DISTINCTIVENESS AND FINALITY IN PAUL'S MINISTRY (4)

DISTINCTIVENESS AND FINALITY IN PAUL’S MINISTRY (4)

Colossians 1:12-29; Colossians 2:1-10; Colossians 2:16-19; Colossians 3:1-4

SMcC 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. I believe, as it has often been said, the Spirit of God amongst us would leave an impression upon us through these passages as to “that is my master,” as the servant of old said to Rebecca. You will notice there is not only the side of what is distinctive in connection with Christ as Head, but the thought of what is final and complete in regard to the saints entering into this epistle. Paul completes the word of God, not as a matter of time exactly, nor a matter of the number of books in the sense that he wrote the last one to complete the number. It is not that at all; it is a question of the circle of the truth, the assembly being the mystery involving the completion of it, Christ and the assembly as we should say. Then there is the great object that Paul had in his service that he might “present every man perfect in Christ.” What an objective he had in his service! The expression “every man” would indicate that every person would be in mind in his outlook abstractly. Concretely of course it works out in the saints who form the assembly. We get the thought of completeness too in regard to the saints and Christ, for we are complete in Him, this letter being to help us to see the value of the Head, and the importance of holding the Head, as deriving all supply and wisdom and direction from the Head. It is very easy, perhaps, to get away from the Head in our affections and thoughts, and maybe to hold the truth just as the truth without sufficiently abiding in the Head, abiding in Christ in that way, as the great Source of supply for the saints. They are complete in Him in that relation. This morning we were dwelling on the body in the foundational epistles, and we alluded to it of course in Ephesians, but in Romans and Corinthians reference is made to the body to affect our corporate relations so that unity might prevail. There can be no gain of Christ’s headship unless in our corporate relations we are united; the headship of Christ is available, and the gain of it is to be received, where the saints are united, and where affection is present and operating.

AEM 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?

SMcC 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. Deity is presented in the Father in the economy, as we know, in 1 Corinthians 8, and in the Name in Matthew 28, Deity is presented to us in the three Persons. Their place in Deity is in mind, although economical names are used. It was the Name of Matthew 28 that was in mind.

AEM But does not the term “collective idea of God” convey to us that there are three Gods?

SMcC 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.

AEM We have to preserve the idea that God is One.

SMcC 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. The word ‘collective’ was used over against what is singular, that is, to speak of each Person singly as God is not in keeping with the truth at that moment, and the light that governs the position at that time; we speak of the Persons collectively as God at that moment.

AEM Yes. You have the whole Trinity before you.

SMcC Exactly.

GRC 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?

SMcC 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.

GRC 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.

SMcC 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. It is the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and as we have been taught, you could not reverse the order and put the Spirit, the Son and the Father. It is put in the order in which it appears in the economy, but yet it is one Name. It emphasises in our minds and in our hearts, in regard to the Persons abstractly, Their co-equality, in the oneness of Deity.

GRC 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? We are not, of course, ignoring the fact that our knowledge of that God is through the economy, but the Persons in the equality, in the oneness of Deity existed ever, whereas the economy began to be.

SMcC They ever existed in eternal oneness, and yet according to John 1: 1, in Their co-equality as Persons, for “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The distinctness of personality is maintained.

ABP Does the expression in Matthew 1: 23 “they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’,” convey more than that that Person is God? It implies that God is with us. Equally so in 1 Corinthians 14: 25, “God is indeed amongst you,” would possibly relate to the Spirit, but as we think of these divine Persona, the oneness of God is in our thoughts.

SMcC 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. The Deity remains the same, and when Deity is presented in the One, it does not alter the Deity in that sense; it is still there in its fulness, as it says, “to us there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8: 6), but it is fixed, to use creature language which we are bound to use having no other means of expressing ourselves, in the economy on that Person.

EEP 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?

SMcC I hardly think it refers to co-equality there; it refers to the administrative relations in the economy.

SG 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.

ANW And the word in Timothy, “God is one.”

