Colossians 1:21 - 1:29

Colossians — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Colossians 2

00:00

Colossians 1:21 - 1:29

ColossiansSteve Gregg

Steve Gregg explores the theme of reconciliation in Colossians 1:21-29. He delves into the concept of God's desire to restore broken relationships and highlights the significance of being holy and blameless in the sight of God. Gregg also discusses the theological perspectives on election and predestination, emphasizing the role of individual choice and faith in one's relationship with God. Throughout his analysis, Gregg emphasizes the importance of perseverance, synergism with God, and the empowerment of grace to live a life aligned with the teachings of Christ.

Transcript

Colossians again at chapter 1, this time verse 21. The reason for the giggles is that we actually intended to finish with Colossians in this session originally, and we haven't finished chapter 1 yet. We are going to extend it.

We don't know yet how much. All right, we will finish. I will make this guaranteed.

That's a scary thing to do. But we will finish chapter 1 in this session, and I believe we'll do more than that. All right, but who knows? These verses are thick, and it takes a long time to get through them.

Verse 21. Now, you see in verses 15 through 20, he's just given us sort of a rant, as it were, a rave about a good one, about how superior Jesus is, both in the realm of created things and in the realm of the new creation, the church. And then he tells us about us.

After talking about Jesus, he turns and talks about us. In verse 21, he says, And you who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable in his sight. If indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Now, as I say, he's in verses 15 through 20 told us what Christ has done and what Christ is to us, and now he talks directly to us about us and the effect on us of what Jesus has done. First of all, it says he has reconciled us. We were once alienated and enemies in our mind by our wicked works.

Now, we're alienated in our minds, and this alienation found expression in wicked works, and this alienation was enough to damn us. It was enough to prevent us from being able to be saved, and salvation is in Christ. Salvation is by relationship with God, and if that relationship is broken down, if that relationship is a relationship of enmity, obviously that's not a saving kind of relationship, so we need to be reconciled, and this is just making the application to us personally of what was said generally in verse 20, that by him God intended to reconcile all things to himself, and in so doing he has reconciled us.

He's removed the grounds of alienation. Alienation occurs because of an offense. That's true in all cases of alienation.

If you are now alienated from somebody from whom you once were not alienated, then it is because somebody has been offended. You have been offended by them, or they have been offended by you. Where alienation exists, there is an offense, and where reconciliation occurs there must be a redressing of that offense in one way or another.

There either has to be unilateral forgiveness, in the sense that the offended party says, well, I'm just not going to make that big a deal about it. I'm going to forget about it, and I'm going to be friendly with you again, or else there has to be some kind of restitution made or some kind of an act on your part or on the offending party's part to be reconciled. Now, the scripture teaches that whereas we would normally think that if you are alienated from somebody because you did something wrong, that the only way that alienation will be reconciled is by you doing something right.

In other words, if somebody offends you, typically you may just feel badly toward them, hustle to them, avoid them, have nothing to do with them, unless they come along and say, well, I'll make it up to you. I hurt you, I will do something good for you, I will do something to repay you the damage that you've suffered by me, and that's how people usually respond. So, naturally people think God's that way, that since we offended God by our disobedience, many people feel the only way that reconciliation can happen in this relationship is by us doing good things, doing good deeds to atone for it.

This is not, however, what happens, because we read in 2 Corinthians 5, verse 19, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins against them. See, that's the other way that reconciliation can take place. I cannot really come to God and say, okay, I damaged you by my sin, I'll enrich you by my good works.

I'll make it up to you that way, because my good works can't enrich him in any way. I'm not good enough to make such a contribution. But the other thing can happen.

He can unilaterally forgive. He cannot impute my sins against me. Now, he did not do this arbitrarily, and he did not do it without a payment made.

It's simply that he did not require me to make the payment. I'm the one who offended, but someone else made the payment. That's the whole point, that we have been redeemed.

That means the payment has been made. That's what it says in verse 14, in whom, that is, in Christ, we have redemption. The word redemption means a payment was made for release, and that payment was not made by us, but by him, so that the alienation between me and God has been settled by God being paid in full, as it were, for the damages, but not by me.

Because of what Jesus did, God now does not impute my sins against me, and yours against you, or any man's against any man. They have been imputed to Christ. And therefore, we are capable of experiencing what God has in mind.

In verse 22, it says, In the body of his flesh through death, that is, he's reconciled us to himself in the body of his flesh through his death to present you, this is what he has in mind out of all this, to be able to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable in his sight. That means that you will be in no condition for anyone to reproach you. Blameless.

No one can blame you. You'll be holy. This is what God has in mind, that when you stand before him on the day of judgment, or even now, when you come before him any given day to pray to him, to approach him, to fellowship with him, that instead of him being able to stand there and blame you for something or reproach you for something, there will be nothing that can be said against you.

You cannot be blamed for anything or reproached for anything. How can this be? Well, because all the blame and all the reproach was brought upon another on our behalf as a substitute. Now, notice this expression in verse 22.

God's desire is to present us holy and blameless. If you look back at Ephesians chapter 5, you'll find similar wording as Paul is talking about Christ as the husband and we as the bride, another one of his famous images of the church and Christ. He says in Ephesians 5.25 and following, Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, notice verse 27, that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that we should be holy and without blemish.

Now, Christ died for the church so that he could present the church, that's us, to himself as a thing holy and free of blemish. That is certainly a parallel idea to what we read here that he might present you holy and blameless and irreproachable in Colossians 1.22. Now, here's what these two statements have in common. They both talk about Jesus doing something so that he could present you, the church, to himself and the condition of the church as presented to him is in both cases said to be holy and in one place it says without blemish which is following the metaphor of a bride and no blemish is on the skin of a beautiful woman without flaws.

In this case we don't have the metaphor of the bride so instead of saying blemished, it's saying without blame, without reproach. But quite clearly we have the same concept in both places that Christ did what he did to present an unblemished, a blameless, a holy people to himself. Now, bearing that in mind, look back at Ephesians chapter 1 and this will be very instructive to us because the issue of election then is made more clear by this consideration.

In Ephesians 1 verse 4 it says, Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him. Notice the same expression that we should be holy and without blame before him in Colossians 1 verse 4 it says that we be holy and blameless, that's the same thing as without blame, and irreproachable in his sight which is the same thing as saying before him in his sight. Now what am I getting at here? Am I just trying to find verses that have similar words? No, this is all very instructive to something very important.

In the whole discussion of election and being chosen by God, the question is did God choose me and you and many other individuals to be saved or did he choose a category to be saved and I choose to be in that category or out of that category. Now, it's not clear in some of the verses but it is in others. But here we see a clear teaching of what Paul thought about election in Ephesians 1 verse 4. God chose us, that means elected, the word chose is elect.

So God elected us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame. This goal to have a people that are holy without blame is what he elected us for. But who are us? Us as so many individuals or us simply means the church of which you and I presumably are a part by our regeneration.

I'm going to suggest to you that the choosing was not of individuals but of the church as a whole, that is to say the category, those who are in Christ. God chose that those who are in Christ will someday be presented to himself holy and unblameable. That is election.

Now, is this individual election or corporate? Look at the verse we saw a moment ago in Ephesians 5. Ephesians 5 says that Christ gave himself for the church. Verse 27, that he might present it, that is the church, to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing that it, that is the church, should be holy and without blemish. The same idea.

God has elected the church to be presented to himself holy and without blemish. The day will come when the church, whoever may be in it, will fulfill the choice that God made for the church, that is that it will be presented to himself as a holy and blameless church. The question is, what about me? Look at Colossians now.

We have the same concept here, verse 22, that in the body, that is the church, God intends to present you, that is plural, plural you, meaning in this case the church, to present you holy and blameless in every part and form of your sight. He has made the decision to present the church to himself ultimately in this condition. But look at the next verse.

If indeed you continue in the faith grounded and steadfast and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, now wait a minute here. God has elected, according to Ephesians 1, 4, those who are in Christ to become holy and blameless. Here it says the same thing, that he intends to present you holy and blameless.

