HEADSHIP (1)
HEADSHIP (1)
Ephesians 1: 19 - 23; Genesis 1: 26 - 31
JT Headship is in mind for this series of readings. The first feature to be considered is headship in Christ to the assembly; not His headship of it but His headship over all things to it. Then we have His headship of it, mainly what He is as source of supply for it; then what He is in relation to the service of God as Head; and finally what He is in the public sense — Head of every man according to the order of God in creation.
Beginning at the top, we shall work downward. In what we read in Ephesians 1 and in Genesis 1 we shall get the leading features of the matter. The usual way to learn is to begin at the initial thought of a subject; but as what is in mind now is a general view of headship it is thought that we shall obtain this more quickly by looking at it from the top. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, and that is what is in mind, a general knowledge of the subject already existing amongst us. Ephesians 1 presents it in its most exalted bearing, corresponding with Genesis 1. We have in the latter the divine thought before sin came in, and God had in mind to carry wisdom into creation as already inaugurated. According to Proverbs wisdom was there as creation took form; whatever was done, wisdom was there, entering into it. It is obvious that as creation was finished wisdom must continue in order to maintain what had been inaugurated, and the verses read indicate this. The same is true of the assembly; not only authority, but also wisdom is essential to its maintenance.
The great display of it all will be when Christ comes in glory with the assembly, when the headship [p. 231] of Christ will appear, the assembly having part in it. The all-various wisdom of God is operative in the assembly now; it will also be operative in the millennium, and in the final or eternal state. These remarks will help us to see the place of the assembly in the divine scheme, and the need of coming into the light of divine purpose so that we may be in the place assigned to us. In Ephesians 1 we have a great prayer by the apostle Paul relative to this subject, and in chapter 3 we have another one. In the latter he desires “that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts, being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height; and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge; that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”. What a prayer this is! What has been read in chapter 1 is a prayer involving the great thought of headship to the assembly; not ‘of’ it, but ‘to’ it.
ANW Will you distinguish between head ‘to’ the assembly and head ‘of’ it?
JT In our verses headship includes the assembly; she has part in it as Eve had part with Adam in dominion over the lower creation. In chapter 5: 22 - 24 Christ is Head of the assembly, and in Colossians 1: 18 “he is head of the body, the assembly”. The assembly already knows her relation to Him. In Ephesians 2: 21 the assembly is said to increase to a holy temple in the Lord, which means a place of acquiring His mind. In the millennium the assembly will afford wisdom to the universe.
AEH The thought of being Head to the body involves something of the character of Christ worked into the saints by the Spirit of God; His feelings and thoughts are now expressed in the assembly.
JT Yes. The assembly, being of Him, is great enough for this. It “increases to a holy temple in the Lord”; it is thus the vehicle of His mind. The whole administration of the millennium will be according to wisdom, for no matter how general subjugation is effected, what is done must be done in wisdom.
ANW So that the result of the subjugation in 1 Corinthians is that God is intelligently known in everything, “God ... all in all”.
JT That is right; so that we have the headship of God in David’s ministry. In eternity there will be no need of subjugation; “the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”. The whole scene shall be in intelligent subjection.
CHH Would the administration of wisdom in the assembly bring in that thought?
JT That is part of what we are considering; in Ephesians 3: 10 that great fact is stated. Already wisdom is seen in the assembly by the principalities and powers above; it is not simply that we are learning — though I trust we are — but it is for other eyes, and that brings out what a wonderful vessel the assembly is.
Ques Are the saints viewed here as God’s inheritance?
JT Yes. There must be the thought of intelligence in us to be worthy of being in the inheritance of God. His inheritance in the saints implies that we are like Him morally, partaking of the mind, the thinking faculty, of Christ.
AB What you say here in regard to creation is most interesting, that the wisdom required in creation is for its maintenance; and that this also refers to power.
JT The power that works in us (Ephesians 3), is the power that wrought in Christ’s resurrection. If we get these two thoughts we shall get the bearing of the whole matter, especially that of wisdom entering into the question of creation. Everything was delightful before it; wisdom’s presence implies that all was perfect;
[p. 233] it has functioned ever since in the creation, and it is continuing to do so. There is no discrepancy in the motions of the heavenly bodies, and the effect of wisdom is seen down to the minutest part of creation. God has done all in wisdom. It is especially seen in man and the place assigned to him in creation. Dominion, involving headship, is vested in him. In speaking of man before his creation God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion”, Genesis 1: 26. That is how the matter stands, and as seen in the next chapter man is tested as to his qualifications for headship. In verses 19 and 20 we read, “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like”. This passage should be borne in mind in considering the thought of headship in creation: man was to qualify in regard of what he was set over as head; and he qualified in being able to name the creatures as the Creator brought them to him.