SMcC We are reminded in all that of the personal God that we have to do with, that is God Himself. I think it is important to keep in mind in talking over these holy matters, that we are but creatures, with very limited knowledge, and we should not attempt to compass the infinite, because we cannot do it. If we have any latitude at all, as J.T. said from this very place in 1949, in speaking of these things, it is only in the Spirit. Therefore the need of being girt, so that we do not get beyond our depth. I am afraid of getting beyond our depth.

AJG 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.

SMcC 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. If God is revealed in three Persons, and we speak of Them collectively, we do not have in mind collectively three Gods. We have in mind these three Persons collectively, as in contrast to each of Them singly, as God, and the expression “God himself” bears on that. It is God Himself, but as J.N.D. points out, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

LES 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?

SMcC 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.

JSE 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?

SMcC 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.

PHH 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 “the fulness of the Godhead,” and J.N.D. explains about the bracketed piece. Later on he refers to the Fulness as ‘it’ (chapter 1: 21), and again in verse 22 “irreproachable before it.” Then in chapter 2: 9 we have “in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” One might be permitted perhaps to refer to one of our hymns which occupies us with the Fulness, Fulness as a complete thought. Would you mind saying a little about that?

SMcC 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, “For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell, and by him to reconcile all things to itself.” It is a remarkable reference. The Fulness has to do with the outshining; that is, what has come on to our view, and within our range, in Jesus. That was so wonderful and so blessed, yet it is always good to remember, in regard to Fulness, that whatever may be the outshining, it is not greater than what it is the outshining of.

PHH Do you mean that the greatness of God Himself, the Godhead, lies behind that, and that must be the greatest thing of all?

SMcC 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.

JSE 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?

SMcC 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. One thing that it helps to see in this section, is the dual glories of the Person of Christ, the dual glories of His work, the dual glories of Paul’s ministry and service, the dual glories linked with Christ as Man, the fulness of the Godhead in Him towards us, and the saints as towards God complete in Him. Then we see the Fulness connected, in the dual character of the saints’ experiences, “buried with him in baptism, in which ye have also been raised.” In all that it is very interesting to see this thread linked with the glories of Christ in this epistle.

MHT 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?

SMcC 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, whether it be the Father we view operating or Christ operating, the Spirit is always the great power by which the operations are carried out. But the Father is referred to here in a peculiar way, as it says, “giving thanks to the Father, who has made us fit for sharing the portion of the saints in light.” It is not sharing our place in heaven exactly, but “sharing the portion of the saints in light, who has delivered us from the authority of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” This reference to “the kingdom of the Son of his love” is so distinctive; we do not have it elsewhere in the Scriptures. We do have the expression “the Son of the Father, in truth and love” in John’s second epistle, but “the kingdom of the Son of his love” is a very fine and rare reference.

AW Why is the Spirit only mentioned in verse 8?

SMcC 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.”

JSE Would it fit into John 16: 14, “He shall glorify me”?

SMcC 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.

VCL 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?

SMcC 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, but now when we come to Colossians it is as if the Spirit is transferring us over to Christ, not that the Spirit ever leaves us, but it is like the servant in the type in Genesis 24, reaching Isaac, I mean in that manner of speech that we use, and leaving us under His hand.

WSS 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?

SMcC 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, and that is to prepare us for headship, because we cannot get the gain of headship apart from an active state of affection. We may think that we get the gain of the headship of Christ arbitrarily, but we do not. The headship of Christ works through the affections.

WSS If we were captivated by the Father’s love for the Son, we would not have difficulty about headship, I should think.

SMcC We would be attracted to the Person who is Head, which this epistle has in mind.

APCL 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?

SMcC 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.

JSE 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 “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” presuppose that the brethren are already in joy, and the gain of redemption, and the present experience of it in forgiveness, so that the Spirit can proceed further into what you have referred to, I think, as higher levels?

SMcC 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. It says, “in whom we have redemption,” it is not exactly to make the subject redemption, or forgiveness of sins, but the subject is the greatness of the Person in whom we have these things.