And in Ephesians 5, he has elected the church to present the church holy and without blemish. What about me as an individual? Oh, that applies to me if I continue. What does this tell me? It tells me that God's election is corporate, not individual.

That is Paul's view. God has elected that those who are in Christ, whoever they may be, the church, whoever may be in it, that entity, that corporate entity, will someday share in a glorious destiny of holiness and blamelessness before God and glory. Next question, am I going to be there or not as an individual? Well, that's up to me, isn't it? If I continue, I will be.

Now here's what's so important. There are people who make a much bigger deal than I do about this issue of election and predestination and so forth, and usually they have a view of individual election for salvation. Their idea is that somehow God made a decision long before all time and arbitrarily that to save certain people and damn certain people, and they prove it by these references to election and predestination.

But when Paul talks about election and predestination, he's not talking about individuals being saved. Even in the famous passage in Romans 9, where he talks about how God chose Jacob and rejected Esau while they were still in the womb, usually considered to be a famous passage proving that election of individuals for salvation is an unconditional choice God made, these two men being a good example. Well, the problem is when you read that passage in Romans 9, it's not talking about individual election for salvation.

Paul is not saying that Esau went to hell and Jacob went to heaven because God made a choice that Esau would go to hell and Jacob would go to heaven, but when they were both in the womb. That's not the subject under discussion. What he's discussing is which of these sons of Abraham, or more properly of Isaac and Abraham, would carry on the Abrahamic blessings in the world.

In other words, which people would God use to fulfill his Abrahamic promises to the world? This is in God's earthly purposes and his historical purposes. When Abraham had multiple sons, Ishmael and Isaac being two of them, there were six others like a Torah, but when God had multiple sons, he chose one of them, Isaac, to carry forward his earthly purposes. Does this mean Ishmael didn't go to heaven? We don't know.

He may have. The Bible doesn't talk about that subject. The choice of Isaac over Ishmael is a choice of which son would be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessings, but through that seed of Abraham, these promises to all nations, namely that the Messiah would come and be a blessing to all nations, which son of Abraham would carry on that line for that fulfillment of God's earthly purpose? Isaac did.

But then the next question is, what about Isaac's sons? He had two sons, too. Jacob and Esau. Which one of them would carry on this line? The answer, of course, is Jacob, and Jacob was chosen for this purpose before either of them were born.

They were twins in the womb together, and while they were in the womb, God said, I will choose the nation of Jacob rather than the nation of Esau. For what? Salvation? No. For the carrying out of his earthly purposes.

Individuals in the nation of Esau could be saved, and individuals in the nation of Jacob could be lost. And many were. Many Jewish people of the nation of Jacob were lost and went to hell, the Pharisees among them, Judas Iscariot being another.

But there were those of the nation of Esau who were individually saved, Job being a good example. They are almost certainly an Edomite, and there is certainly nothing in the Bible that indicates that simply God's choice of the Israelites over the Edomites somehow consigned all Edomites to hell. That is not what is being discussed.

In Romans 9 there is no discussion of individual election for salvation. And how do I know that? I mean, I'm making some pretty bold affirmations against what most people are saying, but look at what it says. If you look at Romans 9, this is a classic passage about election.

What does it say? In Romans 9, beginning at verse 10, not only this, but when Rebekah, that's Isaac's wife, also had conceived by one man, even our father Isaac, for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calls. It was said to her, The older shall serve the younger. That is, the older Esau shall serve the younger, Jacob.

So God chose Jacob over Esau when they were both in the womb. Then he quotes another scripture, As it is written, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. It's incredible to me how many people use this verse to try to prove that God has individually chosen some people, like Jacob and Esau, for salvation or for damnation, when that's not even under consideration here.

How do I know that? Presumably when Paul quotes scriptures to make his point, the scriptures he quotes are related to the point he's making. Is that not reasonable to suggest? I mean, why bother quoting scriptures to make your point if they're not relevant to the point you're making? Or what scriptures does he quote? Two. One in Genesis, one in Malachi.

Let me quickly turn you to there because it's very important here. Genesis 25, 23 is the first one he quotes. He talks about how God chose Jacob over Esau when they were both in the womb.

And he quotes the scripture to establish that fact. Genesis 25, verse 23. This is what the Lord said to Rebekah when she was pregnant with the twins.

Genesis 25, verse 23. The Lord said to her, two nations are in your womb. Two peoples, meaning races, shall be separated from your body.

One people, that is one race, shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger. It's just that last line that Paul quotes to make his point. What's the point? That God chose Jacob over Esau while they were in the womb.

For what? For what? To be the progenitor of a nation. Not for salvation. There's no discussion of whether these children will be saved, lost, go to heaven or hell.

That's not even under consideration. The question is which nation will serve which nation. There will be a nation of Esau, we call them the Edomites, and a nation of Jacob, we call them Israel.

Which nation would have ascendancy over the other, and which would be God's choice for the birthright? Which was not a birthright for heaven, it was a birthright for carrying out God's purposes on earth. The answer is the younger one will have the ascendancy. The older one will serve the younger.

Now let me suggest for a moment the question, did Esau the man ever serve Jacob the man? Absolutely not. We do read in Genesis of Jacob bowing down seven times to Esau, but that's the opposite direction. We're supposed to have Esau bowing down to Jacob, supposedly.

But we never see Esau in any way serving Jacob, not in any way, shape or form. But the nation of Edom did come under tribute to the nation of Israel, and did serve Israel. Quite clearly when God said the older shall serve the younger, he's not talking about the man Esau and the man Jacob, he's talking about the nation, two nations in a room, two peoples.

This has nothing to do with individuals being chosen to be saved or to be lost. And if the verse that Paul quotes has nothing to do with it, then probably Paul's subject matter has nothing to do with it. What other verse does Paul quote? He quotes Malachi chapter 1 verses 2 and 3 which is Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.

What's that about? Well, if you check it out, Malachi was what we call a post-exilic prophet. He's writing after the Jews had spent time in Babylon and had returned to Jerusalem or to Judah to rebuild Jerusalem. And he is recalling something from the past, but what is it? Malachi chapter 1, the opening verses, it says, the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi, I have loved you, who? Israel, the nation of Israel.

It's the word to Israel. I have loved you Israel, says the Lord, yet you say in what way have I loved you? He says, was not Esau Jacob's brother, says the Lord, yet Jacob, that's Israel, I have loved. Esau I have hated.

And I laid waste his mountains and his heritage for jackals and robbers. His mountains? Edom's mountains, the nation of Edom. Esau is simply a reference to the nation of Edom.

Jacob and Israel, which are interchangeable terms, are a reference to the nation of Israel. Remember the name Jacob and the name Israel were just two names for the same man. When it says in verse 1, this is the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi, it doesn't mean the man Israel, does it? It means the nation Israel.

When he says, I loved Israel, I loved Jacob, but I didn't love Esau. I laid Esau's mountains waste. He's talking about the destruction of the Edomites in the whole recent developments of the Babylonian captivity.

He says, however, I did love Jacob. Although I took Jacob into captivity, I brought him back. This is written after he returned him.

He's reflecting on his preferential treatment that he showed to the nation of Israel. In contrast, the way he treated the nation of Esau, that's Edom. This is not a statement about God's choice of a man to be saved and a man to be lost.

We never read that Esau went to hell and we never read that Jacob went to heaven. Both statements might have been true, but we don't know that they are true. The Bible never makes that point and Paul isn't making that point.

What he's saying is that when God makes a choice, he determines the categories. He chose the category of those that would be descended from Jacob for a certain purpose. He didn't choose the category of those that descended from Esau for that purpose.

Nonetheless, he's not even talking about salvation there. In Romans, he's talking about God's purposes through a nation, what he would do through a nation. What I'm suggesting to you is this.

Jacob or Israel, the nation, was chosen by God for a certain blessing. Everyone knows that. The nation of Israel was chosen to be blessed and chosen to have responsibility, too.

But every Jew did not receive that blessing. Some of them perished in the wilderness because their promise was not mixed with faith and those who heard it. Hebrews 4.1 or 2 says that.

