relative terms.  The one cannot exist or function without the other.  This we

all recognize must be true of the members, but is it not also necessarily true

of the Head?  Christ, as Head, needs the complement of His Body, just as surely

as the Church His Body needs the complement of the Head.  In the words `the

fulness of Him that filleth all in all' the words thus translated to pleroma tou

`the fulness of Him' are cast in the form known as `the genitive of relation'.

Words ending in ma often have a passive significance.  Chrysostom, in his

commentary says:

`The fulness of the head is the body, and the fulness of the body is the

head ... that is just as the head is filled (or fulfilled) by the body'.

Beza says something very similar:

`However complete He is in Himself, yet as Head He is not complete without

His Body.

Pleromenou "that filleth" is not passive but middle ... to fill up or

complete for Himself'.

The very fact that God has a goal, and is moving toward that goal, implies

that this relationship of the redeemed with the Redeemer is essential to the

glorious achievement of the ages.  God is moving from the status of God Who is

Creator, to God Who is the Father, and the title Father is itself relative; it

necessitates a family.  While therefore the redeemed are nothing in themselves,

they are precious by reason of His gracious purpose, and their place through

grace in it. *

* For an extended exposition of this subject the reader is referred to the

article entitled The Pleroma in An Alphabetical Analysis Part 3,which has a

specially desiged chart to illustrate the exposition.