GRC Would you open up what you had in mind as to the dual glory of Christ?

SMcC If we all followed things carefully, and I am sure you know what one refers to, we shall see for instance, verse 16, “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.” There is one side of His glories, and then it goes on to another, “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.” That is, we have His glories in the great domain of creation, and then His glory in the great domain and empire of death, the One who has come out of it, “firstborn from among the dead.” What a dual aspect we have there as to His glory! The reconciliation is applied to all things, but then, it is immediately applied to ourselves. The reconciliation of all things is anticipative, but it is applied to ourselves in verse 21, “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.” What would you say yourself about it?

GRC I think it is very helpful to point out the two sides, and do they not bear on what was before us this morning? Verses 15 and 16 are His Godhead glories, in the sense that He is the “image of the invisible God,” He thus expresses God to us, but verses 17 and 18 are what He is as Man before God. Of course as “image” He is in manhood, but expressing God to us.

SMcC 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. It is good always to keep in mind that while things may change before our eyes. He may take a bondman’s form, yet even in bondman form His essence remains unchanged.

GRC 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?

SMcC 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?

GRC 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.’ That is rather different from just the bald statement that we cannot think of Him as God and Man at the same time. It is these two sides, is it not, that we have in this chapter? He is the image of the invisible God on the one hand, so that all that we know of God is in Him, towards us; and on the other hand, all perfection in manhood is in Him towards God. Is that so?

SMcC 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.

AJG Are not those two sides in verse 15?

SMcC 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? Then “firstborn of all creation” is a distinct allusion to His humanity, but it also carries with it a touch as to His deity, because none other than a divine Person could be the firstborn of all creation.

AJG As having come into relation with the creation, it is to hold it in relation to God.

SMcC That is it.

APCL 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.’ It is important to see that the second ‘by’ does not involve in any sense inferiority as to position.

APCL 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.

SMcC 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, but in the instrumental ‘by,’ where the mediatorial principle is referred to in regard to creation, we could not admit of any suggestion of inferiority, because mediatorial activity does not always imply inferiority in the Persons employed.

APCL Which ‘by’ are you referring to in that?

SMcC There are three ‘bys’ as you know. First it says in verse 16, “Because by him were created all things,” that is, as the note says, it is the Greek preposition ‘En,’ and is literally ‘in him,’ in the power of whose person. He was the one whose intrinsic power characterised the creation. It exists as His creature! Then, down further it says in the end of verse 16, “all things have been created by him,” that is the preposition ‘Dia‘ in Greek, involving the instrumental power, which brings in the mediatorial principle. The mediatorial principle was active in creation, but there is not any suggestion of inferiority of position in the Persons.

APCL What about verse 20, which brings in reconciliation by the blood of His cross?

SMcC “And by him to reconcile all things to itself” brings us down to what He was in manhood. The preposition at the end of verse 16, while it is speaking of a Person whom we know in manhood, is alluding to Him in the pre-existing condition before He came into manhood, as the One by whom all was created, because the mediatorial principle entered into the creation, did it not?

APCL 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.

SMcC Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the second ‘by’ in verse 16.

APCL 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.

SMcC 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.

PHH Would Hebrews 1 confirm that, where it says “the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”? There could not be in that expression of things mediatorially any inferiority of Person.

SMcC No, there could not.

JSE The whole bearing of that chapter is emphatic of equality, is it not?

SMcC 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.

ABP Is this not confirmed by the reference in John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... . All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being”?

SMcC Just so.

AJG 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?

SMcC 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. It is clearly in view in this epistle that Paul had a holy concern about Laodicean conditions, where the danger was of being deprived of the fulness that was in the Head. This epistle is critical in that sense, for it is a question of whether the saints are going to be deprived of getting the fulness that is in the Head.

GRD 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?

SMcC 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. But we are reminded in all these statements in Colossians as to the greatness of the Person, so that our affections are drawn out to Him, we become attracted to Him.

AJG And every other object that might influence us is eclipsed and displaced?

