| READING 3 |
|---|
| DISTINCTIVENESS AND FINALITY IN PAUL'S MINISTRY (3) 1 Corinthians 12: 4-14, 27-31; Ephesians 4: 1-16 |
S.McC. In considering further Paul and his ministry and the opening up of the heavenly line in it, and the reaching of what is distinctive and final in it, we come, in our consideration this morning, to the thought of the body as it is presented in these passages.
A.J.G. Is the body in Corinthians connected with the local assembly, while the body in Ephesians is the full thought of what is universal?
S.McC. Yes, it helps to see the different ways in which the body thus may be apprehended. In verse 13 of 1 Corinthians 12 it would also allude to what is universal,
A.J.G. It was verse 27 that I had in mind in making the remark, but it is important as you say, to see that in verse 13 it is universal.
S.McC. Therefore the importance of that verse as applying to where there may be difficulties, because if there is one thing we should beware of it is the development of national lines.
G.R.C. So that although verse 13 is universal, it is still provisional. That is, it is the universal body on earth at any time.
S.McC. Exactly, and I would say that although it is universal, yet verse 13 bears on what is local. Would you not think, in the backward or retroactive allusion to the Lord's supper and to the cup, that locally we are affected by this great matter of all being given to drink of one Spirit every Lord's day?
G.R.C. And so also, "we, being many, are one loaf, one body"; that should affect us every Lord's day.
S.McC. Well, it should. It reminds us of how we are bound up with all the saints. We are not, as it were, a cluster of independent assemblies, using the expression in the light in which it is presented in the scriptures; we are greatly interdependent.
P.H.H. Do you think the mention in verse 13 of "whether Jews or Greeks" would settle this matter of anything national in relation to the body? You could hardly have a people with national characteristics so different, and yet they are viewed here as finding their place in the body.
S.McC. It is very striking. It shows how, through this great matter of the baptism of the Spirit which took place at Pentecost according to Acts 2, all are merged in this glorious entity, all nationality is gone in it.
A.B.P. Does the passage in Acts 15 bear strikingly on this? Peter says in regard to those in the house of Cornelius,
S.McC. That is a beautiful word, "putting no difference". What a touch on the part of God, especially where the prejudices were so great and the feelings ran so high, that God should personally come into the matter, putting no difference between them!
G.R.C. If I might go back just for a moment to the matter of uniformity, you were referring yesterday to brethren in the same time zone breaking bread at the same time, but would you allow that in Moslem countries, where the Lord's day is a working day, it may be necessary to break bread in the evening?
S.McC. I would, but I would encourage the brethren to think of the principle, and to accept the principle; and if it were ever possible to work it out they would do so, but because of the unusual conditions in Moslem countries, I am sure the Lord would help them in working things out according to wisdom.
G.R.C. Yes. I think that is very good. It applies in Iran and also I think it will apply if there should be a reviving of the breaking of bread in Lahore.
A.E.M. At the same time you would encourage the saints to pray, for by prayer we can alter customs and subdue nations! If the mind of God is known, we can pray that it may be possible to do what is necessary.
S.McC. That is what one has in mind in stressing the importance of accepting the principle. If we accept the principle, God may bring conditions around to suit the saints. Where difficulties come in is where principles are not accepted, and brethren just settle down to accept the conditions without earnest prayer that matters may be changed.
C.M.M. Could you spare us a word as to the worship of the Spirit, if I am not diverting you?
S.McC. Perhaps you would make a little clearer what you are thinking about.
C.M.M. I am also thinking of uniformity, that we might move together in that great matter. Sometimes I have noticed, in going about, that it has been lacking entirely at the Supper.
S.McC. I have noticed from personal observation that when you have a distinctive response to the Spirit it colours the whole matter of the service of God. And I am sure that we need to see the importance of this blessed Person, who has come in as He has, being recognised. This very chapter establishes His deity, a Person that has the right to be worshipped and honoured.
J.S.E. If we 'drank' more of one Spirit, would that not be more easy?
S.McC. That is a good expression, 'more easy'. I think if there is anything we need to be helped in regard to, it is tension in the assembly.
P.H.H. Sometimes it has been found that the dear brethren do not quite realise what is in this matter of worshipping the Spirit.
S.McC. Yes. There should be with us the recognition of His deity, I mean as distinct and apart from the collective thought of God as in the latter part of the meeting.
A.P.C.L. Would the accustoming ourselves in the light of this chapter, to recognise that, help us in the service? I was thinking of the reference in verse 6,
and then the reference in verse 11,
S.McC. It would. And it would help us, too, as to reverential ease. We use the word 'ease' in contradistinction to tension, not in any careless way, because we are always, as in the presence of divine Persons, reverential and in dignity.
L.E.S. Would not the distinctive way in which the great thought of oneness and sameness is brought into these passages have the effect of liberating us?
S.McC. It would. And it is not a sameness just from mere actual literal words, it is a vital oneness and sameness flowing from the spring linked with the presence of a divine Person in the assembly.
J.S.E. Does the first verse of the chapter shed any light on what you are saying?
