CHRIST AS HEAD TO THE CHURCH
[p. 69] CHRIST AS HEAD TO THE CHURCH
Ephesians 1: 19 - 23; Colossians 2: 15 - 19; Ephesians 4: 15, 16
Ques Did you use the expression, ‘service of the Head’ — if so, what do you mean by it?
FER I suppose the idea is found in Colossians 2: 19: “And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God”.
Ques Are there not two things, the ministering to the body, and the uniting together?
FER The body is ministered to by the joints and bands, the Head being looked at as the source of supply.
Rem So, as to impulse, the movements are the movements of life; the ordinary, and not the extraordinary movements.
FER In both Colossians and Ephesians we get, “From whom the whole body”, &c., both speak in that way of ministration from the Head to the body.
Ques To what purpose was Colossians 2: 19 brought in? Was it corrective; the Head being let go, all was disjointed?
FER There was grave danger then from those not holding the Head. Now if you look at the professing church you get what comes of failing in this. Bethesda is an illustration of not holding the Head — there is looseness.
Ques How does losing sight of the Head lead to open ground?
FER If you hold the Head, you must hold the truth of the one body, which stands in relation to the Head; and in fact [p. 70] the truth of the body was taught in scripture before the truth of the Head.
Ques Did not Mr. Darby receive the truth of the Head first?
FER Yes, but in scripture the truth of the body was taught first.
Ques Have not most of us got the truth of the body before we got the truth of the Head?
Rem We want to see how scripture presents the matter.
FER We see in Romans and still more in Corinthians, that one Spirit makes one body. “For by one Spirit” have we all been “baptised into one body”. That shews that the truth of the body is the first taught. If you do not accept the truth of the one body, I do not see how you can well apprehend the Head.
Ques Yesterday we were speaking of Christ as Head and Christ as Lord. What is the distinction?
FER Christ is Lord to the individual, and in connection with individual responsibility. Then He is High Priest in service to us individually, not collectively. But if you follow the idea to the Minister of the sanctuary, you come near to the Head.
Ques But then He is Priest there?
FER Yes; but there you are near the Head.
Rem You must see that Aaron was head to his sons.
Ques What is implied in “not holding the Head”?
FER It comes out manifestly in the present day in Bethesda. They are an example of the form and order without divine teaching, without the Spirit, in a way. Their meetings are simply believers’ meetings.
Ques Can we have the truth of the body rightly without the Head?
FER The truth of the body connects itself with the presence of the Spirit; you must accept the truth of the body. Then there is another thing to be learnt, that Christ is Head to the body.
Rem So the better we know the Head, the better we know the body.
Ques Was not the thing put forward to the Corinthians, but when the apostle spoke of one Spirit and one body, [p. 71] it was not as a mere fact?
FER It was not presented as a mere fact, but as corrective, because they were rallying round leaders. In the same way you get the clergy now as official leaders. The apostle brings in the truth of one body, one Spirit, as corrective.
Ques Properly speaking, I suppose all movement in the body originates with the Head?
FER I think so. The husband, as head, gives impulse properly to the wife, not the wife to the husband.
Ques With regard to priesthood, as the great Priest over the house of God, is Christ known in any individual service He renders us?
FER I do not think so. Great Priest is a very large and deep thought. The house of God represents the universe.
Ques Does it speak of the service of Christ to the individual in chapter 4?
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem It has always interested me to see that the tabernacle was anointed first, for the tabernacle is a figure of the universe, and the priest was anointed after as the one who sustains it and ministers in it.
FER There is nothing more interesting than the anointing. The tabernacle which was anointed was a pattern of all things, and “He who built all things is God”.
Rem “Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering” the holiest ... and “a great priest over the house of God”, &c.
FER Christ is a great Priest over the house of God, but the application of headship at the present moment cannot go beyond christianity. We have to accept Him in that way as the great Priest over the house of God. The church is the first circle. In Psalm 22 we see how the influence of Christ widens out from the church, first to the great congregation, and then to the ends of the earth. In Colossians 1 we have first the Head, then reconciliation, then the body. The body is the first [p. 72] thing brought into reconciliation.
Ques Is not the Head a great thing to us, so that whatever is set up by and by we can be in touch with it now?
FER Yes.
Ques You distinguish between the great high Priest of chapter 4 and the great Priest in chapter 10?
FER Yes; the idea of High Priest is taken from Aaron. You do not get the term High Priest in Psalm 110. There Christ is said to be Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Great Priest is, I suppose, in contrast to Aaron.
Rem Everything is great in the Hebrews — the Majesty on high, the word really means the greatness, in contrast with the littleness of Judaism.
Rem Then a great deal of the service of the High Priest is seen in connection with the weakness and wilderness experience of the people to lead them to the other side.
FER Yes.
Ques Is not the difference between the Priest and the Head set forth in some way in Ephesians?