LES Would Proverbs fit in with what you are saying as to image and likeness, that there should be correspondence, that man might have part in the headship? I am referring to the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ in Genesis 1 in the working out of the economy.
JT Yes. Man as created was like God. Paul said to the Athenians (Acts 17: 28, 29), “For in him we live and move and exist; as also some of the poets amongst you have said, For we are also his offspring. Being therefore the offspring of God, we ought not to think that which is divine to be like gold or silver or stone, the graven form of man’s art and imagination”. We are His offspring, and hence men convey some idea of God. Correspondingly, christians are like Him in a greater sense. For “the new man ... according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness”, Ephesians 4: 24. There is thus in the new man likeness to God and consequently representation of God. ‘Image’ implies representation.
AEH Does the phrase, “the spirit of wisdom”, connect with that, showing that wisdom is not just a collection of ideas, but is actually a quality in the saints?
JT Yes; through it headship works out; and the Head knows that of which He is Head. It does not go the whole way in Adam. Solomon speaks of the creatures (1 Kings 4: 33); “And he spoke of the trees, from the cedar-tree that is on Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of cattle, and of fowls, and of creeping things, and of fishes”. Speaking of the creatures, as seen here, goes further than merely naming them. Thus in Solomon there is progress in qualification for headship in man. In Christ we have the full thought, and the assembly has part in this, for it has “all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge”. Christ is Head over all things to the assembly.
AEH So that the eyes of the heart enter into the matter too. Are these qualities of headship?
JT They are. The affections should be brought into the matter. The natural man is not concerned about affections in investigating the creation; with him it is just knowledge; but the christian brings the heart into it. If we are to influence the persons with whom we have to do we must know them. Christ knows the persons over whom He exercises headship.
HB Would John 1: 42 fit in in some measure? It says, “Jesus looking at him said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is stone)”.
JT Yes; that is John’s line. Matthew says, “Thou art Peter”, but John says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”.
[p. 235] That is, the quality in mind would work out in him and be manifested in time. The Lord Jesus knows, and He deals with us according to His knowledge. He knew how to deal with Peter.
SWP Has the word ‘called’ in John 1 the same force as in Genesis 2: “whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name”?
JT Adam says of one creature, “Lion”; that is its name. In Proverbs Solomon says, “The lion ... turneth not away for any”. Solomon enlarges on what Adam said, but what he says as referring to the character of the lion is the same in principle as Adam’s word.
ANW The apostle does not say the assembly should be subject to Christ, “the assembly is subjected to the Christ”, Ephesians 5: 24.
GAT Will you say a word as to where man got his intelligence in giving names to all the creatures?
JT He had no one to imitate; most of us are imitators, but Adam was not one. He was endowed by God with the intelligence he had. God knew it was there and He brought the animals and fowl to Adam to see what he would name them. This would bring out what God had placed in him, showing what wonderful intelligence he had.
GAT Would you say that the assembly acting in the light of headship today is able to name things?
JT Yes. I should like to have a judgment of every brother and sister and to value rightly what there is of God in each; all else must go. Adam did not speak of the vegetable kingdom; he named the animals and the birds. “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them”, Genesis 2: 19. He did not name the fishes. God worked in this respect in a limited way, having the creatures immediately connected with man in mind. Adam’s supremacy was worked out there. The [p. 236] sovereignty of God is thus seen. He worked on Seth’s line, and after the deluge He worked in Shem’s line, while Japheth is specially in view in the gospel through Paul. The east will have its visitation through a particular testimony presently (Revelation 14: 6, 7).
WGT The moral superiority seems to be brought to light prior to the introduction of the woman. Headship must be entirely seen in the man before the woman is brought into view.
JT He is qualified for headship before she comes into view, but when she comes she is his ‘counterpart’. Jehovah does not ask Adam to name her; God is, in effect, waiting without saying anything to see what the reaction will be in Adam’s mind as the woman appears. Adam has seen nothing like her before (verse 20). He had evidently been looking, and there was undoubtedly a void in Adam’s heart. Eve is needed to complete the man. She is not merely a ‘help’, but his complement. The assembly is Christ’s body, His fulness.
WGT Has not the preposition ‘to’ peculiar moral value: “head to the assembly”? What was in Adam’s mind as to the woman would correspond with what the assembly is to Christ in His headship.
