the table at ‘when will it be read’; in fact it will be read once each three years at the end of a reading from I John 1 (although the rest of the I John 2 does never get read. Refer to the excellent when will it be read page). There’s other chunks missing from I John; and don’t bother trying to find readings from II John or III John… there aren’t any at all!

Keep the Gospel quiet

1. 1: Just don’t preach the Gospel
   People are amazingly unobservant. Although a passage like Isaiah 28:14-16 seems like a trap to make you talk about Christ the precious cornerstone in whom “whoever believes will not be in haste”, you can get away with just ignoring the Apostles Peter and Paul – and instead preach about the historical context and how it is similar to our situation today.

   Nobody will realise you’ve totally missed the meaning of the text! This can be used almost anywhere the passage is long enough – you can even take a passage such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and preach exclusively about the resurrection appearances of Christ – nobody will notice you’ve skipped over the fact that all these are given to prove the Gospel statement in verse 3.

   For bonus points, recontextualise the resurrection appearances of Christ as poetic descriptions of our experience of Christ amongst us and in our hearts – this will help you next year when you decide it’s time to start denying the resurrection as well.

2. 2: Just preach the Gospel, then redefine
   

   ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ — Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass

   Sometimes the text forces you to preach the Gospel. Take, for example, the account of the nativity in which you just can’t avoid hearing of God sending Jesus as Saviour (Luke 2:11). What do I suggest you do? You could cough during the word Saviour and hope nobody notices – but if you’ve already been using that to deny parts of the creed, you probably want to use a different technique. A better option is to just redefine ‘Saviour’ to mean something else:

   First, make it historically remote – read “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” then talk about the special and difficult situation of the Jews in Jerusalem.

   Next, entirely change the text by recontextualising it (“today, we also find things hard, there are challenges in our world, there is so much broken-ness and pain, so many fractured communities”).

   Now, you get to apply the passage directly to this modern context, neatly missing out the fact of Salvation on the cross (“It is this power, the love of God who sent his Son, which is the core of the Christian faith today; the power to heal, the power to forgive, and to reconcile”).

   Ensure the point is missed with examples picking up on your contextualisation: “The power to heal broken families, the power to reconcile communities, the power to lift people out of the pain of difficult lives”. You’ve just made the objective birth of Christ in Jerusalem as Saviour into an abstract figure of being inspired by God’s love into being more loving – and you’ve just deined the Gospel.

3. 3: Gospel Overpowering Denial
   The basic form of this method is to defy all logic by applying the Gospel text of God’s grace as if you’d just read an instruction to save yourself by good works. The two things that people most people will remember from a sermon are the final application and the final illustration. This means that generally you can allow some Gospel to slip in to the exegesis part without anyone remembering it, provided you give them an illustration of works-righteousness and a big application on the same lines.

   For example, you might preach on Galatians 2:16, and you might even say that we are saved by faith, and not by works. I know it sounds dangerous, but bear with me. Follow the statement of salvation by faith with something like “My dear brothers and sisters, the scripture is clear (hold up the Bible), by the works of the law no one will be justified: therefore, if you want to be justified, if you want to walk closely with God, you need to make a greater effort yet. Just law keeping is not enough – it is not enough just to stop living in a way God dislikes, but you must sacrifice your whole life to God, keeping nothing back. Absolute surrender means just that – giving up everything for the sake of God’s love.”

   See what I did there? I’ve just mangled the scripture until everyone’s lost, and then supplied a new concept of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘surrender’ as if that is the way to resolve the mess I’ve made. Follow this up with an illustration of a “man of faith” who achieved the seemingly impossible through his absolute surrender and ceaseless labour in a charitable work and nobody will remember you said they were saved by faith.

4. 4: This is all about me
   When Christ is the centre of Scripture, the Scripture points to Christ and the Gospel. When you make yourself the centre of Scripture, you can take it in all kinds of new and Gospel-denying directions. To do this, only allow Jesus to be an example: all he did was an example to us, and did not actually do anything objective for us specifically.

