READINGS ON FIRST CORINTHIANS (1)
[p. 421] READINGS ON FIRST CORINTHIANS (1)
HH Do you think that the question of public order comes before us in this chapter both in regard to the man being head of the woman and the Lord’s supper?
JT It would appear so, following on the question of fellowship in chapter 10, which embraces our general external relations. This question of headship follows on that, leading up to and preparing for the Lord’s supper. There is a great directing principle involved in headship in whomsoever it may be seen; even the head that regulate the world are generally known. In Isaiah you have the allusion to the head of Syria and the head of Samaria; for the Christian this passage identifies headship as a principle flowing down from God to Christ, and from Christ to the man, and from the man to the woman.
Ques Is this more the moral idea of headship? It is universal, is it not? every man and every woman.
JT Yes, I think in its application it will appear literally in the future; it will be well known then whence direction comes. Today, the heads of nations are known, and there is an attempt to make a sort of central guiding body; but this passage would steady Christians as to where they look for wisdom and guidance; so that abstractly, the headship of Christ applies to every man, but we can see that the intent here, is that Christians should recognise it. The testimony to what will appear universally later is to be seen in us now.
RB Do you mean that while it applies to every man it is only known in those who form the assembly?
JT I think that is right. It is only known in those who are enlightened by the gospel as to the place Christ has. The king, it is said, reigns by the grace of God; but the idea of the headship of Christ is not recognised outside those who have faith, nor is it intended otherwise.
[p. 422] Abstractly, Christ is the Head of every man, but the full expression of that awaits the millennial time, when all will recognise that wisdom emanates from that source.
DLH Christ is viewed as having taken His place in the creation, you have got perfect order from God descending through Christ to the man, and then to the woman; but it is the creatorial order which the assembly has to discern and maintain.
JT Well, exactly; it is creatorial order which will appear in the millennium, but who will say why Christ is put immediately after God? That is, His Person is involved. John the baptist announced that He was preferred before him, but this is not general among men. It is the recognition of the Person of Christ, that He is the first-born of all creation. Therefore, He comes in, not as part of the creation, but really his Creator, that by virtue of His Person as the Creator, He takes His place mediatorially as next to God. Faith alone can discern that. I do not know whether that is what you have in mind.
DLH Yes. In the millennium the divine order that God established at the outset will be maintained. It will be found to be man’s blessing and if men recognise it today they get the good of it — but in the assembly it has to be maintained.
JT I think that is how deliverance comes in, that those who have faith recognise this order. It delivers us from all other claims, politically and nationally, so that you have God in His place, and Christ in His place. Well, the next thing is we have got man in his place — it is man in the abstract — and then we have woman in her place. It is not the thought of the wife here nor the marriage state but man and woman; you have here deliverance from the world in this sense today, making way for the assembly, where the headship of Christ alone is known. It is not a question of the headship of Christ in the assembly; that is Colossians; but this is [p. 423] more that we should be delivered from other headships, so to speak.
JJ Would the woman in Mark 14, who anointed His head, set forth that idea of deliverance?
JT Exactly, she would recognise there the wisdom that was in Him. Isaiah says, “The head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin”. There was the country and the city and the king, and so with Samaria. All those were going down, but then there was Immanuel who was coming in. That is what faith would look for, the One whose food was butter and honey. “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good”, (Isaiah 7:15).
ESH And would it fit in with “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”?
JT Exactly. “His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace”. I think that in our chapter it is what we need in the way of deliverance, so as to bring us into the absolute headship of Christ in the assembly, as in Colossians.
DLH And was not this to correct disorder that had crept into the church at Corinth?
JT Very clearly. Only that down to the end of verse 16, it is more general, leading up to the assembly in a delivering sort of way. All who form the assembly are drilled, so to speak, or instructed practically, in the idea of headship, so as to make way for headship as in Colossians, in which it is said, “He is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that he might have the first place in all things”.
MWB What is the link between the veiling or covering and the thought of headship here?
JT I suppose one thought of the assembly is suggested in the woman having on her head her hair which was given to her in lieu of a veil. The covering enjoined here is confirmatory of this, based on it. One idea is that whatever there is in the way of beauty in the female, it is to be reserved for the husband — it would [p. 424] work that way, as Rebecca veiled herself. The covering here is also the recognition of headship in the man.