So you could be in the chosen nation and be lost. What's more, you could be born in the chosen nation and leave it. You could become alienated.

You could be excommunicated. Many times in the law it says, anyone who does such and such shall be cut off from my people. God said to Abraham in Genesis 17, any child of yours who is not circumcised shall be cut off from my people.

Now, that person would be a son of Abraham by birth, but cut off from the chosen people by his refusal to obey the law. On the other hand, a person who is not born Jewish, like Ruth or Rahab, by embracing the Jewish faith could become part of the commonwealth of Israel and could become what we call the proselyte. What this means is this.

There was a category in the Old Testament that God chose to bless. That category is called Israel. A Jew who was born in Israel could reject it and be an apostatized and be excommunicated from Israel.

A person who was not born a Jew could become a Jew if they wished to by religion. Which means this. The choice to bless was the choice of a people, Israel.

The choice to be in that people was individual. Whether you were born a Jew or born a Gentile, you could choose to be in or choose to be out. If you chose to be in the chosen people, then you became one of the chosen.

Not because you were originally chosen as an individual, but because the group you have joined is a chosen group and you share in the chosenness of that group by being in it. Now, what does it mean to be chosen in Christ? That is what Paul says in Ephesians 1.4, just as he chose us in him. What does that mean? Well, a Jew who was in Israel was chosen in Israel.

Not chosen to be in Israel, but because they were in Israel, they were part of the chosen group. Christ is the chosen one, but he is a corporate entity, a body of many members. You choose to be in or you choose to be out.

If you choose to be in, then you are chosen in him, because he is chosen. You share in the benefit of his chosenness by being in him. You choose to be out of him, you don't share in that benefit anymore.

He is still chosen. And all who are in him are still chosen, but you are not in him anymore. That is why Jesus talked about the vine and the branches.

Abide in me. If you abide in me, my life is in you. You will bear much fruit.

If you don't abide in me, you will be gathered up like branches that don't abide in me, burned in the fire. The vine and its current branches will still be saved, but the branches that are no longer in it will be lost. Election, therefore, God's choice is a choice of a category.

In this case, the category of those who are in Christ. In Christ, if you are there, you are chosen. If you are not in Christ, you are not.

However, if you are not in Christ today, you can be tomorrow or even later today. You can come into Christ. And therefore, even though you were not chosen because you were not in him before, you are chosen as soon as you are in him.

On the other hand, today you may be in him, and you are therefore chosen in him. If you choose not to abide in him like a branch that is cut off and withers away, then you are not chosen anymore. Because the chosenness is not of individuals.

The chosenness is of the category. The individual chooses whether they will comply with the demands of the category. So that Paul, talking about this same subject, that God has the plan of causing a people to be holy and blameless in his sight, he says in Colossians 1.22 that in the body of his flesh that is in Christ, those who are in Christ, you, who he gives the benefit of doubt that his readers are in Christ, Christians, he has written to the saints and faithful in Christ, so that is who he is addressing, you who are in Christ, he will present you holy and blameless.

But he is talking about a category, you who are in Christ. Now, some of those individuals who are in Christ, if they do not remain in Christ, they are not going to be presented blameless and holy. It is those who are in Christ.

Now, will every individual that he is addressing be in Christ at that final day? That depends, as he says, if you indeed continue. You decide. Will you continue? Will you not? Let me show you the same idea over in Romans 11.

Romans 11 uses again the idea of organic relationship of branches to an organism, but this time it is a tree, not a vine. Jesus used the idea of branches and a vine. Paul uses the metaphor from the Old Testament also, the different one, the olive tree.

The idea of Israel or the elect being an olive tree comes from Jeremiah, actually. Jeremiah 5.10 and Jeremiah 11.16 both refer to Israel as an olive tree. Paul picks up that image and he says this in Romans 11.16. I really recommend that you follow closely this because this is very important for understanding an important subject.

Romans 11.16, Paul says, for if the first fruit is holy, the lump is also holy. Then he shifts metaphors to that of a tree. He says, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Now, here, a tree with holy roots confers holiness to every branch that is attached to it. So if the branches are on the tree, or in the tree, as we might say, as Jesus would say, then they are holy, set apart for God. Remember, the church is to be presented to him holy.

But notice this in verse 17, if some of the branches were broken off, whoa, the branches are holy if they are in the tree. But what if they're broken off? Are they still saved? Are they still holy? What is the status of a branch that's not in the tree? Well, let's read on. If some of the branches were broken off and you being a wild olive tree, Gentiles who were not naturally in Israel, were grafted in among them and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree.

Now stop there for a minute. What is the root? Holy. If the root is holy, the branches are holy.

If you were not originally one of the branches but you've been grafted in, you've become one of the branches and you participate in the root. That is the holiness that all the branches in the tree have. Why? Because you're in the tree.

What about the branches that were broken off? They're not in the tree. They were, but they're broken off. You were not, but now you're in.

You see, there's individual transfers here. The tree is still the same tree and holiness always pertains to every branch attached to that tree. The question is, branches come and go.

Are you a branch that's in it or a branch that's not in it? Are you broken off or are you in it? Now, of course, Paul is talking essentially here about the Jews who did not believe are the branches that got broken off and Gentiles who did believe are grafted on. He makes that very clear, but he says in verse 18, do not boast against the branches, meaning the Jewish branches that broke off, but if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root. The root supports you.

You will say then, branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. Well said. Because of unbelief, they were broken off.

That means the branches are broken off or broken off because they don't have faith. But by faith, you stand or you stand by faith. So it's clear being attached to the tree is based on faith.

If you have faith in Christ, you're in. You don't have faith, you're off. Faith is an individual matter.

And by your own individual faith, you either attach or disattach from the tree. And if you're attached, you're holy because the root is holy and you draw from it when you're attached. You break off, you're not holy anymore.

You're not one of God's people anymore. Now check this out. The end of verse 20.

Do not be haughty, but fear. Why? I thought we were eternally secure. Why should we have anything to fear? Well, for this reason.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, which he might well be expected to do if he's going to spare any, I mean, they were there by nature, he may not spare you either. What? Why isn't it here? I thought I'm eternally secure. I'm attached, man.

I have faith. I'm in the tree. The tree is holy.

The root is holy and all the branches are holy. I'm in the tree. I'm a holy too.

But what do you mean God might not spare me? How can he say that? He's not a very good Baptist. Well, let's see. Paul wasn't a very good Baptist or Presbyterian of that matter.

Let's see. What's he say? Well, let's see. Therefore consider the goodness and the severity of God on those who fell.

Severity. Now, they didn't fall because God was severe. God didn't ordain them to fall and that very severity of God made them fall.

It was because they fell that he treated them severely. Now, the other way around. Some people get that mixed up.

But toward you, that is you who have not fallen, goodness. So toward those who fell, God has been severe. Toward those who are not fallen, who are still attached, there is goodness.

God has treated us well. But what's the rest of that verse? If you continue in his goodness, otherwise you also will be cut off. What does it mean to be cut off? Well, the Jews who didn't believe were cut off.

Are they saved? Obviously not. Jesus didn't talk to the Pharisees as if they were saved. They were children of the devil.

They were cut off because of their unbelief. But I'm here standing by faith. But what if my faith doesn't continue? What if I don't continue to believe? What if I forsake the faith? Well, apparently he says you too can be cut off.

But I thought that couldn't happen. Someone told me when I was a child that once you're saved, you're in. There's no way out.

Paul apparently hadn't heard that. Maybe he didn't go to Sunday school. But he didn't believe that, obviously.

He believed that once you are in, you can be out. Just like the Jews who are now out were once in. They were cut off.

You don't get cut off unless you're first part of the tree. They were part of it. But their lack of faith caused them to be no longer part of it.

You are now part of it. And you're standing there by one element, one consideration, and that is your faith. Give that up and what happens to you? Same thing happens to them.

You too will be cut off. Will the tree still be holy? Yes. Will the branches still be holy? Yes.

Will you be one of the branches? No. You see the whole issue here? The issue is that the holy people is just that, a people. God has chosen to have a holy people, to present to himself a holy bride, a holy church, a holy people to himself.