SMcC 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. But Colossians is not dealing with the lowest depths of carnal degradation; it is dealing with the fine man, the polished man, the wise man, the man that we have got to be afraid of, especially the speech side coming in, which would deprive us of all the fulness of the resource that is in the Head, and from which the body derives its sustenance and its life.

JMcK 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 “and ye are complete in him.”

SMcC 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? It is the Lord Jesus as He came into humanity here, especially would He come on to view at the Jordan, where the Spirit comes upon Him, and the voice is heard from heaven, and He is standing there upon earth. In chapter 1 we get the great thought of the Fulness coming concretely on to view without any reference to what it is bearing upon, but chapter 2 is to bear upon the saints.

JMcK 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?

SMcC 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” does not necessarily mean what is mediatorial. It is a reference to the greatness of the Person of Christ, that Deity is there in that Person and it is towards us, and then, on the return side, we are toward the Godhead, as complete in Him.

PL The Spirit of God turning right round, if we may use the expression reverently? Is that not so? “Ye are complete in him.”

SMcC 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 “for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him.” We are filled full, in relation to that fulness, as in Him.

WC Is that what is referred to in being deprived of your prize? It suggests the thing of the greatest possible value, “See that no one deprive you of your prize.” Is that a suggestion of a race, and that we might be turned aside? Is it the thought of the value of headship and that we should reach out after it?

SMcC The prize suggests the great value that is linked with this thought of Christ in this epistle. The persuasiveness of speech and the vagaries of the human mind, especially as they were then prominent in the Gnostic system of philosophy and teaching, would all tend to draw us away from Christ, the Head, and we should thus lose the gain and the value of what is in Him in a special way. The assembly has no source of sustenance or supply outside of Him in this relation.

PHH 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’?

SMcC 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.

ANW “Which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” in Ephesians; is that further?

SMcC That would be a reference to Christ as Man, the assembly being the fulness of Him as Man. The assembly is not said to be the fulness of God. She is the fulness of the Man, who in the exalted position as to His Person, we may regard as God. He fills all in all. That could only be said of One who is divine; but she is the fulness of the Man; she is not the fulness of Deity.

ABP So that we have in Ephesians 4 that “he might fill all things” - “He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that he might fill all things,” Ephesians 4: 10. Does that not link on with chapter 1?

SMcC 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.” But of God in Corinthians it says that He may “be all in all.” It is not filling all, but God will be all - that word ‘all’ is a very great word. It is not an ordinary word; it is a supreme Word, “that God may be all in all.” The “in all” would involve ourselves as well as the universe.

LES 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 ‘”Godhead” here is Theotes - Godhead in the absolute sense - not Theiotes, merely divine in character.’ Do you not think we need to distinguish between the two?

SMcC 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.

WRM 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?

SMcC The image involves representation; the Fulness is not representation. We have the representation of God in Him, but the Fulness involves more than that. It is more than representation, because Christ has part in Deity Himself, and “in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” It is not exactly (you fear to use words, because of human lack) that He was a channel for the Fulness, that is not the force of Colossians 2. It is One who as to His Person was divine and had part in the Deity. The Deity is in Him, not just as a channel, but it is there,

“in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are complete in him.”

LES According to the foot-note the word ‘Godhead’ involves Godhead in the absolute sense.

SMcC 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 “the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance.” Christ was that, but that does not mean that we can compass the substance, or enter into or understand that. But the Fulness bodily has in mind what has come within our range and what we can understand.

GRC Does “the fulness of the Godhead” involve really the three Persons?

SMcC 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.

GRC 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.

SMcC 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. It is not that you can attach too much in connection with sufferings, but what must it have been to the Father, as we heard, and what must it have been to the Spirit, that that spotless blessed One - Object of divine delight - should be forsaken as He was and should be in death.

TJG 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?

SMcC 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.

JSE 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?

SMcC There is.

AJG Could We have a word as to “holding fast the head”? Evidently it contemplates that the desire on the part of the saints to hold Christ as Head will be attacked, and we have got to hold it fast.