JT Yes; the woman was Adam’s counterpart, not simply his helper. She would be joined with him as of him, “his like”. He had a mind capable of appreciating such a creature. He could distinguish the lion and such animals, but here is a being entirely different from any yet brought before him. Jehovah brought her to the man, which is most touching. He had been dealing with material things and the animals and birds, but now He is working with the human heart; He would bring in affection. Adam would see a creature like himself. God formed her while Adam was asleep, but there must be a heart matter in relation to this personage, and God knew that. He said nothing, but Adam said, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. We have no instance of a reason for the names [p. 237] of the other creatures, but Adam gives his reason for the name given this one. In the millennial day there will be a reason for everything, all will be divinely right and intelligibly so. The temple of God will be there, that in which His mind will be made known.
AEH Is there any sense in which the heart matter, the affections, enter into the naming of the other creatures? I wonder if Adam did not have them in mind as bearing the stamp of life.
JT His affections may have been active, but there is no indication of it. In fondling cats and dogs we do not express spirituality. There is, however, a link of sympathy between man and certain land animals and birds which is indicated in Nathan’s parable (2 Samuel 12).
TW God says, “Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea”, and so on, Genesis 1: 26. I was wondering if this would fit into what is before us?
JT That verse belongs to our subject. It refers to rule in which the woman had part with man. The thought of naming enters into this; I am qualified for headship as I am able to name things with which I have to do. It is seen in Adam.
WGT Does not Adam’s statement, “This time”, have great significance at this point?
JT Yes. He could have said, I call this animal a lion because of its propensities; but he did not go to that length. He just named the lion. But when the woman comes into view God does not enquire, What do you call this creature? He waits to see the reaction; He is bringing out what is in Adam. And Adam says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman” — Ishshah — which is a new word. That brings language into view; this word was not used before. God knew the intelligence of Adam, that he had power to formulate words and sentences expressing reasons for things. This incident [p. 238] brings out the power of language by which men convey thoughts.
WGT Does not verse 20 suggest that the naming of the animal kingdom was a finished matter? The helpmate was not found in that order of creature.
JT That is right. Adam must be alone if there is no creature like himself. And so God builds the woman and brings her to Man, and he is able to name her.
LES Psalm 139: 14 would bear on this: “I will praise thee, for I am fearfully, wonderfully made. Marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well”. And then David goes on to speak of his “bones” and his “unformed substance”.
JT That fits in with what we are saying; a human being is in mind. Eve had a peculiar formation, and she is standing before Adam now; what will his reaction be?
SWP There was no established precedent for this.
JT No, but what a creature Adam was! His qualities were brought out by circumstances; he says, “This time”.
ANW When he calls her name Eve he gives, another reason for doing so: “And Man called his wife’s name Eve; because she is the mother of all living”, Genesis 3: 20.
JT Just so. That comes in after sin had come into the world; but here it is his bone and his flesh. You can visualise him saying, See what I have! Adam was asleep when she was made, but he discerns her and without having seen her before he can name her, ‘Ishshah’. He is now in the social world, not among cattle, but in a world where there is one whom he can love and who can love him. In type, Christ and the assembly are before us.
AB It is remarkable that verse 21 comes in following the statement at the end of verse 20. It says there that he found no helpmate, his like, or counterpart;
[p. 239] so that in the animals there is no response to him, and now Jehovah Elohim comes in to meet his need.
JT That is right. The word ‘found’ there would mean that there was a longing in Adam’s mind, there was a void.
AB We discern in this that intelligence is developing in Adam in looking for this response.
JT Yes. All the animals are brought to him but there is no response of affection in his heart. There was no one his like.
SWP What God has in mind is that this faculty of understanding in Adam should have affinity in another.
JT Yes, Ish and Ishshah. These names refer to man and woman as exercising mutual affections, mutual regard, developing family feelings. Ish will be head of Ishshah, and also head over all things to her. Adam used such discernment in naming the woman as shows that he was progressing in intelligence. And correspondingly if we are to have part in headship we must know what we are head to.
HB Does the word ‘therefore’ in verse 24 show progress in intelligence too?
JT Yes. ‘One flesh’ involves the mystery; it is the union of the assembly with Christ. The assembly has part in the headship, being Christ’s body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all. It is of Him and so possessed of His faculties and sensibilities as Man. The assembly is thus capable of having part in His headship over all things, expressing Him in the universal position accorded to Him by the Father of glory.