   As an example, take Mark 10:32-34, in which we find the third ‘Passion Prediction’. Bring out the point that Jesus is teaching us the need to walk by faith, knowing for sure that we will meet resistance and opposition. Explain that we are to walk ahead of others, leading the way to a better life. Following Christ’s example, we are to walk by faith even when it seems suicidal, because even though we’re really down – God will raise us up again to better things. Tell them that it is only through trial and persecution that we enter into a more loving relationship with God and receive his blessing in our lives. Be the man who walks to Jerusalem even though it means sure resistance and consequences; be the man who refuses to drink alcohol at the staff party even though it means being mocked; be the man who… etc… Be the man who’s willing to suffer for Jesus; and so be the man God raises up to better things and to your best life now.”

   How wonderful! In just a few seconds, you’ve managed to teach the congregation they need to work to earn God’s grace, you’ve written the objective death of Christ out of the Passion Prediction, and you’ve demoted our Lord and our God to an extra-holy life coach.

5. 5: Deny the text
   Sometimes it’s just too much work actually dealing with the Biblical text. In such circumstances, just deny the text is really the inspired Word of God and ignore it. Find a liberal scholar who’s questioned the authorship of whatever book you are reading from – there are plenty of these. Try to find one from a reputable-sounding institution such as Princeton Theological Seminary or Oxford University, and then quote him at length. It doesn’t matter that nobody bought into his hypothesis, your congregation don’t have a library at hand!

   Now, having explained that ‘Galatians’ is probably a fake letter written in the third century by a cult leader with a grudge against the Jewish religion, you can talk about it as ‘one response of man to the movings of God’ and so move to give your own ‘response of man to the moving of God’ and exegete yourself instead. Stories about what you learned out fishing, how you started a church with a rubber band, or the day you heroically saved a whole village from starvation with a lump of cheese are great replacements.

6. 6: Faith actually means faith plus works
   Sadly, some congregations today have a good number of educated professionals, and it’s not easy to pull the wool over their eyes. There are parts of the Bible which seem to preach the Gospel, and all it takes is one of their friends to try ‘evangelising’ them with those verses for them to start doubting everything you’ve taught. You need to immunise them against such threats, and to do that you need to explain that faith doesn’t just mean faith, but means works as well – that way, every time they see the word ‘faith’, they will internally rewrites it ‘faith plus works’.

   This can be done through misinterpreting James 2:14-26 and claiming that James is writing about justification by and before God – instead of being justified in one’s claim to faith. If you do a ‘careful’ work of comparison between James and Paul, you can teach people to read Paul through the lens of James – replacing Paul’s declaration of monergistic justification with James’ discussion of being justified in your claims. For bonus points, quote great reformers saying things like “the only interpretive key to the scripture is scripture itself” and then use this to justify your somewhat dodgy hermeneutic.

7. 7: Mock the Gospel
   Particularly useful if you are unfortunate enough to have to share a pulpit plastic reading stand with someone else who preaches the Gospel, this method is based on mocking the childish and naive faith of those who think they are saved just by believing something. Use a reductio ad absurdum, safe in the knowledge that the Gospel is ‘foolishness to Greeks’ (1 Corinithians 1:23).

   A great way to do this is to take any passage of law, then launch into something like:

   “Be wary, brothers and sisters, of false teachers. There are other churches where you don’t hear the Bible preached to you as you hear it here. In particular, be wary of mass-market corrupt evangelicalism with it’s easy-way-out salvation. Do you know, there are those who actually think that God cares more about whether they hold to their pet list of beliefs than whether you live a good life, whether you keep the commandments, whether you love God and your neighbour.

   Anyone who’s spent any real time going through the whole of the Bible will know for certain that God cares most of all about how you live. Just look at this passage before us: does it say ‘Believe in the Canons of Dort’ or does it say ‘You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark’ (Deuteronomy 19:14)? Beware those who scratch itching ears, pretending there’s an easy way out. It’s hard to do what I do, to declare to you what the Bible really says – but I do it because I love you and want you to make it to heaven. Please, I plead with you, persevere in living sinless lives, diligently do penance if you fail and fall into sin, keep yourself pure and holy in every way – and try your hardest to get into heaven.”

