“That Which is Lacking” – Is Jesus Enough?

The average Christian, reading his Bible in happy devotion, stumbles across this passage:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church… (Col 1:24)

The passage is particularly disturbing for a certain strain of Protestant thought that emphasizes Christ’s sufficiency for all things. Christ has accomplished all things necessary to our salvation and we are thus able to “rest” in His completed work. For many, this is at the heart of grace. God has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves. What remains is for us to trust that this is so. Christ declares, “It is finished.” There is nothing left for us but trust.

This sentiment recently came crashing into a discussion of the Russian novel, Laurus. I attended (and spoke) at the Eighth Day Symposium in Wichita, Kansas. The presenter, Jessica Hooten Wilson, had spoken on the Russian novel, Laurus, in which the lead character enters the long, arduous life of a holy fool following the death of a woman and her child, a result of his own inaction. Wilson made mention of a review by Alan Jacobs (Baylor University) that described its spirituality as “Hindu,” and castigated its approach to Christianity. He wrote:

…though I know that Eugene Vodolazkin is a Christian, I remain uncertain about just what vision of the Christian life is being held out to me in this book…. In Laurus…long, hard spiritual labor pays for sins, as it does for the world…1

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[b]
17 Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[c]
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

There is nothing lacking in the sacrifice of Jesus with regards for paying for sins. One sacrifice was sufficient to pay for the justification and sanctification of believers forever. The sacrifice need not and cannot be repeated and this point is stressed repeatedly in the book of Hebrews. Any suggestion that the atonement of Christ was not sufficient to pay for all past, present and future sins of believers is an insult to our Lord. His sacrifice was of infinite worth and he lived in the flesh as a perfect man, and in his spirit he was God the Word. He sat down at God’s right hand after. The work was done forever.

The passage quoted in the opening article is about the (necessary) suffering of the apostles and all believers in providing an ongoing example of the selflessness and devotion we have towards Christ in following his footsteps. The sacrifice of Christ was enough to deal with sin, but the suffering of his saints is required to testify to the world over and over the example of the suffering of Christ and the willingness of his people to share in his suffering to show again his love and mercy.

You gonna start a Fr. Stephen Freeman Ping List? I want to on it!

Thank you for posing it. Strangely enough, it was something my husband and I have been thinking and talking about to each other lately. It is pretty much the heart of what I believe. It's so important to me.

I'm bookmarking it for repeated readings.

re: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…”(Col 1:24)

With all due respect to Fr. Stephen Freeman - although admittedly, there is much speculation about the exact meaning of the passage above, if it means that Christ’s atonement was not sufficient without the church, then what do the previous verses mean(Colossians 1:21-23)?

“21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.”

Paul is clear in the above verses “He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” If verse 24 means what the Friar means, then verses 21-23 make no sense.

You need to follow the link, Fr. Stephen clarifies:

“Vodolazkin nowhere characterizes Laurus’ labors as a payment for sin. Indeed, the concept is foreign to Orthodox thought. It is an absence that is so profound that a Protestant professor of literature felt the need to supply it, and with it, distort a beautifully Orthodox novel.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.