S.McC. Just so. These Gentile persons had been accustomed to another kind of manifestation; but now, as coming out of heathendom into Christianity, into the assembly, Paul seeks to enlighten them in regard to spiritual manifestations.
L.E.S. So that thinking the same thing, and having the same love is really what is inward, and involves an intimate understanding of our links with the Holy Spirit, and with one another.
S.McC. It does, and the Lord has been helping us in recent years as to the same thinking, the same speaking and the same opinion.
J.S.E. Is that why the word the "fellowship of the Spirit" precedes what has been referred to in Philippians?
S.McC. Yes, that is interesting, bearing on what we are saying. I think it is remarkable that we should get this full chapter as to the Spirit following the Lord's supper.
C.R.W. Would you mind saying what a federal way means?
S.McC. In relation to the whole universal race of man God has committed Himself to Christ as the new Head of the race; that is what I mean by the use of the word 'federal'.
P.L. Would it be right to say that the Spirit holds the place for Christ in Romans and Corinthians, until Christ takes it Himself supremely in Colossians and Ephesians?
S.McC. That is the truth exactly. You take Romans 8, where the chapter is filled with references to the Spirit. The Spirit is life in the believer; not that He promotes life, but He is life.
A.B.P. So that there is no such thing as a headless body?
S.McC. There is not. But the remarkable thing is that in the figure of speech employed in 1 Corinthians 12, the head is a member of the body.
P.H.H. That is a most remarkable thing, is it not? Does that help us negatively to see that it is not Christ there, being spoken about, but a part of the body which Paul is using as an illustration?
S.McC. I think it has in mind to throw into relief the Spirit, and what the body is as the vessel or the vehicle of the Spirit's activities and manifestations at the present moment. It is thus a wonderful spiritual organism.
P.H.H. Would you therefore think, as this language goes on, that every one of us should be more moved to include ourselves in this setting of the body?
S.McC. I am sure we should, and I think it lies in acquaintance with the Spirit.
P.H.H. I am thinking for instance of verse 21,
S.McC. I am sure it would. And it would greatly enhance the value of every one in our localities, in the sense that there is no one that we can discount.
P.H.H. Do you think that certain persons may tend to exclude themselves, because it is the eye speaking for itself here?
S.McC. I think there is need for that word, because the danger is with some of taking on congregational thoughts and ideas, and leaving things to others without seeing that they are all an integral and vital part of the body.
A.Hn. You referred to the deity of the Spirit as being enlarged on in this chapter, would I be diverting to ask you to enlarge still more on that, for He operates, and He distributes, and He baptises.
S.McC. Well, would it be quite right to say that He baptises?
A.Hn. "For also in the power", verse 13, how do you understand that word?
S.McC. I see what you have in mind in regard to it, but I was thinking of a distinctive glory that attaches to Christ, namely that He baptises with the Spirit. That is signally marked out in regard to Him, and the baptism of the Spirit is done through the power of the Spirit.
A.B.P. Does the word in Acts 2: 33 help,
S.McC. That is what I was thinking of in regard to it. What would you say, Mr. G.?
A.J.G. Yes, there is very definite testimony of John the baptist in John 1,
A.Hn. All I was thinking of was the securing in a living way of our place in the body through the operation of the Spirit.
S.McC. Just so. So that we sometimes find divine Persons so closely linked together in a particular act or matter, that it is difficult to discern who is primarily acting.
R.W.S. I would like to take you back to what you said earlier as to addressing the Spirit at the end of the meeting. I think you used that expression.
S.McC. I was thinking of the tendency sometimes to address Him individually as God, using such an expression as "We worship thee as God", when speaking to the Spirit at that point in the service, which I do not think is intelligent.
G.R.D. In connection with the deity of the Spirit, would the reference in verse 6 to "the same God" be limited to the operations of the Spirit, or would we be right to include, say, the Father's operations, as well?
S.McC. Oh, exactly. We want to see His deity, but that verse is not just a personal allusion to the Spirit. It says in verse 4,
P.H.H. I have not quite got your thought in regard to addressing the Spirit at the end of the meeting. Do I understand you to say that when we may speak to God in worship, as at the end of the morning meeting, we include the three Persons; I think we understand that, but what exactly have you in mind in worshipping the Spirit, and calling Him God? Is that not right?
S.McC. No, I do not think it is right – if I might speak reverently, in the use of language that we have to employ – to isolate the Spirit personally, and speak to Him personally as God, in the latter part of the meeting. I do not understand that to be intelligent.
P.H.H. Pardon me, I did not mean in the latter part of the meeting, I meant, for instance, soon after the Supper. If we worship the Spirit then, and mention the title "God", is that not right?
S.McC. Yes, that is what we are seeking to draw attention to. In the first part of the meeting, following the Supper, there is ample room to address the Spirit personally, in His deity, as God.
P.H.H. Thank you, that is what I meant. That has made it clear.
Ques. Does Hymn No. 8 lead up to the great thought of God, and is it hardly suitable when we have reached the final thought?
S.McC. Hardly suitable! Why, that was one of the choice hymns in the Hymn Book when it was revised, that bore on the final phase of the service.
