READINGS AT PECKHAM
[p. 192] RECONCILIATION
I desire to continue on the line which we have had previously before us, to make clear, if I can, the divine structure of truth which God has reared. It has many parts, and it may be looked at in different aspects; but it is one great structure. There are not really such things as truths: there is the truth. We may apprehend things in detail, but Christ is the truth, and the Spirit is the truth; the Father’s word is the truth: it is one complete whole. It conveys the idea of a great structure which God has reared up, which sight and sense cannot apprehend, but which is true to those whose eyes are opened. It will displace everything which exists: and awaits the moment when things down here are ripe. The children of Israel could not come into the land of promise for 430 years after Abraham, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not full. When things are ripe, God will interfere, and everything that is seen will be set aside by the introduction of the things which are not seen; but the things which are not seen are existing things for faith.
We saw, at the outset, the kingdom, which I may call the first principle of God’s ways in grace. No one can take a step further in the ways of God without apprehending the kingdom. God has come forward, in the establishment of the kingdom, to bring man under the dominion of grace, that he might find a place of security from the power of evil. The kingdom is characterised by peace, hence it means security from the power of the enemy. Then another point follows, and that is Christian fellowship, in connection with the house of God. The Spirit of God has come down to make good the kingdom. There must be a [p. 193] power upon earth equivalent to the authority in heaven, otherwise the kingdom would be in word and not in power. The authority in heaven is the Lord Jesus at the right hand of God, and the power down here is the Holy Spirit.
Consequent on the Holy Spirit being here, there is the house of God, and in connection with that there is Christian fellowship. That is the principle of the house of God. Believers were brought into the house by baptism, and in that way Christian fellowship was formed. Whatever may be the general state of things around us, and the confusion in the great house, yet there is a great reality about Christian fellowship. The idea comes out in 1 Corinthians 10 in contrast with sacramentalism. These are two characteristics of Christianity as seen in the world: on the one hand sacramentalism with unjudged flesh, and on the other, fellowship in the bond of the Holy Spirit and of the death of Christ. The next subject we had was divine teaching: the soul brought by the Spirit under the teaching of Christ. He reveals to us the Father, and teaches us to cry “Abba Father”. The illustration I gave was of Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus. This is followed by the disciples asking the Lord to teach them to pray, and the first thing He teaches them to say is “Father”. Then we had another point connected with the presence of the Spirit, and that is unity; where the presence of the Spirit is recognised, we accept the obligation to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The Spirit has come down to separate the body for Christ, and we have to keep the unity of the Spirit.
I purpose at this time to come to the point of reconciliation. If there is one part in the scheme of truth which is less apprehended than another, it is that of reconciliation. It is no use going to a dictionary to find the meaning of Scripture terms. Words are employed in Scripture by the Spirit of God with [p. 194] peculiar significance. The apostle Paul speaks of communicating spiritual things by spiritual means, in words which the Holy Spirit teaches. It has been pointed out that the word ‘reconciliation’ does not occur in the Old Testament, and on the other hand, that the word ‘atonement’ does not strictly occur in the New. Atonement is as peculiar to the Old Testament as reconciliation to the New. I think the reason of this is that reconciliation is the great pervading doctrine of the New Testament. The majority of people look at reconciliation as indicating a sort of change of feeling in them: I do not think that such is the force of the expression in Scripture. I want to give you the scriptural thought of reconciliation; it is evident that it is something which we receive: “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation”, Romans 5: 11.