The question is, are you going to be part of that or not? That's up to you, isn't it? If you continue, you will. If you don't, you won't. That's what Paul says in Romans.

That's what Paul says in Colossians. By the way, the writer of Hebrews who may have been Paul, no one knows for sure, also said very similar things. For example, in Hebrews chapter 3, verse 6, he says, But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of hope from the earth.

That if means something. That's a conditional, isn't it? That's why persons who are not Calvinists talk about unconditional security. The Calvinist talks about unconditional election.

What the Calvinist means is that certain individuals have been elected by God unconditionally, without referencing anything they would do or anything. He just unconditionally elected some individuals to be saved. I say, where is that in the Bible? And they turn to all these passages we just looked at.

I say, he doesn't say that there. What it says is that he is unconditionally elected that those who are in Christ will be saved. But we, there are conditions to being in Christ.

And the question of whether those conditions are met or not is not predetermined. That is determined by decisions by human beings. That's why Paul continually tells us, if you continue, if you continue, if you continue, then these things will be true of you.

Whether you continue or not, it'll still be true of the group. All in Christ are still chosen for certain destiny and privilege and so forth. God will still unconditionally fulfill his promises in Christ.

The question is whether you will be in him or not. That's conditional. If you continue in the faith, Colossians 1.23, grounded and steadfast.

Now grounded doesn't mean like going through a meat grinder. Though sometimes you feel like that's what it means to be in Christ. Sometimes you feel like God put you through a meat grinder.

But that's what it means when it's grounded. The word there actually isn't, I mean that's an old King James word that just carried over in the New King James. Grounded literally means founded.

A better, more modern English word. It's from the same Greek word as means foundation. Founded on a foundation.

Now of course a foundation is a concept that the Bible uses frequently as an image of something that is stable. Remember Jesus talked about building your house on a rock or contrary wise building your house on sand without a foundation. He said in Luke 6. The foundation is what determines whether the thing stands or not.

Are you going to continue in Christ? It's very important to know, isn't it? I mean Christ is saved. Christ is righteous. Christ is holy and all who are in him, in him are holy and righteous and chosen.

But are you going to continue in him? That's the question. The answer is yes if you continue to be founded upon him and steadfast, persevering in him. Yeah it's not a cake walk.

Unfortunately a lot of people who really don't, now don't think I'm judging people's hearts. Let me just, let me speak of a category. There are people who don't love Jesus very much.

They just want to be saved. I mean I'm not saying that everyone who thinks differently than I do doesn't love Jesus. But let's just talk about a group.

There certainly are people out there who don't love Jesus very much and they want to be saved. Can you imagine that being the case? Can you imagine wanting to be saved whether you love Jesus very much or not? Probably if you don't understand what heaven is. If you think heaven is a place where you just eat ice cream and cake all the time, you might want to be saved even if you don't love Jesus.

If you realize heaven is the place where you go and adore Jesus day and night forever, I don't know why anyone would want to go there if they didn't love him. They might like hell better but they're not likely to like it much. Hell is not any good either.

Nothing is any good if you don't love Jesus. You either end up in heaven where you adore Jesus all the time or you end up in hell which is about the worst place you can ever be. So the only way to be happy is to love Jesus I guess.

Now the point here is there are people who don't love Jesus but for some reason they want to be saved. Therefore it is a comforting thought to them that whether they love Jesus or not they can be saved. Whether they trust him or not they can be saved.

Whether they maintain any kind of relationship with him or not they can be saved. All they have to do is make the crisis decision one time to sign on the dotted line and say, okay, raise your hand, go forward, say the sinner's prayer, I'm in. Now I can go out and live the way I want to live, the way I live without loving Jesus.

But I'm saved anyway because when I was four years old I signed on the dotted line, I said the sinner's prayer and sure as heck that's going to get me into heaven. The Bible never says anything even close to that, not remotely. It is a tradition of man, it's a damning tradition because many people are going to go to hell and think they're saved because of it.

And you better read the Bible instead. Jesus and Paul and Peter and John wrote the majority of the information on the subject of salvation in the New Testament. Every one of them taught that salvation is for those who persevere, salvation is for those who do not draw back, salvation is for those who continue.

And all of them also talk about situations where people do not continue and where they are lost. Now if all of the basic authorities in the New Testament, Jesus and Paul and Peter and John and James as well, if they all teach that doctrine, and they all do, where does the doctrine come from that once you're saved you're always saved no matter what you do? Well, it must come from some other source. And since it's the opposite of what Jesus said, we can maybe make some deductions about what source that is.

But the fact is, it is not taught in the Bible and anyone who thinks it is, I'd be very happy for them to show me. I've been looking for a very long time. In fact, I was raised with that conviction of eternal security.

It was the Bible that convinced me otherwise. And my traditions of men didn't hold up very well under the light of Scripture. Now this is what Paul teaches.

But you will continue if you are grounded, that means founded like on a foundation, and steadfast. That means you're persevering, you're holding on tight. In fact, I wish I had looked this up beforehand.

Wouldn't it be funny if I did my research right here in the public while the tape's running? But I just might do that. Let me talk while I'm looking something up here because I just want to know if this is the Greek word that I think it is. I've got it right here.

Bibios. Is that the right one for here? Well, it might be a different one in this case. Colossians 1. Oh no, that's Hedraeus.

Okay, never mind. I was thinking this might be the word bibios, which is sometimes translated steadfast. But this is a different one.

The reason I say that is because the word bibios or bibio is also found in 2 Peter 1 where Peter says give diligence to make your calling and your election sure. The word sure is bibios, which also translates steadfast elsewhere in the scripture. That is your election.

How do you make it sure? If it's unconditionally determined by God before the foundation of the world, why would I have to do anything to make it sure? Steadfast. It's determined. It's got to be.

If something's determined unconditionally, it's steadfast, right? It doesn't move. However, Peter said, I need to make my individual election steadfast. Just like Paul said here, you need to continue steadfast.

Now, you see, I don't have to do anything for God's election of the body of Christ to glory, to come true. I don't have to agree with it. I don't have to believe it.

I don't have to follow it. It'll happen. Unconditionally, God's eternal purpose for the ages is that he will glorify those who are in Christ.

And that's the election of Christ, the election of those who are in Christ. The question is, what about my election? I have to diligently make my own election secure. And I do that by securing myself to Christ by faith and not giving up by faith.

Standing firm, grounded like a house on a foundation. And Jesus said, those who hear my things and do them, that's like the man who builds his house on a rock foundation. Stands, storms come and he never falls.

A man who hears my words and doesn't do them, he's built his house on sand, no foundation. He's not going to stand. He's not going to continue.

You just need to take this to heart. Following what Jesus said, loving him and doing what he said. You said, if you love me, you keep my commandments.

You love Jesus, you do what he said. You have a foundation there. You are grounded, you are founded on a foundation.

Immovable. But if you reject his lordship, if you reject what he says and live your own life another way, you're like a house built on sand. There is no foundation there.

You will not continue. Paul says, you will be saved. You'll experience the holy destiny that God has for you if you continue grounded or founded and steadfast and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard.

Now, you might say, what in the world does a Calvinist do with a verse like this? Well, they're not silent. They have to write commentaries too. In fact, they write more commentaries than Arminians do.

So what do they do with this? Well, in my opinion, they waffle. But here's what they usually say. What does a Calvinist say when he reads this? If you continue and if you are not moved away.

Well, some Calvinists will say this. Well, the fact of the matter is it's hypothetical. Because of course, if you're really one of the elect, you can't but continue.

You will continue and if you're really elect, you cannot be moved away. So he's just speaking hypothetically. If you don't move away, if you continue, which you will of course if you're elect, then you're going to continue to be elect.

Well, certainly if we're talking about election as unconditional, we shouldn't have any ifs because if means conditional. Doesn't it? Doesn't it? Isn't that what if means? Here's a condition. If this, that's a condition, then that.

So if it's hypothetical even, it's still a condition. You just, you know. But really what most Calvinists say is this.