MWB Is there any thought of the church veiling herself as regards the world, and being exclusively for Christ as a veiled vessel for no other eye than His?
JT The modern manner of women is repulsive; it is exposure rather than concealment, shewing the reversal of the instruction here. It becomes, therefore, an exceedingly valuable passage, especially in view of our coming together in assembly. The idea of headship and feminine modesty is, as it were, drilled into us in this passage, because we are in the presence of these things — the headship of God, the headship of Christ and the headship of the man, in all our relations. The principle ought to wear into us, so that, as in the assembly as convened it has not to be taken on, it is here — it is a sort of element of one’s being. It is not new to me as I come together in the assembly.
RB You mean, as having learned headship?
JT Yes, I know headship, it is a part of my being. It is a delivering order, because we are in the presence of all this looseness constantly. If I am in my business or my house it is not a question of the headship of Christ to the assembly; Christ is “the head of the body, the assembly” — the article is there in Colossians. That is not what exercises me in my house, although, of course, always true, but this passage is what I am concerned about in my house.
MWB What is the difference between headship as here presented, and the general idea in Romans 5?
JT Well, I think Romans 5 is to bring in the idea of grace. Christ is commendable to me. He becomes Head to me on moral grounds, as the One who has brought so much, as with the woman in Luke 7, in Simon’s house. The Person before her had brought grace to her, and so He would be her Head. Obviously the allusion to the feet would indicate that she discerned the carrying power [p. 425] there, that had brought what she needed to her; so I think in Romans 5 it is the overwhelming ways of grace in my soul, grace reigning “through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”. It is the overwhelming character of grace coming into the soul in that Person. It is what He is to the believer, as such Romans is what Christ is to me as a needy sinner. He has met my need. So He is Head on moral grounds. You feel it is due to Him; and I think the woman in Luke 7 is an apt illustration of it. She could see that those feet had carried to her what she needed, and she was full of the sense of grace. She was forgiven much and she loved much; and so in the presence of Simon she would recognise and honour that One.
HH F.E.R. said years ago, that we needed the witness of a divine Person as soon as we were forgiven, referring to Luke 5 and he said the witness in connection with us was the Spirit; so that although the situation on the one side is set forth in Christ, yet it is only realised when the Spirit is received.
JT Exactly, so the Spirit in Romans 5 sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts, but it is all through Christ. If the Holy Spirit has come in; He has come in through Christ; whereas here it is a question of the apostle calling attention to something which the gospel, in itself, did not teach them. They were not like the woman in Luke 7; they needed this instruction, hence he says, “I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”.
HWS Would this be more on the line of regulation?
JT I think so, particularly at Corinth where human wisdom had so large a place. Where did they get it? These Corinthians could tell you where they got it; the classical writers and philosophers were known. So one great feature of this epistle is to shut out the natural man and this is most effective: “The head of every Christ”. Thus you might challenge any of those philosophers, Where did you get your wisdom? He would not recognise Christ, whereas the Christ had come in, and He was the wisdom of God.
JJ Is that what you mean by the delivering thought?
JT It certainly does deliver you from the man who has wisdom in this world.
HFN Is there any link between Peter’s confession in Luke, “Thou art the Christ of God”, and what comes out here that the head of Christ is God?
JT I think that is very suggestive. As Man He receives all from God. Even in John the Lord says, “The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing”.
HFN The centurion in Luke 7 says, “I also am a man placed under authority”; and have you the thought running right through Luke that Christ, as Man, moves in relation to the headship of God?
JT I believe that is very important to notice. In Mark, it is simply, “the Christ”; and in Matthew, “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; but in Luke, it is “the Christ of God”. That is to say. He is here on account of God; hence the extensive references to Him as praying in that gospel.
HH I would like to ask why the man is to be uncovered and the woman to be covered?