If you look at the passage I read from Colossians, you will find that there are in it three thoughts: verse 18, Christ is the Head of the body; verse 21, you hath He reconciled; verse 24, His body, the church. So that you have first the head; then reconciliation; and lastly the body. You have to put these three thoughts together. It is remarkable that the passage does not put the head and the body together. After speaking of the head, the apostle brings in the thought of reconciliation, and then of the body. We have to learn things in that order. First you learn the truth of the Head, then you are able to see that the church is the first-fruits of reconciliation. Reconciliation is a very large scheme, and involves a great deal; but the church is the only thing at the present time which can be said to be reconciled. It is the first-fruits of reconciliation, not the completeness of it. The object in reconciliation is that everything may be for God. There is this difference between the new covenant and reconciliation: the new covenant [p. 195] is for man, the setting forth of God’s disposition towards man; but reconciliation is for God; we get the teaching of the new covenant, in order that we may be prepared for reconciliation.
First as regards the Head. Christ is not here looked at as being part of the body, but as Head of the body, very much like a husband is of a wife, and much like what Christ is in regard to principalities and powers. It is noticeable that it does not say here that He is from the beginning, nor in the beginning. In John’s gospel He was “in the beginning”, and in John’s epistle, “from the beginning”; here it is “the beginning”. If I were to speak of Christ as Lord, I should not speak of Him as the beginning, because the name of Lord presents to us the authority of God vested in a man. Lord conveys two great ideas, authority and administration. But when we view Christ as the Head, He is the beginning. Morally, Christ is as man the beginning of everything for God, and in the great end and issue of God’s ways, everything will partake of Christ. We shall see that God has displaced one man, that every man may be of Christ. God tried one Man in a variety of ways, and removed him in the cross. Now He has introduced another Man according to His mind, and in the result of God’s ways, everyone will derive from that Man. We derive from Him now; in the millennium Israel will derive from Him. You might pursue the subject into the eternal state, when all men will derive morally from Christ. It means the complete displacement of Adam in order that Christ may occupy his place. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself”; that was a completely new departure in the ways of God. The mark of the moment, when Christ was down here upon earth, was that God was not imputing unto men their trespasses, but was reconciling the world unto Himself in Christ. He is the beginning.
[p. 196] But you have another point: He is the first-born from the dead. If He had simply been the beginning, that would not have done for you and me. He was the beginning here after the flesh, the corn of wheat, but He abode alone; there was no real association with Christ after the flesh. For association resurrection had to come in. There was no common platform so long as Christ was here after the flesh, so He takes the position of first-born from the dead, that there may be a platform of association. You are risen with Him: that is the mind of God about you. In the eye of God you are outside of every order of man here: God has created a platform, in the resurrection of Christ, on which you can be in association with Him. We see the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of His disciples, so long as He remained with them; John could say, He dwelt among us, and we contemplated His glory, as of an only-begotten with the Father; but so long as He was here after the flesh, there was no association. In resurrection everything was changed: the Lord says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. Association came in, because He was now the first-born from the dead. The new departure which marks God’s ways is that Christ is the beginning and at the same time the first-born from the dead, in order that there might be a platform on which we can be with Him. He takes that place in regard to the church.
The first principle in regard to the body is that Christ is the mind, the spirit of it. The moment I regard Him in the light of Head, He is distinct from the body. He loved the church and gave Himself for it; He is here distinct from the church. If I regard Him in connection with the body, He is the spirit of it; but to the church He is Head. No husband is lord to his wife, else he is a bad husband; he is head to his wife. Two things which the wife gains from her husband are the direction and support [p. 197] of affection; that is what Christ is to the church, which is the first-fruits of reconciliation. I will give you a simple thought of reconciliation: I think the scriptural idea of reconciliation is that complacency has come in where distance was. In becoming man, Christ brought in complacency in man. When He was born into the world, the angels were all moved; a multitude of the heavenly host was there, saying “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. There was divine complacency in a man. You get the confirmation of this in the baptism of Christ: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Again, on the mount of Transfiguration. But there was not as yet complacency where distance had been. It is in the death of Christ that the distance is emphasised and marked. The One in whom was all the complacency cries on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”. He entered into distance to remove the distance; now the distance has gone, and the complacency remains. The distance has all been burnt up, as in the burning of the carcase of the sin offering without the camp, and now there remains nothing but the sweet savour of the burnt offering. Reconciliation was completely effected in the death of Christ. You may get the application of it to things; to the church, to us; to principalities and powers, but the great principle of it comes out in the death of Christ; that is what I should call the word of reconciliation. Before Christ died, in the moment of departure, He says, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”; the distance was gone, and there was complete complacency; but I have no doubt complacency comes out fully in resurrection. Just as the distance was marked on the cross, so complacency was marked in resurrection. All things — principalities and powers — are to be reconciled; there has been distance in regard to all of them; everything is to be taken up in Christ,
[p. 198] so that where distance has been, there may be complacency. Adam’s place, Noah’s dominion, David’s throne, Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom — everything will be taken up in Christ, with the result that where distance has been there is complacency.