That if you are elect, you will not move away. You will continue. And if any of you do move away and don't continue, it's because you were never elect in the first place.

So this is how they say it. But what they don't answer is why should I care? Why should I even care what Paul says about this when I'm either elect or I'm not? And if I'm not, I will necessarily fall away because I've never even fallen in yet. I mean, I'm just a fake convert because I'm not really elect.

Notwithstanding all the evidence I have had of knowing God, had my prayers answered, having the witness of the Spirit that I'm a son of God, notwithstanding all those things, the fact that I believe the gospel, I meet all the conditions the Bible says a person must meet to be saved. Notwithstanding that, I never really was saved, never was elect if I fall away. Now, I've known people, I haven't fallen away, but I've known people who were Christian every bit as much as me by all appearances by their own conviction and did fall away and die.

By Calvinist reckoning, they were never saved. And that scares me a little bit because they were as saved as I am. Or let's put it this way.

They had as much reason to believe they were saved as I have to believe I'm saved. And if they weren't and they were just deceived, maybe I'm deceived. Of course, I don't believe any such thing, but I'd have to if I was a Calvinist.

That's why Calvinism gives no assurance of salvation. It's ironic. They think you have to be a Calvinist in order to have assurance of salvation.

Calvinism is the one doctrinal system that will deprive you of any assurance of salvation unless you live blindly, because all Calvinists acknowledge that some people appear to be Christians for a long time and then fall away. They all believe that that person in falling away shows they never were really Christians. And I mean, together, think a minute here.

They thought they were Christians. Why? They followed Jesus. They believe the gospel.

They did everything the Bible says Christians do. They had the witness of the Spirit. They rejoiced in their salvation.

They had a relationship with God that apparently, but then they didn't. It turned out they were never saved in the first place because their falling away proved it. Every Calvinist has to admit that there are such cases.

The problem is if they are true in saying that this earlier state of following Jesus before they fell away was not really salvation, then there's no possible way for me to know objectively unless it's just by sheer egotism that, well, they were wrong, but I'm not. Why should I not be wrong if they were wrong? Just because I'm me and I'm an egotist, I have to be right. That's pretty egotistic.

I think more realistically, more objectively, I'd say if they were wrong, maybe I'm wrong. If they had everything going for them to prove they were Christians, I have going for me, but they fell away and proved they weren't, maybe I'm going to fall away and prove that I wasn't either. There's no way to avoid this reasoning.

Therefore, if Calvinism is true, then I can never know if I'm saved now even. See, the Arminian is accused of not knowing whether I will be saved tomorrow. As an Arminian or as a non-Calvinist, I can know I'm saved today because I'm a believer today, but I can't guarantee I'll be a believer tomorrow unless I choose to be, and I will be.

So under Arminianism, we're said to have no assurance of salvation because although we know we're saved today, we don't know for sure if we'll be saved ten years from now because we might fall away and lose it. That's what Calvinism is accused of. We have no assurance because we don't know if we'll be saved tomorrow.

In Calvinism, I can't know if I'm saved now or ever, because if I'm not saved now, I probably will never be saved because I've come about as close as a person can get. Can you imagine what the next step would be? The next step might be falling away. If it did, I wasn't even saved now.

So the only way I would even know if I'm not going to be saved, but am saved even now, is if I don't ever fall away, and I can't wait. I can't know that until it happens or doesn't happen. In other words, on my deathbed, I will know whether I was ever saved or not if I'm a consistent Calvinist.

Now Calvinists would disagree with this. They'd say, no, we know we're saved already because we have these, the witnesses, we have all these things the Bible talks about. Fine, but the problem is you say that others who had those things and fell away weren't saved.

So what do you got? Trouble. Now, what I'm saying to you is I know I'm saved. You know why? Because the Bible tells how to be saved.

And by the grace of God, I've been fortunate to know those things, to be inclined to embrace them, and I embrace them at this moment. And I am therefore connected to that vine by my faith. I'm connected to that tree by my faith.

Will I be tomorrow? Yes. Will I be 10 years from now? Yes. Will I be on the day of my death? Yes, I will.

You might say, well, how do you know that? It's up to me, isn't it? I've made that decision up to me with the aid of God. I cannot do it myself any more than I live today. I don't live by my strength today.

God enables me. I am enabled by grace which comes through faith. I direct my faith toward God.

He directs his grace toward me, and that grace enables me to do it. Now, you might say, but can't you at some point decide to defect? Yes, but why should I? I'm not that stupid, I hope. I mean, why would anyone be so stupid? I don't know.

Some have been. Okay, well, let me say this. I'm not worried about it.

It's not because I'm egocentric. It's simply because I trust God. Like a child, that's the only way I can be saved is to trust God.

Those who lose their salvation if it ever happens are people who stop trusting God. Why would I ever do that? I mean, I can choose to trust him today. I can choose to not trust him today.

That's my choice. But why would I ever make the latter one when I know him? Well, I don't know why some people do. I think some people are drawn away by sin and so forth, and I realize that I know better than anyone else.

But I know that God's better than everyone else, and it's he, not I, that I trust him for my salvation. When people stop trusting in him, they get into trouble. You stand by faith.

You stand attached to that tree by faith. Those who are cut off are cut off because of their unbelief. What do you bring to the picture? Faith or unbelief.

That's all. Does that mean you're saved by your works? No. Faith isn't a work, and unbelief isn't a work.

Paul makes it very clear. Being saved by works is one thing. Being saved by faith is the opposite thing.

They're not the same thing. The Calvinist always says, well, if you bring the faith, then you're saved by your own works. No, I'm saved by my own faith, not by my own works.

It's the opposite. The problem with Calvinists is they don't know the difference between faith and works. That's a serious problem, you know, if you're trying to understand salvation and justification.

Not knowing that there's a difference between faith and works. And accusing people who are saved by their faith as being saved by their works is kind of a wild thing to claim. But I hear it many, many times.

Every time I debate a Calvinist, it comes up. You produce the faith? You put the faith? Then you're being saved by your works, aren't you? Wait, where did you make that leap from here to there? I said faith. You say works.

As I read the Bible, there's a chasm, immeasurable chasm, a dichotomy between two possibilities. One is being saved by faith. The other is by works.

As soon as I say I'm saved by works, you say I'm claiming to be saved by works. Faith, what? These people, I don't understand. Except what we have here is a commitment to an impossible proposition which came up from a philosopher, brought in from Greek philosophy by Augustine, carried on throughout the Church through the ages, and never did fit the Scripture well, so you have to force and shoehorn and coerce the Scripture to fit into the proposition.

It just doesn't do. Scripture just doesn't cooperate. And fortunately it doesn't, because if it did, we'd have to live in total uncertainty as to our own election.

Until we died faithful, then we'd know, ah, I was elected. Because until then, I can't know. I'm sorry, no assurance of salvation in Calvinism if you are consistent.

The way that Calvinists can have assurance of salvation is by being inconsistent. I don't want to belong to any system that requires inconsistency to have assurance of salvation. Unless it's true, of course, but it isn't, fortunately.

So we can just go with Paul and his theology and Jesus and his theology, and we can leave Augustine and Calvin and those guys to have their own theories. We'll probably see them in heaven, notwithstanding the damage they've done. They did it in ignorance, like Paul when he was a Pharisee, I think, probably.

But I believe they were saved. Anyway, enough on them. Moving along.

If you're not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard which was preached to you, excuse me, to every creature under heaven. Again, we talked about that hyperbole earlier. We won't talk about it again now.

Of which I, Paul, became a minister. Maybe I should go over that again a few more hours. No, I don't think OK, moving along.

Verse 24. I now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up in my flesh, that is, in my body, what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ for the sake of his body, which is the church. Now, this sentence is very long.

It goes all the way through verse 29. So I'm going to stop every once in a while without finishing the sentence. It goes through verse 27.

Well, actually, it looks like there's periods in verse 26, but I guess I don't think that's appropriate. I think that King James just put periods in arbitrarily. Anyway, we'll just see.