8. 8: Assume the Gospel
   This trick is so over-used you need to be careful. The basic idea is to talk about ‘the Gospel’ as much as you can, but never to explain what it is. You can sound really Gospel driven, Gospel centred, keen to bring the Gospel to people, etc. without having to actually explain what the Gospel is. When it comes to application time, talk about ways in which we respond to the Gospel – life changes, and the like – but never bother to explain why ‘the Gospel’ merits such a response. Correctly executed, you can keep assuming the Gospel for decades, always sounding Christian but never actually being Christian. You may even find that after a few years there will be so few left who still remember what the Gospel is that you can go ahead and say that the Gospel is our response to God in changed lives — this has often been executed with great success.
9. 9: I’m sorry you’ve fallen asleep
   Now, if all else fails, drone on about something boring – perhaps talk about the meaning of each word in the Greek, and the differences between English translations – until nobody is listening. Note to non-preachers: the fact that your preacher is sending you to sleep is not proof that he is denying the Gospel, on its own!

St. Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, concludes his opening thanksgiving with the acclamation “he 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” (Colossians 1:13-14). In the rest of the first chapter, we’ll see how this one central saving act is set out from three different angles.

Christ and Creation

The Apostle opens by proclaiming Christ to us as the one in whom the creation sees the otherwise invisible God, and moves immediately to his relation to Creation in general. In verses 15 and 16, we read of Christ’s headship over all creation; he is, we read, ‘the firstborn’, he is the heir of all; yet more than that – for all was created by him. Absolutely everything in heaven and on earth was created both through him, and for him. However, the relationship which Christ has to creation here is not just one of initiation; for creation continues to depend upon him to sustain it – as we read, ‘in him all things hold together’ (Colossians 1:15-17).

So far, we’ve seen the relationship of Christ to Creation which has existed since the beginning of time – now, we come to that great event on which all the three angles focus. Here, it is seen in Christ’s relationship with the new creation in his act of saving the whole of creation. You may have noticed that Verse 18 lists Christ as head of the church separately from his headship over the rest of creation in verse 16. Why would Paul do this? Well, the church is the forefront of the reconciled creation; it is in the church that we find the new creation even during the present age. Christ is the head not only of the old creation, but also of the new reconciled creation – he is the head of the reconciliation of all things to God. Verse 18 declares that “he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”, which speaks of his role now in the new creation, the Kingdom of those who have passed from death to life; it is him through whom all things are reconciled.

The picture Paul paints here is one of Christ’s role in the new creation as being in parallel with his role in the old creation. Christ, over both, is preeminent; and both are held together in him and for him. The one by whom the first creation was made, is the one through whom the new creation was reconciled.

Finally, this angle closes with a ‘big picture’ view of Christ’s saving work. We read of him that ‘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 1:19-20). By his blood once shed upon that one cross outside Jerusalem, the whole of creation; hitherto alienated and cut off from God’s peace, was reconciled. All creation; the present age, and the age to come, every moment of history, every second of the future, turns on that one single event. There, before the eyes of man, the very image of the invisible God; the one in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell; the one who is the head and firstborn of all creation; gave his life to achieve for all creation the peace of reconciliation with God.

Christ and Man

In the second part, Paul shifts the camera angle from creation to the salvation of man specifically. He addresses the Christians in Collossae as ‘you’, and sets out the saving work of Christ from their perspective. In verse 21, we read “and you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death”. The Christians in Collossae, just as all mankind, were once enemies of God, cut off from his peace, hostile to God’s truth, and living a life described aptly as ‘doing evil deeds’. Yet, these same over whom even the greatest optimist would despair, are the very people who Christ has now reconciled. Christ has reconciled them, we read, in his body of flesh – the flesh he took to share in the humanity of man, that he might redeem it from its bondage to death through his own death.

Why was Christ pleased to give his life for them? Paul declares that it is “in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him”. That is, the reason they are reconciled is so that they themselves might be acceptable before Holy God; that they, being made holy, blameless and above reproach by the redemption that is in his blood – the forgiveness of sins, could be made members of the Kingdom of the Son.