Now it is said distinctly in regard to us, “And you ... now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”. This refers to those that were sometime alienated and enemies in mind; you cannot alter or improve that. You cannot alter enmity of mind, for the reason that it is enmity of mind: God does not alter it. If it were a question of a fault or difficulty, I could understand its being repaired; but there is no such thing as repairing enmity of mind. The fact is, all has been removed, in the body of Christ’s flesh through death. Everything of yourself, as to what you are morally by nature, has to go, and, for God, it has gone in the death of Christ. The old man has been removed for God, but the old man has to be put off in the case of the Christian; the old man is never amended. The way for us is the acceptance of the cross. The apostle Paul had to come to it. God would not tell you to put off what could be repaired; but if it cannot be repaired, it must be put off. We have to come to that point, to put off in regard to ourselves that which was put off in the cross of Christ for God. In human things, enmity means distance; if I nourish enmity against a man, I am distant from that man; and if there is enmity in the heart of man towards God, it implies distance. You see enmity in families; brother and brother in bitter enmity. In human things it is extremely difficult to bring about reconciliation; but in regard to God distance lies in will, and there is no such thing as reconciliation possible in that: it has to go. The Christian has put off the body of the flesh; he refuses and repudiates that which has gone for God.
[p. 199] Now I come to the other side: that where distance was, there is complacency. Supposing it were possible for a man to be made friendly disposed toward God: that would not bring about complacency; it would not bring about that which is suitable to God, so that God could have complacency in it. God’s way is to bring about complacency where distance was, so that His eye may rest upon that which is morally suitable to Himself I venture to say that at the present time, the church is the vessel of complacency. You may say, I know very little of it; I admit I have travelled very little on that road. Well, but that is what Christ died for, that where there had been distance there might be complacency. If we would be well pleasing to God, we ought to accept that, and to covet to be according to God’s mind. You cannot attain holiness by faith; I do not think there ever was a greater delusion than such an idea. Righteousness is by faith, for the simple reason that it is not your righteousness, but God’s; but holiness is partaking in the divine nature. If you are under the influence of love, you get holiness promoted.
Now we come to the body. The glory of the body is, Christ in you, the hope of glory. If the Jews had accepted Christ, He would have been in them the crown of glory. Now the grace of God has gone out to the Gentiles, and you have the body, and the glory of the body is Christ in you, the hope of glory. If Christ is in the church, the hope of glory, then the church is not far removed from glory.
There are two great thoughts in the ministry of Paul; one is of the new man, and the other is of the body. The body is the first-fruits of reconciliation; Christ is presented in it under the eye of God, and He is in the church the hope of glory. The Colossians were looked at as being a sort of first-fruits of reconciliation; they were to be holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in God’s sight. Do not refer that [p. 200] to the future; there is no point of time in the passage at all. Then you get the mystery: Christ is here in the body; He is the animating spirit of the body. This brings the church very near to the glory; one single instant might usher the church into glory, into the full result of divine purpose.
May God give you to take in the three simple thoughts I have sought to bring before you; if you put them together, you will get an idea of what God has brought about in this world for Himself.