This verse I'm going to stop, though it's the middle of the sentence, because he said some things that require some attention. He says, I rejoice in my sufferings and I fill up in my flesh, that's my body, what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. Now, these sufferings, he says, are for you and the suffering of Christ is for the sake of the body, the church.

So Paul is suffering personally in his body. If you want to get an idea of what kind of suffering he had in mind, on one occasion early in his life before he suffered most of his afflictions, he wrote a catalog of those that he'd already suffered. It's enough for a lifetime, but it was early on in his life that he wrote this.

He suffered a great deal more after he finished writing it. But in 2 Corinthians chapter 11, Paul gives us some idea of what suffering he has been through. He says this, comparing himself, well, let's just start at verse 24.

2 Corinthians 11, 24. From the Jews, five times I received forty stripes minus one. That's thirty-nine lashes on five occasions.

Jesus received that once. Paul received it on five occasions. Three times I was beaten with rods.

Probably only slightly more pleasant than the Calvinine tales. Once I was stoned. This is not a drug testimony.

This is a reference to what he suffered. Three times I was shipwrecked. Now, you know, when you read the book of Acts, you read of a case of Paul being shipwrecked, but that event in Acts happened after he wrote this.

So it's three other times before that he was shipwrecked besides the one mentioned in Acts. They're just not mentioned in Acts. What else happened to this guy? A day and a night I've spent in the deep.

That's a scary thing. I don't know about you, but after I saw Jaws, actually I didn't even see Jaws. I just heard about Jaws.

I haven't gone in deep water since then. But there's just something creepy about being out in the ocean all night. I've read some Reader's Digest survivor stories, guys who got washed overboard and they spent a night or two or three in the ocean before they were rescued.

They felt fish nibbling at their toes and creatures of some kind wrapping themselves around their legs and things. It was dark. They couldn't do it.

It sounds kind of spooky to me. Paul went through that. He could have avoided that if he didn't travel so much for the gospel sake.

But that's just one of the things that he'd gone through. Quite a few unpleasant circumstances. What else? He says, in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city.

This guy's in perils everywhere. In perils in the wilderness. Oh, look, he says, I'm in perils around my own countrymen, the Jews.

So what do I do? I go to the Gentiles. Then what? I'm in peril among the Gentiles. And I find myself in perils in the city, so I go out in the wilderness and I'm in perils in the wilderness.

I'm in perils everywhere, so I go out to sea and I'm in perils in the sea. So where can I go that's safe? Among the brethren? No, I'm even in perils among false brethren. Even in the church, there's people trying to get me.

In weariness and toil and sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst and fastings often, cold and nakedness. Sounds like a rough road. Now, that's Paul's suffering.

That's just part of it. In the closing words of Galatians, he said, in verse 17, Galatians 6, 17, From now on, let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Now, he wasn't talking about the stigmata there.

He was talking about the fact that he was scarred all over his body, and these scars were the result of his faithfulness to Jesus. He bore physical evidence of his loyalty to Christ in the form of scars and wounds and things like that. Now, speaking of those sufferings, Paul says, I now, in Colossians 1, 24, I now rejoice in my sufferings for you.

Now, was he suffering for them? Yes, because, of course, the only reason he suffered was because he was preaching the gospel. In one sense, he was, of course, suffering for Jesus, because it was Jesus that he was preaching, but it was for the benefit of those who would hear him preach, who could be saved. So that they could be saved, he bore these marks.

He endured these sufferings. So, I rejoice in my sufferings that are for you, and I fill up, this is the hard part, fill up in my flesh what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ for the sake of the church, his body. Now, the sufferings of Christ, were they not adequate? Paul says there's something lacking in the total amount of sufferings of Christ, and I, in suffering personally, am adding to the fullness of that.

Where did he get this idea? Again, probably at his conversion, when Jesus said, Saul, why are you persecuting me? Because, as the church was suffering at the hands of Saul, Christ was suffering at the hands of Saul. The church's suffering was just another part of Christ's suffering. Christ still suffers through the suffering of his body.

If my body is sick, I'm suffering. And I'm the body, we're part of the body of Christ, if the body of Christ is suffering, he's suffering. Paul was a member of the body of Christ, and in his sufferings, Christ was suffering.

Which means this, Christ didn't do all of his sufferings when he was on earth. He has been suffering for two thousand years since then, too. He's got ongoing sufferings.

Now, Paul speaks of the unfinished amount of sufferings that Christ must go through as that which is lacking in the suffering of Christ. Some of us might find it, we might be repelled by the suggestion that Christ's sufferings were not adequate, that there was something lacking in them. But he is not saying that the sufferings of Christ were not adequate for our atonement, or for the propitiation for our sins.

His sufferings accomplished all that was necessary. Hebrews chapter 10 makes it very clear. He suffered once for all, he sat down at the right hand of God, he never has to go through that again.

He accomplished what he sought to accomplish, it is finished, he said when he was on the cross, and he died. There was an adequacy in the sufferings of Christ, but now Paul speaks of something of an inadequacy or an incompleteness of the sufferings of Christ. What do we do with that? Quite simply this, Christ, when he was here in his flesh, suffered for our propitiation.

Ever since Jesus went to heaven and the gospels have been preached by the church, Christ has suffered in the person of the church for propagation. The sufferings of Jesus were for propitiation. The suffering of Christians is for propagation.

The suffering of the church is for the propitiation of the gospel. Christ still suffers, but he is not suffering for our redemption. He is not suffering for the redemption of the church, but he does suffer for the retrieving of the lost to bring them into the church.

He suffers still through his ministers and through his church so that those who have not yet been reached might benefit from the sufferings he did on earth. Therefore Paul sees it, well before Christ is done reaching all people there is a lot of suffering he has to go through and I am part of it. What I am suffering is part of his suffering.

And frankly, he is welcome to it. He is welcome to suffer through me. I rejoice in this.

I embrace this. If Christ is crowned with thorns, I should hardly expect to be crowned with roses. Am I better than he? Jesus said no servant is greater than his master.

If they have called the master of the house, he will be also. What do you think they are going to call you? Jesus has indicated that you can expect and should expect to be treated worse than he was. You might say that is a bad deal.

Nice guy Jesus making me suffer more than you, but it is not more than him because he suffers when you suffer. He suffered in his flesh and now he suffers in your flesh if you suffer. He does not expect you to go through more suffering than he is willing to endure.

He endures it in you. But Paul saw that his suffering was not some meaningless thing. He was suffering for a purpose.

One of the saddest things in the world is when people suffer terribly and it is all in vain. It can happen. It can happen.

Paul said to Galatians that he was afraid for them that maybe that had been true of them. He says in Galatians 4.11, I am afraid for you lest I have labored for you in vain. There is actually another place here in Galatians.

I may not be able to find it. Oh yeah, Galatians 3.4. Galatians 3.4 says, Have you suffered so many things in vain? Now he is saying these Galatian Christians, they have suffered for Christ and now they are defecting to legalism. He says if you do that, then all the things you suffered were in vain.

Suffering can be in vain. Suffering can bring no result. That is a terrible thing.

God intends for something to be accomplished through our suffering, but it is not a given that it will be. But certainly those who are obedient to Christ have this promise that as they suffer, God works it for the good. God works all things together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose.

Therefore, if I am suffering for my faithfulness to Christ because of my being a lover of Christ, then this is guaranteed that it will not be in vain. All things will work together for good in it. Paul saw he was suffering.

If any other man who is not a Christian suffered as many things, and conceivably some might have. There have been men who have suffered terrible things that did not even know God and they were not suffering for righteousness, they just suffered because they had bad luck. But, I mean, so to speak.

Paul, however, did not see his suffering as just bad luck. He just saw it as purposeful. This is something that is for you.

This is for the church. This is for the body. This is not even me paying a price.

It is Christ continuing to pay a price by suffering still in me. Christ is so compassionate toward me that my sufferings hurt him. I knew a man who when his wife went into labor, he had to be given a hospital bed too because he had what they called sympathy pains.

You have probably heard of these before. It happens occasionally. A man actually begins to feel labor pains when his wife goes into labor because, I guess, because they are one flesh.