J.T.S. Would Hymn No. 337 [1951 Hymn Book] be suitable at the earlier part of the meeting, following the Supper? I am thinking of Mr. H.'s questions, I am not thinking of the end of the meeting now, but the place that we give to the Spirit as God earlier, and as we freely speak to Him.
S.McC. Certainly, that is His personal greatness. That hymn was given out last Lord's day in the early part of the service.
C.H. Do you mean that whilst we cannot get beyond the economy, we are affected by what lies beyond it?
S.McC. We are. That is what I mean when I say we are in the presence of infiniteness. We are in the presence of Deity which we can never compass; as alongside of Christ we are in the presence of infinite knowledge that we could never enter into in its fulness as He can, being who He is.
G.R.C. Are you thinking of 1 Timothy 6: 15, 16 for instance,
S.McC. That is it.
G.R.C. We know the God who dwells there, although we cannot approach there.
S.McC. We cannot. And that is the God whom we worship as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is nothing less – the same God. It is the God who has moved near in the opening out of His heart. His nature coming into expression, that we might be set at ease before Him in the presence of His majesty and might.
W.R.M. How would you view a hymn like No. 297, where the Holy Spirit is worshipped as God, in verse 3? I understood that hymn to be suitable for the end of the meeting.
S.McC. I think we want to be preserved from a reviewal of the Hymn Book, in this meeting, because we have to recognise the intelligence that there is in the assembly as to hymns.
A.N.W. In that regard I would like to ask, following your remark regarding the other hymn, whether even in Hymn No. 8, 'A Man in the heaven' is wholly in tune.
S.McC. Well, you have quite a difference there as I see it, because, while the Lord is Man, yet He is God.
A.N.W. I had in mind rather "in the heaven".
P.L. But the first thought bears on what He has been made, Lord and Christ officially; the second thought bears on what He is inherently.
S.McC. That is it. We want to see that His humanity in no sense detracts from the Deity and the greatness of His personality.
G.R.C. Does not Ephesians 4 establish that, the Man who has ascended above up all the heavens?
S.McC. Exactly. That helps; and we had a helpful reference to that at Doncaster that it is as Man that He has gone above all heavens. That could not be said of a creature, that must involve His deity.
P.L. We had this question up in London some time ago, the thought that, at that time of the service, the Son could not be addressed worshipfully because He is unknowable in His Person according to Matthew 11.
S.McC. We do not. Because we certainly do not know Him in abstract deity. We have the impression as to it.
A.E.M. It may be of interest to the brethren to know that Mr. James Taylor himself altered that verse. Verse 2 of Hymn No. 8; it is put according to his views of it, especially 'Blest Son'. He said the title 'Son' was the highest title by which we know the Lord Jesus.
S.McC. I think that is helpful, because you were present at the revision of the Hymn Book.
A.E.M. And we always shall be limited to the economy.
S.McC. Always, we shall never be outside of the economy throughout all eternity, and we shall never apprehend the Deity through all eternity apart from a Man, that Man.
G.R.C. Is it not remarkable that through the economy we know God in His nature and character?
S.McC. It is, I think that is the divine arrangement that that God, whom we could never have known, has designed the economy so that we should know Him in His nature and in His secret being insofar as we can know Him although, rightly speaking, in that sense, it is beyond creature capacity.
G.R.C. You have spoken of human error coming into hymns, but you do not suggest we should not use Hymn No. 297, do you?
S.McC. Certainly not, I do not suggest that we should disuse any of the hymns. Sometimes it used to be said that if a hymn was given out, for instance to the Lord Jesus, on the throne above, in a certain part of the meeting, it spoilt the whole meeting!
R.H. Before going on, there has been some question about the use of the title "in the name of the Lord Jesus", when we are addressing God as the Trinity.
S.McC. Some question about the use of it? Do you mean that we should not use it?
R.H. Yes. The question has been raised as to whether it was proper to revert to the thought of lordship at that phase.
S.McC. Well, I hope we shall be saved from not using it! It would be extremely unintelligent not to use it, whoever may do it.
G.R.C. Did not J.T. say that even in giving thanks for the emblems at the Supper, where we are addressing the Lord, he would still add 'in Thy name'?
S.McC. He did. One was impressed with that recently, that even in speaking to the Lord Himself, you recognise the mediatorial system that we are in and the greatness of that name in that relation.
G.R.C. Otherwise we are ignoring the deity of Christ, are we not? What I mean is that we could not even approach the Lord Jesus apart from His name, involving what He has done in manhood, and what He is in manhood.
S.McC. It shows the importance of being governed by Scripture, and not by interpolating Scripture according to our own ideas. The scripture in Colossians is all inclusive, "whatever ye do", we are to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus.
E.A.K. Would it not involve the glory of redemption? What basis have we before divine Persons, apart from the glory of redemption? You recall what was said here by J.T. in regard to that as touching the service of God. I think it was in the readings on the mediatorial service of Christ and the Spirit.
S.McC. Just so. That is, the value of that Person and the name come in in that connection.
E.E.P. In the end of Revelation we have the expression "I Jesus". I was struck with the fact that the mediatorial system is never to be given up.