JT Well, is it not because the man is the image and glory of God? God is to shine out — God in Christ. The glory of God is in the face of Christ and it is reflected in the man; you do not want that covered; that is where God shines. He is the “image of the invisible God”. God is ever invisible as regards what He is essentially; but in Christ you have the fulness of God. He is the expression of His substance. The idea of substance is one of the most interesting things, that there is that come in which may be taken account of substantially. Hence, in both Matthew and Luke it is that which was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “The holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:35. That is to say, it is substantially and essentially holy. There never was a childlike that! There may have been children relatively holy, but never a child substantially holy. There is in Christ the shining out of God, and this is reflected in the man, and so he should not be covered.
HH Do you mean that man is intended to be the public representation of that?
JT Exactly. Adam was to be that; he was to shine in the creation, but now you have Christ replacing Adam. He comes in between man and God so that you have the effulgence of the divine substance and glory. That is not to be covered. Then, if you come to the church it is that which is for Christ, and all that shews, the idea of reservation, that she reserves her beauty for Christ.
DLH When Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, God really had Christ in view; so the thought of glory here, is connected with the idea of likeness. God carries us back to the original creation of man before sin came in.
JT Adam was the “figure of him that was to come”. What you get in Colossians is striking: He is the “image of the invisible God”. It is not that He was but He is the invisible God, He remains so; but you have One who is His image.
RB Do you connect image with representation?
JT That is the idea; He represents God to me, but it is what God is in His moral authority. He is also like? God, so that I know God. If I see a person who is like Him, I know Him. Thus likeness of God refers to the divine features, so that God is known. Of course in Jesus, God was present, so that he who saw Him saw the Father.
RB Then in glory do you mean there is the shining forth of God?
JT Exactly. There are the two things, but image would be what God is in the way of authority over my [p. 428] soul, all His rights are implied. On the other hand, I look on Jesus and see God in Him.
WC Does the countenance and appearance of David suggest the thought?
JT Exactly. He was overlooked, but when he came in, the Spirit says, “This is he”. There was a stir in the company. Samuel had rightly said, “We will not sit at table till he come hither”, and as he came in he was seen to be “ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance and beautiful appearance”. Yet it takes both David and Solomon to bring in the idea of the right, man. Because Solomon is the son, and the man of wisdom; David is the warrior; David is not said to have been loved when he was born. That is to say, you have Christ in Solomon, figuratively, from the very outset. It says, “Jehovah loved him”. Hence in the book of Proverbs, you have a man of wisdom, a man who is a son of his father. You have in him the idea of headship, a man who can go right back to the beginning, before the earth was and speak about wisdom, as it was then. Indeed wisdom is personified there. He is able to present wisdom as it was with God, before the world was. So you have what was before the creation of the world, and where are the world’s philosophers alongside of that? The apostle Paul speaks of “that hidden wisdom which God had predetermined before the ages for our glory”, chapter 2:7. That is the thing; it pushes out the wisdom of man. Where did they get their wisdom? It is only a wisdom of words. The substance is not there at all, but what you get in Solomon is substance.
JJ Do you not think Paul had Proverbs in mind when he wrote this epistle?
JT No doubt. He had wisdom in his mind, and that is delivering; it brings the right man before you. You see where wisdom lies, and you are ready for it as seen absolutely in Christ. Thus, the early part of 1 Corinthians is to put the man who represents the [p. 429] wisdom of this world out altogether, and make room for Him who is the wisdom and power of God.
Ques So is the line of communication with God kept open? I refer to praying and prophesying here, verses 4,5.
JT Exactly. How can you have a woman marked by these things unless she recognises this order? I am sure Philip’s daughters recognised what is taught here.
JJ The idea of man being the image and glory of God may be deficient in men generally but is it recovered in the assembly?
JT You see it in those who are subject to Christ, as taught here; the thing has to be taken up abstractly now, in the sense that it is not generally seen.
HFN Would you say a little more in regard to the thought of substance?
JT Wisdom says: “I walk in the path of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance”, and the woman in Luke 7 is one of those. “She loved much”, and it is said in the next chapter that certain women were with the Lord, who ministered unto Him of their substance. So I thought it would help to see the idea of substance in a spiritual sense. It is much more than doctrine. Luke says, “the holy thing”, not ‘that holy Babe’. It is a question of the substance that was there, absolutely free from all taint. It was begotten of the Spirit of God; the substance was from God; and so John says, “That which was from the beginning”; there was substance there.