I have to confess, I did not have labor pains until my wife did. It is a good thing too. We would have been in bad shape if we did not have a doctor there.

Someone had to be in control. But the thing is, Jesus has sympathy pains because we are one flesh with him. We are his bride.

We go through labor pains, as it were, to bring forth fruit for him. He suffers too by his link with us. You might think it harsh of Jesus to make you suffer so many things for him.

But it is not so much that you are suffering anything for him. He and you as one are suffering for the church, for the purposes of God to be fulfilled. This is something Paul said he can rejoice in.

Then he says, verse 25, Of which, that is of the church, I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, that is for you Gentiles, to fulfill the word of God. Now, the reason I say for you Gentiles is because he speaks of the stewardship that was given to him. The King James says something like the dispensation.

The Greek word is a compound word that means the management of a household. It is used generally for a steward, someone who manages a household, a servant who manages his master's household. So the word has the meaning of stewardship.

Paul says, I became a minister, which means servant, according to the stewardship of God. That is, God gave him a stewardship. And he, like all stewards, has to fulfill his responsibility.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul speaks about this stewardship and the obligation that comes with it. He says in 1 Corinthians 9, 16, If I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of. I can't say, well, look at me, I've done great things, I've preached the gospel.

Why? Because necessity or duty is laid upon me. Yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this willingly, I have a reward.

But if I do it against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. That is to say, I am a steward. I've been entrusted with the stewardship of the gospel to the Gentiles.

And if I don't do it willingly, I still have to do it. But I can be rewarded if I do it willingly. I've got to do it in any case.

Woe is me if I don't. Necessity or duty is laid upon me. But I don't have anything to boast of.

If I do it, I don't have anything to boast about. That was required of me. Remember when Jesus said in Luke 17, verses 7 through 10, that a servant, when he goes out and plows the field all day and comes back in, he doesn't expect to be served.

He continues serving his master until his master has been fed and all that. And Jesus says, So also you, after you've done all things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants. We've done only what is our duty to do.

If you do everything God requires of you, you don't say, I've got a big reward coming to me. You say, Hey, I just did my duty. I'm unprofitable servant.

What's a servant supposed to do but his duty? What's anyone supposed to do but his duty? You don't get congratulated for doing your duty. You only get congratulated for doing above and beyond the call of duty. And Jesus said, When you've done everything you've commanded, you've done that yet.

When you do, you get promoted to unprofitable slave. No congratulations do, although Jesus is amazingly gracious toward his servants and intends to reward us. But the point is that our attitude should be, I don't have any reward I should be able to claim.

I'm just a servant doing what I'm supposed to do. What else? If I did less than that, I deserve punishment. If I don't do less than that, I just do what I'm supposed to do, then I don't deserve punishment.

I don't deserve any credit either. So Paul has this stewardship of the gospel in Ephesians chapter three. He explains exactly what this stewardship is that was entrusted to him.

Ephesians three, he says in verse two, if indeed you have heard of the dispensation, same word stewardship of the grace of God, which was given to me for you, how that by revelation he made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in a few words, by which when you read, you will may understand my knowledge of the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has been now revealed by the spirit to his holy apostles and prophets, one of whom was Paul, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs in the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the gospel of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of his power. Now that little section in Ephesians three has its parallel in the section of Colossians we're reading at the end of chapter one. Here's what he says in Colossians one twenty five down to the end of the chapter of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God, which was given to me for you to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations and now has been revealed to his saints.

He says to them, that is the saints whom he says are apostles and prophets in Ephesians, to them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus to this end I also labor, striving according to his working, which works in me mightily. Now if you would compare on your own those verses Colossians one twenty five through twenty nine with the verses in Ephesians three verses two through seven, you'll find that point by point it's the same discussion with a slightly different twist.

In both cases he mentions that he's been given a stewardship of the gospel. His stewardship is to preach to the Gentiles. This stewardship has come with privileges.

He had the privilege of having a mystery revealed to him that was not revealed to men of other ages. He was one of the holy apostles and prophets, he says in Ephesians, he calls them the saints in Colossians. One of those to whom God chose to make known the mystery that was hidden from ages past.

This mystery is what? Well the interesting thing is the difference in Colossians and Ephesians on that point. What is this mystery? Well in Ephesians three, here's what he said the mystery was. Ephesians three six, the mystery is that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body and partakers of his promise, that is the promise he made to Abraham which was originally to the Jews, but the mystery is it's now the Gentiles participating too in Christ through the gospel.

So the mystery according to Ephesians three six is that the Gentiles and the Jews would be one body without distinction between them. You see as you read the Old Testament you read of salvation of the Jews and you read of salvation of the Gentiles, but one could get the impression wrongly from reading some things in the prophets that the Gentiles and the Jews will forever be distinct peoples and that in God's saving purpose to save the world the Jews will still be the superior race, the Jews will still be the predominant ones and the Gentiles, you know ten Gentiles will take hold on one Jew and say let us go with you and worship your God and all nations will flow into Jerusalem, Mount Zion and to learn from the Jews God's way. The Jews had this notion which came from their misunderstanding of what the prophets said that in God's final epoch when he has done all that he plans to do the Gentiles will be saved and the Jews will be saved, but the Jews will be a superior class to whom the Gentiles will always look up and will always depend upon them for instruction and so forth.

The Jews saw the fulfillment of God's purposes as their vindication. They were always the persecuted minority among the Gentiles, but someday God would turn things around and then the Gentiles will come groveling and saying you were right, teach us and many of the Jews I'm sure found great satisfaction in that prospect, but Paul says what they didn't see, what was not revealed before is that these Gentiles were getting saved, which by the way the Old Testament talks frequently about the Gentiles being saved, but what it didn't make clear and has now made clear to Paul is the mystery of the body of Christ that the Gentiles would be in one body with the Jews who are saved without distinction racially between them. That's the mystery that the glory that was promised to Israel will be shared as equals by Gentiles.

Now of course not even all Jews will get that because only the saved will. Only those in Christ, Paul says, will. Jew or Gentile in Christ.

What's he saying Galatians? There's no Jew or Gentile in Christ. There's only people. Before you're in Christ you're a Jew or a Gentile.

When you're in Christ you're no longer a Jew or a Gentile, you're just a person in Christ. And therefore the mystery that the Old Testament did not reveal clearly, but was made clearer through Paul, was that this salvation of the Gentiles of which the Old Testament frequently spoke was a salvation that was completely full, that the Gentiles in Christ would have exactly the full benefits without distinction with the saved who are among the Jews. This concept was radical to the Jews, not radical to us, we're Gentiles.

We grew up with this idea. But that was a new and radical revelation for Paul. Now what's interesting is that's what Paul says the mystery is that he's been the steward of, to the mystery of the body of Christ which means the Gentiles and the Jews will have equal privilege in Christ.

Look in Colossians then when he tells us what the mystery is. In Colossians 1.26, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations but now has been revealed through the saints. Verse 27, to them God willed to make known what are the riches and the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is, here's the mystery in Colossians, Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Now the hope of glory the Jews always had. The prophets always spoke of the eventual glorification of the people of God. In Isaiah 60 it says, Arise, shine for your light is coming, the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.

The glory of God was the hope that the prophets encouraged God's people to have. But that the Gentiles would participate in this glory with the Jews was not understood. In fact the Jews thought they'd be glorified and the Gentiles would be the ones glorifying them.

But here he says, here's the mystery that Christ is in you. Who's you? It's plural. You Gentiles.

That's the mystery. But in addition to the Jews having this hope of glory, you Gentiles too would have this hope of glory. Now by the way, the word in, Christ in you, I don't know if you have a Bible that says this in the margin.

Some do and some don't. But the word in can have the meaning of among. Like in a group, among individuals in a group.

It's in the group. That Christ is in you. You plural.

You mean the group. It's among you Gentiles who are part of this group. Now what I'm saying is, you could translate this, the mystery is that Christ is among you, namely you Gentiles.

Just as Paul said in Ephesians, the mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews in one body in Christ. Same idea here. The mystery is that the Gentiles would have Christ among them in the same sense.