S.McC. The Lord would affect us in the last chapter in the Revelation by His own personal glory, "I Jesus"; it is the identification of the Person, in that way.
J.O.T.D. Is it important that the whole system of side-chambers in the temple was held to the house by beams of cedar?
S.McC. I think there is something in what you say, but we would like to get a little more what is in your own mind.
J.O.T.D. I am referring to 1 Kings 6: 10,
S.McC. I think there is something important in what our brother says. In the study of the types, which is very affecting in the passages that he alludes to, we have the way the saints are viewed as at home in relation to the divine dwelling, but never in a detached way.
P.L. And divine love being the link.
S.McC. It is the link between the absolute and the relative. It is not detached in that way.
A.W.R. Whatever divine Person we address, and whenever, it is the Person that we are addressing.
S.McC. In Deity, as Scripture sets out, there are three Persons, co-equal and co-eternal. We do not worship an office. It is God, the Supreme, the Being whom we worship, involving these holy Persons in co-equality in their collective relation, now known as revealed, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
H.C. Would you say a word in regard to the bearing of Colossians 3: 17, on some of the hymns addressed to God? That scripture shows that whatever we do is to be in the name of the Lord Jesus, but some of the hymns addressed to God do not make any reference to that.
S.McC. I think all would be covered by the value of the name in a general sense. Hymns are not in the sense of a prayer, or a direct expression of need.
G.W.B. Would you mind saying what you think of the remark which is often quoted that we cannot think of the Lord as God and as Man at the same time?
S.McC. I think it involves the truth.
G.W.B. I am asking because of what you said, a moment or two earlier, as to Deity and as to the abstract.
G.R.C. Is that remark a misquotation? Did F.E.R. say that?
S.McC. He did make some reference to it in the letter on the Person of Christ in referring to what cannot be grasped at one and the same time by the finite mind.
G.R.C. I thought what was in his mind was that we cannot think at the same time of what Christ is as the expression of God to man, and what Christ is as the perfect Man before God, at the same time. But I would have thought that we always had in our minds His deity, however we are thinking of Him.
S.McC. There is light in our minds as to His deity and His humanity all the time. What I thought our brother had in mind was as to whether, in a concrete way, we can hold the two thoughts in mind at the same time, which I do not think we can.
G.R.C. But I wondered whether, for instance, when we enter the holiest, we can be engaged with Christ in His perfection as Man before God;
S.McC. Oh, certainly. What F.E.R. was seeking to guard against was that when, as in Hebrews 2, for instance, the Lord is before us as Man, in His relation to God as Man, we do not introduce the thought of what is proper to Deity in that relation.
G.R.C. Yes, that is what I thought.
P.L. And if we confuse them, we may lose the distinctive glory of each thought?
S.McC. Just so. Therefore the great need of holy regard in saying too much in regard to the Lord. Because the truth in the Scriptures is that He is a divine Person who has come into manhood.
W.S.S. I think on an earlier occasion, in Australia, when this similar question arose, you emphasised the point that we worship the Person.
S.McC. Yes, and what was said at that time was that F.E.R. did not say that He was not God and Man at the same time. That is not the thought at all in F.E.R.'s mind in that remark. There is light in our minds, at the same time, as to the fact that He is God, and He is Man.
Ques. Could we have a reference to Ephesians?
S.McC. We have the reference to the supreme place of exaltation that the Lord has ascended to, and then how the gifts come in and how the body comes in. It shows what a great item in the divine system the body is, that such a place of exaltation seems to be required, and the irresistible and invincible power that flows from it, in view of our arriving at what is distinctive and final.
P.H.H. I would like to ask why the thought of the assembly follows on in 1 Corinthians 12 and is brought in in Ephesians 2. In verse 27 of 1 Corinthians 12 it says,
S.McC. There is. I think it is like the distribution of what is heavenly and its influence in this environment. It is like the levitical side distributed through Israel in the types. It is striking how the gifts are linked with the assembly in both these chapters, as if God accentuates the side of heavenly influence to maintain this distinctiveness.
J.S.E. Was it stated some time ago that the extended set of statements in 1 Corinthians 12 bore on the necessity for regulation amongst us in the wilderness,
S.McC. Just so. So that in Corinthians the body is presented as a figure, whereas, when we come to Ephesians, it is the great substantial side of the body, as Christ's body, out of Christ.
P.L. Not animated by Christ testimonially so much, as deriving from Him in purpose.
S.McC. Yes, and all the grace of the heavenly Man is expressed in that which is His body.
A.P.B. Could you help us as to the function of the body in its eternal setting? We have been more familiar with the working of the body in its provisional setting perhaps.
S.McC. I think that Christ will be expressed eternally through His body, the assembly being His complement, the completeness of Him that fills all in all.
A.B.P. Does verse 16 suggest that a point may be reached where gift is no longer needed, but that the body works for itself?
S.McC. It seems to be viewed in that way. The body is presented as a complete entity by itself in relation to Christ as Head, and functioning and operating for its own increase; it
A.B.P. Does that come close to what is in mind, "through all, and in us all"?