This chapter, if rightly understood, prepares for Colossians; for in the assembly it is not the head of Christ is God, and the head of every man is Christ, but Christ is “the head of the assembly” absolutely. There no intermediary at all; He is the head of the assembly, and hence the body or substance is of Christ. The body is not a theoretic idea; it is substance; it is of Christ.
RB Are you connecting the thought of substance [p. 430] in relation to the body as the mystery “in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge?”
JT Yes; substance in the sense of spiritual wealth is there.
RB That involves Christ the Head and the body.
JT Quite so.
Ques Is headship a greater thought in Colossians than in Ephesians, where He is given to be head?
JT Headship in Colossians is a question of His personal right. He is it, not simply made it, but in virtue of His Person He is it.
Rem In the same way as He is the image of the invisible God.
JT Quite so.
MWB Would you say a little more about the Person being involved in the thought of head? We have generally linked the thought of head with what He is as Man, yet it involves His personal dignity.
JT It does in Colossians. We have been translated by the Father “into the kingdom of the Son of his love”, and then the Holy Spirit opens up what this Person, not what He is made. “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all, and all things subsist together by him. And he is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that he might have the first place in all things: for in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”. (Colossians 1:14 - 19). So you see it is what He is and who He is.
HFN Coming into manhood that is what He is, not what He is going to be, but what He is; and everyone who loves Him falls in with [p. 431] that.
JT So you can see worked out in the body the substance of the head, which is a marvellous thing. “The body is Christ”, it says (Colossians 2:17).
JJ All that is referred to in Colossians refers to Him as Man and we have to maintain that.
JT As a most practical feature, submission to one another may be introduced here. The idea of subjection is not only to Christ, but to the brethren. Subjection to Christ is worked out in this connection. Christ is not here personally, but the brethren are; so if we wish to be subject we may wisely begin with the brethren, because we can never realise headship, save as we recognise the brethren and respect what is due to them Even ordinarily, there is respect due to men gathered in their own circumstances, and above all to the saints of God, those in whom the Spirit of God is. There is respect due to them, and subjection to the Lord is worked out in my submitting humbly to my brethren. I think that fits in here. Headship properly is worked out in Colossians and Ephesians. According to Colossians it was in the presence of Christ here in manhood; He is those things mentioned in chapter 1. We do not need to be told this as loving Him. Mary of Bethany or of Magdala, may be taken as illustrative of the recognition of these things in Him. If you had brought the former the best product of human wisdom, she would have turned it aside as not worth looking at, because all wisdom was obviously there in listening to what the Lord had to say. Now, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in the mystery.
RB How great the Person of Christ appears in our eyes in seeing He is this and not only that it is given to Him!
JT I think those who love Him recognise Him.
JJ Why does it say, “For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:19), and then, “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”? (Colossians 2:[p. 432] 9).
JT Chapter 1 brings out the greatness of the Person. It is a most remarkable word there, the word “fulness”. It refers to Him in incarnation. Who can comprehend God? but there is the idea of fullness which is for us. Fulness is the shining out or display of a thing in all that it is. Well, think of the “fulness of the Godhead”, that is, all that God is as shining out. That dwelt in Christ; and it was pleased to dwell there. The word ‘Godhead’ is not there, but ‘fulness’ carries with it is the full thought of God.
Ques Do you connect that with Immanuel?
JT Exactly, God was there — “God with us”. You might have a person in your house, but all that he is might not shine there, but all that God is as being displayed, or to be displayed, was pleased to dwell in Christ.
HH The thought of completeness is included, nothing is omitted.
JT Nothing at all. In whatever way His fulness was expressed it was resident there, it was pleased to dwell there.
Ques Does the thought in Hebrews correspond? “Who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance”.
JT I think so. We are accustomed to the word ‘substance’ in a material sense, but it is applicable to God according to what He is, and Christ is the expression of it.
JJ So when He said, “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor have seen his shape”, that was substance.
JT Quite so.
Ques Would Hebrews give you the two thoughts, the “effulgence of his glory” and the “expression of his substance”? I wondered whether this first part, the headship of Christ, would be seen publicly in the world to come.
JT I think so. I think all this will shine out there.