Giving them the same hope of glory that Israel already had. Anyway, a lot of people would take this verse to talk about the indwelling Christ in me. And that could be of course taken that way.

It's just that in comparison with the Ephesians passage, it sounds like he's talking more about the church rather than in me as an individual. Christ is in the church. And the church is in Christ.

And you Gentiles are among those who are in the church. You. He's among you.

He's in your group. It may not be talking about the individual indwelling of Christ in the human heart, although the Bible does speak of that. Jesus himself spoke of that also in John 1, excuse me, John 14, around verse 21.

Jesus said, he that has my words and obeys them, he it is that loves me and my father will love him and we will come and make our home with him. He's speaking about personal indwelling there of the individual. But that may or may not be what Paul is talking about here.

He's talking about the mystery that was not known before, that the Gentiles too would have Christ in or among them in the same sense that the Jews did and would share in that hope of glory. And even with a greater understanding of what it even means along with the faithful among Israel. Verse 28, him, Jesus, we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus to this end.

I also labor striving according to his working, which works in me mightily. He strives, but it's the working of God that mightily works in him. Paul often speaks about how hard he works, but he never takes any credit for it.

It's I strive, but I strive according to his working, which works in me mightily. The passage in Ephesians with this parallels that we looked at a moment ago. In Ephesians 3, he says the same kind of thing.

Ephesians 3, 7, he says, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of his power. I'm serving, but it's the effective working of his power that is doing it. A similar statement is found in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 10, where Paul is actually comparing his labors with those of the other apostles.

And he says he did more than them. Doesn't sound very humble, but see how he says it. In 1 Corinthians 15, 10, he says, but by the grace of God, I am what I am.

And he says his grace toward me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all in the context of the other apostles. I labored more than them. But notice what he says then.

Yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. It was the effective working of his power. It was the grace of God in me that was doing the work.

It was I worked. I labored. I strive, but God works in me.

It shows that we cannot in our own strength accomplish anything of eternal value, but we cannot without striving either. God can't accomplish anything through us if we don't cooperate. We strive.

God does the work. Or as Paul puts it in Philippians chapter 2, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. It is God who works in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God is working in you, giving you the desire, giving you the ability to do it. And what do you do? You work. You work it out.

You do it outwardly when he has worked inwardly. That's the synergism that the Calvinists hate to talk about. Synergism means working together.

Calvinists will accuse non-Calvinists of synergism. That's supposed to be a bad word because it means we work together with God. Oh, my goodness, we can't work together.

God has to do all the work or else he loses the glory. Well, Paul must have been poor at glorifying God because he often spoke about working with God. That's synergism.

That is, I strive according to the work that God works through me. God works. I work.

Or as Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 3, discussing himself and Apollos, we are laborers together with God. I planted, Apollos watered, and God gave the increase. Who gets all the glory there? Well, he says, well, he that plants is nothing and he who waters is nothing, but he who gives the increase.

He's everything. But we still had to plant. We still had to water.

Nothing would grow if no one planted and no one watered. But on the other hand, if God didn't give the increase, it would be totally fruitless. Even if we plant and water, nothing's going to happen if God doesn't give the increase.

The point here is that God chooses to work through us, through our cooperation, but without him our works can be of no value whatsoever. God works in us. He gives the increase.

We do work outwardly the things that he works in us. Now, there's one other thing I need to say, and then we've got to wrap this up real quick. And that is his goal.

His goal, he said, knowing what he knows about God's destiny for us, knowing what he knows about God's goal and why God has done all these things and why Jesus even died and even why Paul is still suffering and Christ is still suffering. Why is all this happening? Is it really worth it? What's going on? What's the goal here? This isn't for nothing, is it? No, it's for something. And it is this, in verse 28, that we, this is the middle of verse 28, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.

Now, the first part of that verse is him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. Now, this repeated reference to every man might be sort of in contrast to the Gnostic idea that there's an elite class who really reach whatever, nirvana or whatever, and the rest of the people down here, even the rest of Gnostics never quite reached the higher planes. Paul says, no, the gospel I preach is for every man.

There's not some elite class, but every person to whom I preach, I have it as my goal to present them as perfect as possible, as perfect as anyone can be, everyone can be, every man. Now, what does Paul do? He says, we teach and we preach and we warn. Now, this is the way that he seeks to present every man perfect or the word perfect can be mean, mean, mature.

If you feel better about that, we can use the word mature. I want everyone to be mature. Sadly, an awful lot of people stay Christians or seem to be Christians for many years and never mature.

But Paul was not content to have a bunch of baby Christians. That's why Paul didn't spend his time only evangelizing. You can evangelize and make a world full of baby Christians, but that's not what God's looking for.

God's not looking for a bunch of babies. He's looking for mature spiritual people. And Paul's goal was first to get them saved, then they become babies.

Then what do you do? You warn them, you teach them. That's what Jesus said. You make disciples, teaching them to observe all things that are commanded.

Paul says, that's what I do. I want to present mature disciples to Jesus Christ. I want the fruit of my ministry to be not just a bunch of spiritual babies, but mature, perfect men of God and women of God.

And this I do, I commit myself to preaching, which is the presentation of the gospel to get them saved, and then warning and teaching. Now warning probably, that may be what he gives to those who don't accept the preaching. It's possible that after he preaches, his preaching polarizes people into the groups that accept his preaching and those who reject it.

He preaches the gospel, some accept, some reject. Those who reject, he warns. Those who accept, he teaches.

Maybe. I don't know. Maybe he warns and teaches everybody, all the Christians.

The word warn actually is a word that means to confront. And Christians would grow a lot better if they were more often confronted. I think we all want to be nice and don't like to be the bearer of bad news, or certainly we don't want to seem judgmental.

And so a lot of times we see flaws in other people that we never mention. This is not loving. What you have others do to you, you should do to them.

Now, you might say, well, I know if people see flaws in me, I just assume they leave me alone. I don't want to be embarrassed by being confronted. I don't want people to embarrass me.

Well, really? Is that really what you want most? The Bible says, he that rebukes a man afterward finds more favor than he that flatters with the tongue. Obviously, at the moment you're being flattered, you enjoy that more than you enjoy being rebuked. But afterward, Proverbs says, the man who rebukes receives more favor.

Why? Because the rebuked person, if he takes the rebuke to heart, recognizes that that person who rebuked him has done him a favor. The person who flattered him didn't. According to Proverbs, he that flatters a neighbor spreads a net for his feet.

That's not a favor that is done. We enjoy flattery more than we enjoy rebuke. But afterward, we appreciate more the person who rebuked us than the one who flattered us.

Now, if it is true that people who are godly will appreciate being confronted later, they may not enjoy it at the time, but later they'll be glad you did. Isn't that the loving thing to do? And if it isn't done, then how will they grow? Everyone has blind spots. All Christians have a heart after God, but all Christians also have blind spots, and other people can see them better than they can.

That's why warning and confrontation is essential. And Paul, you can see, you read his epistles, he warns, he confronts, he rebukes when churches go in the wrong way. But he also teaches constructively.

He instructs. And by a combination of this confrontation of wrong behavior and teaching the right way, Paul intends to present everyone perfect in Christ. Now, what is the source of his confrontation, his correction, and of his teaching? Well, he says elsewhere, 2 Timothy 3.16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, so that the man of God might be perfect, fairly furnished, fairly good work.

Paul indicates that the word of God, the scriptures, are his tool for reproof, for teaching, for instruction. And God has given us this tool so that he can present every man perfect, that the man of God might be perfect. That's 2 Timothy 3.16, 17.

Fairly furnished, fairly good work. So Paul's goal is to not only see people saved, he presumes actually that those he's writing to are already saved. But, I don't know that we call it presumption, but he assumes that because he addresses it to those who are faithful in Christ Jesus, that he's not content that they merely have come to Christ.

He continues to disciple them, continues to reproof, continues to teach, continues to warn, so that when he's done with them, he will have done all that a human can do to guarantee that they will be mature and perfect, so that when Christ comes to present the church to a spotless bride, they may be part of that. They may be spotless. All right, well, we've finally reached the end of chapter 1.