S.McC. I think it does.
A.J.G. When, in the eternal day, the holy city comes down out of the heaven from God, will not the influence that she exerts in eternity be the effect of the influence of Christ on His body?
S.McC. It will. That is, the assembly gets His direct impulse. The universe does not get the direct impulses of Christ, but the assembly as His body does, and then we have the relay of the influence towards the universe. So it is a remarkable position in which we are set in that light.
J.McK. It says, "we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ".
S.McC. Exactly. So that it involves the substantial side. It is not just an abstract view according to purpose, although purpose underlies all that we have in this letter, but the growing up, the agricultural thought in that, and the development in the body, is all to bring out the substantial side of this great entity.
W.B.H. Does the conception of the body, which is distinctive to the assembly, underlie every other figure under which the assembly is alluded to, such as the city, the temple, and the house?
S.McC. I think it does, because of the vital link of the body with Christ. The body is quickened in the life of the Head, and the direct impulses of the Head enter into it and affect every situation in which the assembly may appear.
P.L. Being who He is, does He not require a medium, through whom all that He is has to be known, and is to be diffused in life and love and glory? And does not the body furnish that?
S.McC. It does.
A.B.P. Is that what is meant by the fulness?
S.McC. Exactly. It is a wonderful thought. God delights in fulness, and we know what the fulness of the earth is, and the fulness of other things; but think of the fulness of Christ, and the assembly's part in that!
| READING 4 |
|---|
| DISTINCTIVENESS AND FINALITY IN PAUL'S MINISTRY (4) Colossians 1: 12-29; 2: 1-10, 16-19; 3: 1-4 |
S.McC. It is in mind this afternoon to consider the distinctive way in which the headship of Christ is presented in this epistle. The passages that we have read are very rich and full and it will be obvious that we cannot dwell on all the details of them.
A.E.M. Can I take you back? You said this morning – if I understand you rightly – that we arrive at the "collective idea of God". Can you explain that?
S.McC. It is using a form of speech that we have to use, being finite and being creatures that we are. In using it we have in mind the Father and the Son and the Spirit, as together, as expressing to us the great thought of God.
A.E.M. But does not the term "collective idea of God" convey to us that there are three Gods?
S.McC. It does not to me. It is not a question of three Gods; it is the Persons collectively, together, as God. It is no thought of Tritheism, and no thought either of Sabellianism; it is the opposite to that.
A.E.M. We have to preserve the idea that God is One.
S.McC. I might say that I was only using an expression which J.T. used himself in referring to God in that part of the meeting, where the three Persons are particularly before us.
A.E.M. Yes. You have the whole Trinity before you.
S.McC. Exactly.
G.R.C. Might I refer to the Name of Matthew 28. Is it right to say that that Name on the one hand presents the truth of the economy in the graded positions taken, and on the other hand, the equality of the Persons in the unity of Deity?
S.McC. If we can use the expression 'unity'. I am sure you know what we mean, for it is a question whether the word 'unity' is strong enough when it comes to that.
G.R.C. We could use 'oneness'. 'Unity' is the Latin word, and 'oneness' the Anglo-Saxon. We have come to give more force to oneness, so it may be best to keep to that.
S.McC. Yes, I think what you say is right, because the bearing of the Name is economical in Matthew. That is, it bears on the economy and operations in it.
G.R.C. Do you think we might sometimes misunderstand what is in one another's minds in our words, in this sense that in thinking of the co-equality of the Persons, in the oneness of Godhead, we are really thinking of something which in itself is outside the economy?
S.McC. They ever existed in eternal oneness, and yet according to John 1: 1, in Their co-equality as Persons, for
A.B.P. Does the expression in Matthew 1: 23
S.McC. Just so. It is always important to remember that whatever place two of the Holy Persons take in the economy, it never alters the Deity.
E.E.P. This morning we had "the same Spirit", "the same Lord" and "the same God who operates all things in all". Does that refer to co-equality?
S.McC. I hardly think it refers to co-equality there; it refers to the administrative relations in the economy.
S.G. Is it of interest that in Revelation 21 we have the expression "God Himself", in Ephesians 3 we have "to him be glory", and in 1 Corinthians 15 "that God may be all in all"? It is the singular all the way through.
A.N.W. And the word in Timothy, "God is one".
S.McC. We are reminded in all that of the personal God that we have to do with, that is God Himself.
A.J.G. J.N.D. spoke once of the importance of thinking in Scripture, and of having our thoughts formed by the way the truth is presented in Scripture.
S.McC. We have to see therefore the danger of the human mind in applying metaphysics to the Deity. That is, trying to arrive at the conception of God by the analysis through science of being. We cannot do that. We have just got to leave what is infinite, and speak as Scripture speaks.
L.E.S. So that whilst we may distinguish the Persons, we can never separate Them. Do we not need constantly, subconsciously in the Spirit's power in our souls, to maintain the thought of mystery attaching to Each, and to the full thought of Deity?
S.McC. We must, because it is only in revelation that the Persons are distinguished for us. When it comes to abstract Deity you are confronted with what is inscrutable; but Scripture says "the Word was with God". That is what Scripture says, but to explain it or define it is entirely beyond us. We cannot say much about it.