How can they know that they are indeed reconciled, that they will truly be presented holy and blameless and above reproach before him? Paul tells us in verse 23 it is “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister”. According to God’s holy and perfect design, those who are reconciled are given faith in Christ’s great work of reconciliation by his blood; a faith by which they are assured both of reconciliation now and sure hope of the fullness of the Kingdom of the Son. They who are Christians then are marked first and foremost by this, a faith stable and steadfast, built firmly upon the hope of this one gospel.

Connecting back to the first part, Paul declares that this Gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven; at which point, he shifts the angle again for the third view – declaring that it is of the Gospel that “I, Paul became a minister”.

Christ and the Church

Although we’ve seen the great work of Christ from the point of view of creation, and the work of Christ in the reconciliation of men, we’ve yet to see how the two are connected. How do we go from Christ’s reconciliation of all creation to a sinner in Collossae, or Kuala Lumpur, being now reconciled to God by faith in the gospel?

Well, Paul speaks of himself as an example, for he has become a minister of the Gospel; from this angle, he explains how ministry of this Gospel is a central part of God’s design. In verse 24 we read, concerning the suffering of Paul – which as he wrote likely included present imprisonment, both that he rejoices in them, and that the sufferings he undergoes are for the sake of his fellow men. He can say this because they come as a result of his obedience to God’s command that he bring them the Gospel, and more even than that; for he writes of these sufferings that “in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”. It is part of God’s purpose that those who are in Christ should suffer with him, and that all should grow into conformity to even Christ. What a great privilege it is for God to grant to suffer for the sake of the body of Christ.

In the next verse, we read that Paul “became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you”; which was specifically, “to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints”. It is God who is revealing the mystery of the Gospel, and he does it to his saints – those who are made holy by the blood of his Son. Yet, it is Paul who brings this word by which it is revealed.

Is it Paul who reconciles people? No; although Paul brings the Gospel to them, yet, as we see in verse 27, it is God who chose them, for “to them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”. Indeed, not only is it God’s purpose, God’s plan and God’s choice, but the hope of this gospel itself is described as “Christ in you”, it is not Paul who reconciles, but God who in mercy and wisdom works the miracle of reconciliation through the means of the ordinary word of a redeemed sinner.

What are these words? Verse 28 assures us that Paul; (and not only Paul but all as they share in the true ministry of the Gospel, for here he has shifted from ‘I’ to ‘we’); proclaims Christ. “Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ”. This is the focus of his gospel ministry; and this is the aim – not straying from Christ, but working to build everyone up in Christ, that they might be presented mature in him.

This most personal of the angles concludes with words which summarise the task of the Christian as a minister of the gospel; we read in verse 29: “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me”. Eyes fixed upon the hope of the gospel, lives toiling and struggling to proclaim Christ, yet doing all by the energy of Christ which he works within us to fulfil his purpose.

So, through these three angles, we first see that great work of Christ in reversing the fall, of reconciling the whole of creation to God; secondly, we see the same reconciling work of Christ in the shedding of his blood as it applies to the salvation of mankind; and finally, we see the reconciling work of Christ being declared by God, according to the design of God, by the power and energy of God, through a faithful gospel ministry of Christians to their neighbours in all mankind.

So, from the first, we learn to set our hope upon the day when the fullness of the Kingdom of the Son shall be revealed, the reconciliation of all creation where all will be at peace with God. From the second, we learn to cling to the blood of Christ shed once for us, for the forgiveness of our sins; we are strengthened in our faith in his one sin-bearing sacrifice, and assured by that same faith that we – now entirely reconciled and forgiven by his blood – shall be presented holy, blameless and above reproach before him. And from the last, we learn of the centrality and great importance of the faithful ministry of the gospel; of preaching, warning, and teaching focused on Christ, and aiming at building one another up into maturity in Christ; further, we learn that even this is God’s powerful work in us. May we individually and as a church strive constantly in this ministry; if we suffer, may we rejoice that it is for the body of Christ; if we struggle, may we give thanks for it is by Christ’s energy that we do it; and as we speak, may we make the word of God fully known, teaching with all wisdom the rich glories of this gospel ministry.