FER Yes. Christ ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, and received gifts for men. This is in a sense priestly, though hardly connected with the thought of Head of the body.
Ques. As the exalted Man?
FER Yes; and passes on from that to the thought of the Head.
Ques Is there not more the thought of drawing from the Head?
FER The impulse of life is from the Head. When the body is brought in in relation to the Head, it is always looked at as a distinct entity. In Corinthians you do not get this idea, it is said, “Ye are Christ’s body;” He is the spirit and living principle of that body. But when, as in Ephesians and Colossians, you have the Head and the body, the Head is looked at as distinct [p. 73] from the body, though related to it, and this may lead on to the truth of the bride.
Rem In Ephesians 1 He is not the Head of the body, but He is Head to the church, which is His body.
FER A man is not only husband of his wife, but husband to his wife; so Christ is Head of the body, and Head to the body, but the Head is an entity distinct from the body.
Rem In Ephesians 4 we have the organisation, the whole body.
FER There we have the whole body, rounded off, as it were.
Ques Does the thought of union come in as connected with the body?
FER The thought of union is not in connection with the Head and the body. It is not in that sense the word is generally used. Union is of two entities, just as man and woman are two. We see it in Isaac and Rebekah. They became one by union, and Christ and the church are one by union. At the same time there is the truth that the church is His body, and He is the spirit of the body. I can conceive of my body as in a sense distinct from myself. It is my body, and I am the spirit of my body. So the church is to Christ as His body.
Rem We see what you are through your body.
FER Yes.
Ques Are both these thoughts applicable at the present time?
FER I should say both are applicable to the present.
Ques We are His body now?
FER Yes.
Ques You would say that the thought in Ephesians 1 is future?
FER Christ as the Head of all principality and power is future, but He has this in title and place as Man now. You could scarcely, however, speak of Christ as [p. 74] being in fact the Head of all now. You do not see all things put under Him yet.
Ques Did you say the body is not united to the Head?
FER I do not think I said so. I said union is of two entities.
Rem In Ephesians 1 you get the Head in two positions: Head over all things, and Head to the church.
FER Exactly so, you get the same in Colossians. He is the Head of all principality and power, and then He is Head to the church, which is His body, and that brings in two entities. Christ is Head of the church, as the husband is head of the wife. They are two. It is the same idea as that Adam was head to Eve. Eve was of his body, and at the same time his wife; they were two, but now one in the eye of God, yet none the less Adam was head to her. Her sin was that she acted from her own impulse instead of that of Adam.
Ques Is not that what the church has done?
FER I think so.
Ques Do we not get another analogy besides husband and wife, I mean, the human body?
FER I do not think the analogy of the human body ever goes beyond the saints down here. My head is part of my body, just as my ears and my eyes are parts of my body.
Rem It is every part in Ephesians, “From whom the whole body”, &c. That idea includes every part of the body. All christians are embraced in that sense.
Ques Is not the other figure very conclusive, “The husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”?
FER Yes, it is to me. In both epistles, Ephesians and Colossians, He is Head over all things, Head of all principality and power to the church, but the church has a place which other things have not; that is, it is His body.
Rem Adam was really head over all things before [p. 75] he was head to his wife.
FER Yes, he was united to her afterwards, and became her head.
Ques Is not Christ Head to His body in a far more intimate way than husband to wife?
FER The apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5, “If our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved”, we know that “we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”. In a way he distinguishes himself from his body, but he is the spirit of his body. A man is not head of his body.
Ques Do not you think there is a good deal of confusion through a human application of the word “Head” in 1 Corinthians 12?
FER The mistake is in bringing Christ as Head into that chapter. I quite admit that in the revival of the truth it pleased God to give Mr. Darby an idea of the Head first, but the truth of the body was made known before the truth of the Head was known. It was known first on the day of Pentecost, but not until Paul was called out was the Head known.
Ques Was not this truth given him in a way at his conversion?
FER Yes, but it came out a long time after in testimony. In Romans, “we, being many, are one body in Christ”. So in Corinthians, “By one Spirit are we all baptised into one body, ... and have been ... made to drink into one Spirit”. I have thought that this latter clause had reference to Christ rather than the Holy Spirit. One spirit characterised them.
Ques Why had they not the Head at Pentecost — and yet there was the body?
FER They had not the truth of Christ as the Son of God. You do not get that testimony until it was brought out by Paul, and therefore you could not have the truth of the Head. The testimony of Peter was to an exalted Christ. They had known Him after the flesh, and now He was the exalted One at the right hand of [p. 76] God. But the coming of the Holy Spirit constituted one body, and if the saints were not in the intelligence of it, they were in the instinct of it. The movements came from the Head.
Ques How were they maintained in it then?