J.S.E. Is that why both in Luke's gospel, where the title God is used more than in any other gospel narrative, and in the epistle to the Ephesians, where God is so much to the front, even to the extent of "all the fulness of God", so much place is given to the Spirit?
S.McC. I am sure it is important to see that, and especially the remarkable way in which the whole position is guarded in the opening of Luke. The whole environment is sterilized by the divine presence and power, lest there should be any encroachment of defilement.
P.H.H. What is the bearing of the term 'fulness' in chapter 1, and later in chapter 2 of Colossians in connection with what you are saying? In chapter 1, it is
S.McC. It is remarkable how it is almost used as a title here. In fact the Fulness is referred to by itself "by it", as it says,
P.H.H. Do you mean that the greatness of God Himself, the Godhead, lies behind that, and that must be the greatest thing of all?
S.McC. I mean God in His essence lies behind that, but in His essence He is unknowable. That is, the essence of God in that sense is not disclosed, but it lies behind all these wondrous matters.
J.S.E. Is it somewhat bearing on this matter of depth that we had last night, that we should reflect on the peace of the Fulness having been disturbed, but now peace has been made for Itself through the blood of the cross of Christ? Is it something for our hearts to contemplate?
S.McC. It is, very much. We should see the remarkable way in which the Fulness comes into this matter of reconciliation, both in regard to things and in regard to the members of the body, the members of the assembly. It should be very affecting to us that it should be presented on this exalted level.
M.H.T. With regard to the distinctive activities of the Father mentioned in the two verses where we began, would you mind saying if you regard those activities as involving the service of Christ, and the service of the Spirit, or something separate from them?
S.McC. All operations in the present dispensation are by the Spirit. The Spirit is the great medium of operations in regard to the saints, and what affects them subjectively,
A.W. Why is the Spirit only mentioned in verse 8?
S.McC. I think it is important to see that the Spirit is not prominent in Colossians. He is behind the scenes as it were, and what comes on to view is His work, and the graces that have sprung from His presence and service among the saints, because the great thing in mind in Colossians is "Christ".
J.S.E. Would it fit into John 16: 14, "He shall glorify me"?
S.McC. Exactly. That verse could be written all over this letter, and it all has in mind that we should get the gain of the headship of Christ.
— Would it be right to ask if the "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" really refers to our appropriating that in the power of the Spirit to give us capacity to understand and be influenced by headship?
S.McC. It is essential that we should have the forgiveness. Romans deals with how sins have been met, and how forgiveness and justification have come in, and how deliverance from the world comes in. Then we have what the Spirit is to us in Romans 8,
W.S.S. Would "the kingdom of the Son of his love" be used to occupy us with the Father's love for the Son, and the verses which follow, open that out to us in detail, the Father's delight in all that the Son is?
S.McC. I think it is especially to impress us with the fact that we are not in an arbitrary realm. We have been translated out of an arbitrary realm, the authority of darkness, but the realm that we have been brought into is a realm of the kingdom of the Son of His love,
W.S.S. If we were captivated by the Father's love for the Son, we would not have difficulty about headship, I should think.
S.McC. We would be attracted to the Person who is Head, which this epistle has in mind.
A.P.C.L. Would verse 14 relieve the tension you spoke of this morning and bring in restfulness in relation to the unfolding of the glory that follows?
S.McC. That is good, and bears on what we were saying as to forgiveness. It sets us free and at ease, that matters will not come up, we might say, in this realm.
J.S.E. In the fundamental treatise much is said of redemption, and the vicarious work of Christ. But it is presented largely objectively, is it not? Does not this brief expression
S.McC. I think that is the point. The mention of forgiveness of sins here is not so much to draw attention to our enjoyment of it, as to throw into relief the glory of the Person in whom it is.
G.R.C. Would you open up what you had in mind as to the dual glory of Christ?
S.McC. If we all followed things carefully, and I am sure you know what one refers to, we shall see for instance, verse 16,
G.R.C. I think it is very helpful to point out the two sides, and do they not bear on what was before us this morning?
S.McC. I was thinking of that very thing, how this passage would help us as to what we were referring to this morning, because the Person is the same in essence. He never changes, whether in Deity or in manhood; in essence He is always the same.
G.R.C. And is it not striking that while, as F.E.R. says, we can scarcely think of both sides at the same time, yet Scripture nearly always puts them close together?
S.McC. It is very remarkable. In John 1 and Colossians 1 and even in Hebrews 1, while it is His deity that is alluded to, there are some expressions there that could not be apart from His humanity. Is not that so?
G.R.C. The exact quotation from F.E.R. is 'As the Word became flesh, He dwelt among men, and revealed God. But He Himself filled and still fills the place as Man toward God, and the two thoughts are wholly distinct conceptions which cannot be grasped at one and the same time, by any finite mind'.
S.McC. Yes. Colossians 2 really involves that for the saints are brought into it. Other passages can be quoted to show that there is not only the perfect expression of God towards man in Him, but there is a perfect expression of man in Him towards God. It is the same Person, not another. The same Jesus, as we would say.