WGT There is no conversation about the matter between Jehovah and Adam, but there is immediate response from the heart of God to Adam, that he should have a helpmate. God acted immediately.
JT There is no conversation between God and Adam in verse 22, but the reaction in Adam is perfect as the woman is brought [p. 240] to him.
WGT I was thinking too of Jehovah Elohim causing a deep sleep to fall upon Man; He used this method to bring into being a helpmate for him in answer to his need.
JT God is thinking of that; there is no helpmate for Adam. It was not good for him to be alone, and God said, “I will make him a helpmate”.
GAT Had the woman to be brought in before the full thought of God could be brought into view?
JT That is the point. Christ is Head over all things to the assembly. Man, including male and female, was to have dominion; they were to influence the whole earth.
CCT Is that why Adam brings in that this time it is bone of his bones, in verse 23? Does this bring out the true import of headship?
JT It brings out his qualifications for it. What intelligence he had, even in language! Later he called his wife’s name Eve, “because she is the mother of all living”. This is evidence of his intelligence, even after sin came in. The man of Decapolis in Mark 7 was deaf and could not speak right, and the deep feelings the Lord expressed as to him are most remarkable. They show the great importance of the faculties in men of seeing and hearing according to God. These faculties are essential to the great place man has in the counsels of God.
AEH As to Adam having found no helpmate, his like, I was wondering if we lay hold of the full meaning of that. Would what you are saying help us in variety in the service of God? Is there not a certain essential need as to language in answering to the revelation and full knowledge of Him, so that service to God should become fuller through the power of language?
JT I am sure that is right. I think the power of speech, expressing thought, is the most remarkable of the works of God in man; and it is essential to what we have before us. Headship requires it. Christians [p. 241] are said to have the mind of Christ, which implies that we can think as He does; and our speaking is to be with understanding (1 Corinthians 14: 19). These things characterise the assembly as Christ’s body. She is His fulness in His heavenly dominion and headship.
CHH What would be seen in distinguishing between bone and flesh?
JT “Bone of my bones”: by enlargement this would mean the framework. Look at any other creature as compared with man: there is none other comparable with the human frame. Darwinism is absolutely false; there is no such thing as development from a monkey to a man. Adam had seen the giraffe, the ape, the monkey; there was in them no “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. There was no correspondence between Adam and the other creatures. The man’s name is Ish, the woman’s Ishshah, because she was taken out of Ish.
CHH Would the flesh refer to feeling?
JT Yes, and ornamentation. In Ezekiel 37 the bones are all there; bone comes to bone, and then sinews, then flesh, skin and breath. Ornamentation enters into flesh and skin. Ish and Ishshah imply persons in mutual attractiveness, a state of relationship and being where love will prevail.
CHH Would you say, applying that to the assembly, that there is a need of stability of principles, and yet balanced with feelings of affection?
JT Yes. There are two general thoughts: ‘bone’, that is, the framework, involving dignity; and ‘flesh’, filling out that and implying ornamentation, as already said. To keep to our subject, the position in Adam and his wife here foreshadows Christ and the assembly in Ephesians 1. They have dominion over all the creatures on earth. Adam knows the names of these animals, the designations of the things he and his wife are head to. Other features would be discerned and Eve would have part in this; she had intelligence corresponding with [p. 242] that of her husband. They were not carnivorous yet, so the idea of food in Genesis 1: 29, 30 would govern them. Adam and Eve would not be inactive; they were to be in the garden in intelligence as to these creatures around them, and they would know what to do as matters needing attention arose. “Jehovah Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food”, Genesis 2: 9. All was for the comfort and pleasure of the man and his wife.
LES Referring to the word ‘Ish’, would the full result of the recovery of the truth climax itself in that? In Hosea the word is used, and in a social setting, where it is said “Thou shalt call me, My husband”, which is Ish (chapter 2: 16).
JT That is beautiful. Earlier Jehovah had rejected this claim, verse 2; now she has been allured into the wilderness and caused to sing there by Him, and Israel takes the place of wife, calling Jehovah Ish — My husband. This has its fulness in Christ and the assembly.
WGT Would headship come in too in regard to Noah? There were Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and the animal kingdom.
JT The animals came to Noah, which is very remarkable, showing that headship was there; they came to him and he would be tested as to what to do with those creatures. The ark was a figurative order of things. In all these things we are instructed that we are to have intelligence as to those over whom we have influence. ‘Ishshah’ is simply a feminine extension of Ish; she has his faculties and instincts and hence is fully capable of having part with him. The assembly corresponds with this perfectly. She is Christ’s body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.