FER By the Holy Spirit and by gifts, but they had not understood the relation of Christ as Head. He must be known as Son of God. You could not understand our relation to Christ as Head unless you saw the truth of sonship, so that He is the Firstborn among many brethren.
Ques With regard to that, what would you say about Peter’s confession of the Lord in Matthew 16?
FER I think it was a revelation given to Peter personally, but not for testimony. The grace of the Father gave it to him.
Rem It was not effective until long after.
FER It was given to him personally by the Father, and it made him a sample stone. The confession really formed the spiritual material for Christ’s assembly.
Ques Revealing His Son in me in Galatians 1. What is that?
FER That was for testimony, “that I might preach him”.
Ques What is the force of “holding fast the Head”?
FER It works in this way, that you hold to the truth of the one body. You will not suffer disintegration.
Ques Was it not corrective; they were letting go the idea that all was in Christ, and from Him?
FER Yes, He must be the source of supply.
Ques Is not the case of Eve an illustration of not holding the Head?
FER She acted on her own wisdom.
Ques And is not that the danger with every one of us.
FER If you hold the Head you get intelligence by the expansion of affection, and God does not intend us to [p. 77] get intelligence in any other way. He would enlighten the eyes of our hearts.
Rem We get the “Son of his love” in Colossians 1.
FER Yes, and you find out that Christ is everything.
Ques Is that holding the Head?
FER Not holding the Head is characteristic of the seducers. We drop in that way into individuality. People try by their own effort and power to acquire wisdom. Intelligence hangs on the expansion of affection, being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding. If you are after wisdom, you want to grow bigger. Are you big enough to hold it?
Rem When you get bigger you really get smaller. “Be ye also enlarged”.
FER Yes, enlarged in affection, and then you are greater in intelligence. Many men are clever enough, but do not hold a great place in the affections of others.
Ques You would say the holding the Head is shewn in keeping the unity of the Spirit?
FER It is a great thing to recognise the unity of the body, so as not to get narrowed up in mind. You think then aright of the church.
Rem Was it not God’s intention originally that the joints and bands should do more for the edification of the church than even gifts, every part of it to contribute to the well-being of the whole?
FER In early days joints and bands had much more place than they have now. Nourishment was thus ministered.
Ques Do not we lose much from the broken state of things?
FER Yes, but the joints and bands are to hold things together.
Ques But for this you must have affection?
FER What you want is to keep the whole thing together, and things would be kept together if everybody [p. 78] were seeking it. But even earnest men work in such a way as to break up. Peculiar ideas all tend to break up things.
Rem Joints and bands are a great thing where there is no gift.
Ques “The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another”, &c. Is not that the effect of the activity of the joints and bands? Is not that the movements of life more than gift?
FER There is evidently something besides ministry. It is a curious thing that the gifts are not said to come from the Head but from the exalted Man. I think the working of the Head goes on by the joints and bands, and keeps things together. If you get ministry without that you may form a clique by it. The Corinthians wanted the joints and bands.
Rem You may get a meeting regulated outwardly by ministry, but the movements of life are the great thing after all; like a family growing up together in affection, nothing official.
Rem There is more need of family affection than of gifts.
Rem The impulse of life comes from the Head and not from ministry.
FER Yes, and that is an important point in this connection.
Rem Ministry gives form and shape to things.
FER Exactly.
Ques In Colossians: “Increaseth with the increase of God”. What is that?
FER In what is of God. In Colossians we have everything divine in contrast to philosophy and all that sort of thing. It is all Christ. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
Ques What is the course of an evangelist — outside and beyond?
FER An evangelist stands in relation to the body.
Ques Could a man call himself an evangelist?
FER [p. 79] Scripture might call him so, but it would be assumption for him to do so.
Ques In Ephesians 4: 3 we get an exhortation to diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit, is that diligence in the things spoken of in the first two verses?
FER I do not know that is using diligence. I think it is the purpose which is before the soul. What I judge is that unless it were so there would not be the diligence to keep the unity. Lowliness and meekness are suitable for those in the presence of God. It is a recognised truth that the Spirit has a dwelling-place here, but the truth is that God is dwelling here by the Spirit. I am not sure people sufficiently recognise that. It is not simply a doctrine that the Spirit is here; but a reality that God is dwelling. We are builded together for a habitation of God by the Spirit.
Ques Is not 1 Timothy on this line?
FER Yes, we have there the house of God. Hence the effect of belonging to God’s house is to come out in the detail of daily life. The place of men and women and deportment, demeanour and dress are taken account of. It is a question in my mind whether we have not taken up the doctrine of the presence of the Spirit without recognising the moral effect of the dwelling of God.
Ques Does not the presence of God always subdue?
FER Yes; hence we have endeavouring “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace”.
Rem Really a man is known by his household, and God’s character in the world ought to be known by His household.
FER The heathen would judge of God by His household. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.