A.J.G. Are not those two sides in verse 15?
S.McC. They are: "who is image of the invisible God" must involve His deity, because who but a divine Person in manhood could be referred to as the image of God?
A.J.G. As having come into relation with the creation, it is to hold it in relation to God.
S.McC. That is it.
A.P.C.L. There are two references to "by him", one in verse 16 and the other in verse 20, the first one relating to the power of His Person, in whose intrinsic power, as the note says, the creation was made, and the other 'instrument'.
S.McC. It is important to see that the second 'by' does not involve in any sense inferiority as to position.
A.P.C.L. I was hardly meaning that, but that for the moment He became in Himself the instrumental power by which the Fulness was acting, but as to His own Person it must be there.
S.McC. We need to guard that when we view Him in bondman's form, and certain relations in which He is as Man towards God, inferiority as to position is there,
A.P.C.L. Which 'by' are you referring to in that?
S.McC. There are three 'bys' as you know. First it says in verse 16,
A.P.C.L. What about verse 20, which brings in reconciliation by the blood of His cross?
S.McC. "And by him to reconcile all things to itself"
A.P.C.L. Yes, that is how I understand the truth. The second 'by' I was referring to was really verse 20, where it is a question of the blood of His cross.
S.McC. Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the second 'by' in verse 16.
A.P.C.L. No, I was taking those as both together to involve His deity really, the glory of His Person; and the second one that I referred to was in verse 20, involving His manhood and His work.
S.McC. Just so. I think it is important now that it has come up, that we should keep in mind that mediatorial activity does not always involve inferiority in position in the operations. Creation is a standing testimony to that.
P.H.H. Would Hebrews 1 confirm that, where it says
S.McC. No, there could not.
J.S.E. The whole bearing of that chapter is emphatic of equality, is it not?
S.McC. Yes, it is. So that we are reminded of the greatness of divine operations in that way, and the necessity of having the help of the Spirit. We need to be lifted out of mere human thoughts as to these matters and especially to be governed by the Scriptures.
A.B.P. Is this not confirmed by the reference in John 1
S.McC. Just so.
A.J.G. Might we now get on to the thought of the headship of Christ, and what it has in view in this epistle, and how we come practically into the gain of it?
S.McC. I think it is important that we should see how the saints are to get the gain of the headship of Christ, so that we should be saved from Laodiceanism.
G.R.D. In that connection, do the dual glories that you have been speaking of, that is, in verses 16 and 17, and then later as to the body, bear upon the headship of Christ towards the saints, the body?
S.McC. They do, because we are reminded of the greatness of the Person who is Head. It is in His humanity, in the exalted position in which He is, that He is Head of the assembly.
A.J.G. And every other object that might influence us is eclipsed and displaced?
S.McC. I think that is the point in the epistle. It has often been referred to as a critical epistle; it is not a matter of the low moral state of things, as we have it in Corinth, where J.N.D. refers in connection with 2 Corinthians 12 how the highest elevation is contrasted with the lowest depths of carnal degradation.
J.McK. Would you say why, in chapter 2, it refers to the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ bodily? That is in His present position, I presume, whereas in chapter 1 it was pleased to dwell there. What is the thought of it dwelling there bodily? It is following that that it says
S.McC. Do you not think that the saints are particularly in mind in chapter 2, whereas it is not a question of us being in mind in chapter 1?
J.McK. And the Fulness coming to extend to the saints? The idea of being "complete in him", would it not involve that that fulness, in Him bodily, is to be drawn upon?
S.McC. Just so. It is important to keep in mind the greatness of the Person in chapter 2, for as J.T. once said, the expression "For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"
P.L. The Spirit of God turning right round, if we may use the expression reverently? Is that not so? "Ye are complete in him".
S.McC. It is very striking that while the word is 'filled full' in the original, referring to all fulness being in Him, it does not say, 'for in Him dwells all the completeness of the Godhead bodily', but
W.C. Is that what is referred to in being deprived of your prize? It suggests the thing of the greatest possible value,
S.McC. The prize suggests the great value that is linked with this thought of Christ in this epistle.
P.H.H. Did you have something in mind about verse 9? You said it does not say 'in Him dwells all the completeness'. Had you something in mind as to the difference between 'completeness' and 'fulness'?
S.McC. It seems to me that there is a shade of difference, although there is a strong link between the two expressions. The Fulness dwelling in Him is what is in mind with a certain purpose. It is God shining out, the expression 'bodily' representing what is necessary for finite range, and finite appropriation.
A.N.W. "Which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" in Ephesians; is that further?
S.McC. That would be a reference to Christ as Man, the assembly being the fulness of Him as Man.
A.B.P. So that we have in Ephesians 4 that "he might fill all things" –
S.McC. It does, for it is a characteristic thought. It is interesting to see that of Christ, here, in Colossians it says, "Christ is everything, and in all", and in Ephesians it says of Him that He "fills all in all".