SMcC I think it is very important to see this. The first reference, in verse 17, “the body is of Christ,” is not an abstract reference; it is a concrete reference to the saints as formed out of Christ, in the sense that what is in Christ is in the saints. That is a concrete matter involving spiritual formation, and it enters into the matter of our holding of the Head. It is important that we should not be enticed, or drawn away, by man from the fulness that is resident in the Head. As Lord He subdues our wills, but as Head, He is the Source of direction and supply for the assembly, His body, for all of us. It is put on an individual basis here, as it says, “Let no one fraudulently deprive you of your prize ... not holding fast the head.” That is, Colossians views our individual responsibility in regard to this matter.

PHH Does that mean that there is substantiality, so to speak, in the saints?

SMcC 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. It is like the woman with the issue of blood; there was something in her that was in Christ, and she was made to feel that. It is not that we read a scripture as to our place in the body and say, ‘Well, that is what the scripture says,’ but we should have some consciousness of something being in us that was in Christ. The body is formed on those lines.

LES So that this would preserve us from Laodiceanism that you were speaking of at the outset.

SMcC 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. If there is that in me which is in Christ, and I am by the Spirit affected by it, my affinities will be with Christ. I will discern His voice, I will discern His direction, and I will not be led away by the plausible speeches and reasonings of the mind that is away from Christ.

WBH Is the direct operation of His headship in Colossians emphasised by the absence of any allusion to gift, as in Corinthians and Ephesians?

SMcC 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. In the same way the elders are left out in the epistle to the Corinthians, for there it is to draw attention to the assembly, while in Colossians it is to make the most of the body as dependent upon the Head as the Source of supply and nourishment.

ABP 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, “Hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown,” Revelation 3: 11?

SMcC 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.

EAK 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.

SMcC 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.

PL J.N.D. remarked: ‘I know no other company that owes its origin to heartlessness as to Christ.’ 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, because in sheltering the enemies of Christ, Bethesda committed themselves, as a body, to the awful error that was linked with what was propagated in bad doctrine as to Christ. This matter of holding the Head is important, for it is put upon all of us, and I think it would help us in matters that enter into our localities, where we may be in difficulty. We are to understand the importance of being shut up to the Head, and deriving nourishment and supply from the Head, so that we should be guided aright.

GRC 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.

SMcC 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, “Let no one fraudulently deprive you of your prize, doing his own will in humility.” What a statement - “doing his own will in humility”!

AJG 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 “all the body, ministered to and united together by the joints and bands, increases with the increase of God”? Do we not get the influence of love learned from Christ and made formative in us?

SMcC I am very glad you bring us back to that, for it bears on what we were saying earlier. We do not get the gain of Christ’s headship on an arbitrary basis. The lordship of Christ operates at times, on an arbitrary basis, for we come up against the Lord in authority, and if it is a question of His will, and my will, my will must go. That is arbitrary, although it is exercised through grace in His love for us. But when it comes to the headship of Christ, it is a question of affections among the saints, they are linked with one another. It involves how they are bound together in this wonderful entity, the body, in love and in affection, and deriving this gain from the Head.

CMM Would the passage in the Song of Songs have a bearing on this idea, “I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go”?

SMcC 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 “Christ ... who is our life.” The Song of Songs is filled in type, with these suggestions, that the Person whom we have thus been referring to becomes our life. It is not that we have life in Him here, but that the Christ is our life. We have been so attracted to Him, so affected by His ministrations, so affected by the deriving of nourishment and supply from Him, that He becomes our life.

ABP And is that carried through into Philadelphia, “and shall know that I have loved thee”? Does that mean that there are lovable conditions there, and is it not a love that comes near to first love?

SMcC It is. In fact there is a definite link in Philadelphia with what we have in Ephesus. Although there is no restoration to the public position in regard to Ephesus, yet we have a spiritual touch in Philadelphia that links on with it.

MHT 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”?

SMcC 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. Paul thus brings in the headship of Christ and the truth of the body, and all the substance linked with that, as over against the emptiness of these others, which were just theories.