L.E.S. Does not the scripture you referred to help us to understand spiritually what is in mind? The idea of the Fulness here is, as it says in the note
S.McC. Quite so. It is not what we have in Romans 1, which comes after the verse that we read, "his eternal power and divinity". This word is a very full word here, and therefore it bears on what we have in Colossians. We are dealing with what is substantial, whether from God's side towards us or our side towards God.
W.R.M. What is the difference between this thought of the Fulness in Him bodily, towards us, and the image of the invisible God in chapter 1?
S.McC. The image involves representation; the Fulness is not representation. We have the representation of God in Him, but the Fulness involves more than that.
L.E.S. According to the foot-note the word 'Godhead' involves Godhead in the absolute sense.
S.McC. Yes. It does not mean that we apprehend all that is involved in what comes out, but there is what comes within our range. For instance, it says in Hebrews 1 that He is
G.R.C. Does "the fulness of the Godhead" involve really the three Persons?
S.McC. It does, as to what is in mind. So that if Christ did anything, it was the Father who did it, and He did it in the power of the Spirit. The Fulness was there.
G.R.C. I wondered in that way whether the reconciliation by the Fulness would involve what was before us in the address last night – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all involved in that.
S.McC. I thought it was very affecting, how They all enter into the matter of redemption, and how, in a certain sense, each of the Persons came before us in Their feelings.
T.J.G. I notice in regard of the Fulness in both references in chapters 1 and 2, the scripture says "all the fulness". Is there any significance in that it does not just say 'in Him dwells the fulness', but "all the fulness" in both instances?
S.McC. I think it is another Colossian touch, to impress us with the fact that we do not need to go outside of Christ for anything. It is all there in Him.
J.S.E. Does that just give the answer to the enquiry about Ephesians 1? The assembly is not said to be 'all the fulness of Christ', but she is just said to be His fulness. So that there is a shade of difference in the force of the word, is there not?
S.McC. There is.
A.J.G. Could We have a word as to
S.McC. I think it is very important to see this. The first reference, in verse 17,
P.H.H. Does that mean that there is substantiality, so to speak, in the saints?
S.McC. I think that is what it refers to. What underlies the body is what is out of Christ. You have got a definite formation in a body that is of Christ.
L.E.S. So that this would preserve us from Laodiceanism that you were speaking of at the outset.
S.McC. It would. And it would also preserve us from the danger and influences of affinities with those who, by the power of their minds, would lead the saints astray.
W.B.H. Is the direct operation of His headship in Colossians emphasised by the absence of any allusion to gift, as in Corinthians and Ephesians?
S.McC. It is very important to see that. We have no allusion to gift formally as gift, but we have allusion to personality in a peculiar way, and to princes, in this epistle; but the gifts are left out.
A.B.P. Is there a link between "Let no one fraudulently deprive you of your prize" and the "not holding fast the head" with the word to Philadelphia,
S.McC. I thought there was a distinct link. I think the thought of the crown in Philadelphia stands related to the peculiar joy of the truth of the assembly's relations with Christ and Christ's relations with the assembly, which, in the revival, we have been brought back to understand.
E.A.K. Would it be suitable to enquire, in regard to this matter of affinity, as to how far that is extending, in the mind of the Spirit, to what has been named as Laodicean in our day? I am thinking quite simply of the exercise that has been raised in ministry as to eating with 'Open Brethren'.
S.McC. Well, there should be holy concern about all our links with Bethesda. We are not here to attack any system, but Bethesda has been marked by disregard of the truth as to the Person of Christ and we cannot have anything to do with a system that has been identified with that.
P.L. J.N.D. remarked: 'I know no other company that owes its origin to heartlessness as to Christ'.
S.McC. Just so. I think the Lord would help us as to these matters, especially that our links with Bethesda should be kept clear, because we must regard Bethesda in a different light from the establishment, or the established bodies,
G.R.C. So that the warning is against listening to anyone who is himself not holding the Head. It says "no one" in verse 4, and verse 8, and verse 18. Did not Eve listen to a creature not holding the Head, in the first instance? The serpent was not holding Adam as head.
S.McC. She did. That is very striking. I think the headship of Christ has a delivering effect here in regard to human wisdom, human plausibility and the rationalism and capacity of the human mind. It is remarkable what it says here,
A.J.G. And is there not only a matter of wisdom and impulse derived from the Head, but the influence of love, because the result of holding fast the Head is
S.McC. I am very glad you bring us back to that, for it bears on what we were saying earlier.
C.M.M. Would the passage in the Song of Songs have a bearing on this idea,
S.McC. Very good. The Song of Songs is full of suggestions of nearness and intimacy; and that brings us to the last passage, which we might just refer to, and especially the expression
A.B.P. And is that carried through into Philadelphia,
S.McC. It is. In fact there is a definite link in Philadelphia with what we have in Ephesus.
M.H.T. Would the reference to "complete" or 'filled full' "in him", and the idea of "substance" stand in direct contrast in your mind with the emptiness of the inflation suggested in the word "puffed up by the mind of his flesh"?
S.McC. I am sure it does. Because to understand Colossians rightly we have to know that in history the great Gnostic theories were prevalent and prominent, and apparently some were being drawn away by these theories.
Page Top Reading 4 Top Next Reading 5