RECONCILIATION
RECONCILIATION
FER What was your point in reading this scripture?
Rem I thought we might look at reconciliation and what it leads on to. It would be helpful to say a word as to the difference between justification and reconciliation; both are spoken of in Romans 5.
FER There is a good deal of difference in the two. Things are said to be reconciled, which do not need to be justified. Reconciliation applies to a good deal to which justification hardly applies.
Ques What things are to be reconciled?
FER Thrones, dominions, principalities, etc.
Rem But persons are reconciled also.
FER Reconciliation takes in the whole universe — everything that has been affected by sin needs to be reconciled. “Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven”.
Ques Are the things mentioned in verse 20 the same as in verse 16?
FER I should think so. It says, “all things” in both. In verse 16 all things were created by Him, and for Him. In verse 20 He takes up all these things created for Him on the ground of reconciliation.
Rem It is a sort of double title to Headship. All are to be reconciled by Him, and in that sense it amplifies the title of Christ.
Ques What is the difference in the effect on the soul between justification and reconciliation?
FER Justification is on my side, reconciliation is on God’s side.
[p. 198] Ques What do you mean by reconciliation being on God’s side; is it to make me suitable to God?
FER Yes, the moment you touch it you touch what is for God. Justification clears me. A man must have forgiveness, but forgiveness is on my side, reconciliation is for God. All things are to be reconciled for God, for Himself. In reconciliation you really reach the other side — what is for God.
Ques In what sense do things need to be reconciled?
FER For God. That they may be suitable for God to have His pleasure in them. All have to be taken up in Christ. Christ takes up every throne, dominion, and principality and power for the pleasure of God.
Ques I suppose government in the world is altogether dissociated from righteousness?
FER Yes; but judgment will return to righteousness.
Ques Are the things spoken of things moral or material?
FER Moral in a sense, or moral ideas are connected with them.
Rem In the type (Leviticus 16) we see Aaron reconciled all the vessels for service.
FER The blood was carried into the holiest, and then the high priest came out to reconcile.
Rem Reconciliation was made because sin was there, that God may have pleasure in them.
FER Yes; everything has through sin become alienated from God. Alienated from the state in which God had His pleasure in it when He created it.
Ques Is tasting death for everything co-extensive with the atonement?
FER I think so. Aaron carried the blood into the holiest to make an atonement first for himself and his house, and afterwards for the people, then for the holy places, etc.
[p. 199] Rem It is interesting to see in the New Testament that only Paul touches that line. He always begins with God. For instance, “God sent forth his Son”, “God commendeth his love toward us”, “He hath made him to be sin for us”. Paul takes that line very much. Peter does not, but takes our side. He says, “Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree”. Paul brings God out every way. In the day of atonement we get reconciliation, and that in view of the eternal state.
FER Yes, and that is of great importance.
Ques Then, is the idea that everywhere where the creature has been, there Christ has to be?
FER I think so.
Ques Why does it take in things in heaven?
FER Because everything is taken up in Christ.
Ques Would you say everything has been defiled by the sin which came in in Adam and had to be reconciled through Christ?
FER You must go further back than Adam, for sin has affected things in heaven as well as things on earth. It is said, “By one man sin entered into the world”; but the devil sinned from the outset.
Ques In what sense can we think of the angelic beings, or things connected with angels, and thrones, and principalities, etc., in what sense can we conceive of these being reconciled?
FER I cannot say much about it. They come in subordinately to Christ. For instance, in Hebrews 12 you get mount Zion, and then every part of that system of things which is connected with mount Zion, and among them myriads of angels.
Rem It says the heavens are not clean in His sight, and even the angels He charges with folly.
FER The word says we are to judge angels.
Rem Then He gathers together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even [p. 200] in Him.
FER God never divorces heaven from earth. It is Satan who seeks to do so. It is the special effort of Antichrist. From beginning to end in Scripture you get the connection of heaven and earth, and in the Revelation John says, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth”. In Genesis God begins with the sphere of the heavens and the earth.
Rem Seeing that sin has affected both, it is clear reconciliation must be for both.
FER I think so. The break-out of evil has affected the universe. Man does not understand it, but the whole is compromised. Angels fell as well as men, but man only is redeemed.
Rem After all, angels come in under man — superior beings, but they come in under man.
FER Hebrews 2 is conclusive as to that.
Rem John 1 shews us angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The moment the Son was here He was the object of angelic hosts.
FER Angels have to take their place as attendant on the heavenly city in connection with the system of grace.
Rem In Hosea 2 it says, “And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth”.
FER Yes, and the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil. Reconciliation will be complete in the millennium.
Ques What is the difference between reconciliation as in Romans and as in Colossians?
FER I see no difference between the two. Reconciliation is alluded to in Romans in connection with the change of Headship; it is more fully presented in Colossians. In Romans it merely says, “By whom we have received the reconciliation”. It is simply a statement of a fact, but the apostle does not enlarge on it there.
Ques Why is it by the blood of His cross in regard [p. 201] to things, and in the body of His flesh through death as applied to believers?
FER The first is an allusion to the day of atonement. “Having made peace by the blood of his cross”. The blood is carried into the holiest in witness of the removal of all that disturbed. Hence it comes out in Hebrews 9: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”. By His own blood He has entered once into heaven. The blood has been carried in as witness, and then the High Priest comes forth to bring reconciliation into effect.
Ques Then there would be a difference between reconciliation of things and of persons — what is that difference?
FER The reconciliation of things is remarkably simple. Everything is taken up in Christ. The reconciliation of persons refers to individuals and has to be individually accepted. “Through whom now we have received the reconciliation”. In Corinthians it is, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God”. Reconciliation has to be accepted when it is a question of persons, therefore there was the ministry of reconciliation.
Ques Is there any thought of the enmity being brought to an end in reconciliation?
FER The enmity is only brought in to show that the one marked by it must go. You cannot improve with reference to enmity. You cannot reconcile what is at enmity. It is the purest folly to think of reconciling what is hostile.
Ques Then the way in which we are reconciled before God is the way we have to take through death?
FER Yes; “You, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”. That in which was the enmity has gone in [p. 202] death, you have to accept this; now it is the “word of reconciliation”.
Rem You must distinguish between the enmity and the person who had the enmity.
FER Yes.
Ques In the millennium there will still be persons unreconciled?
FER Everything is taken up then under the eye of God in Christ. Reconciliation raises the question of how things are presented under the eye of God.
Rem Reconciliation is by death, but in Christ.
FER Yes; what was at enmity is ended in Christ. All is made suitable to God, and that can be only in Christ.
Ques It says, “When we were enemies, we were reconciled”.
FER Yes; but it was by learning that what was at enmity had been removed by the death of Christ. That is the way of it. I do not think the apostle refers to a change of feeling on the part of people, but to acceptance of the truth that what was at enmity has been removed. They had received the word of reconciliation — “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”. They had accepted that as their death. This is the truth on God’s side — on the experimental side it is somewhat different.
Ques I thought we had to distinguish between reconciliation on God’s side and the reconciliation of Christians in regard to responsibility?
FER Responsibility hardly comes in in connection with reconciliation. Justification is connected with responsibility. I am helped by recollecting that justification is on our side and reconciliation is on God’s side. Justification is for man, reconciliation is what is effected for God. God was in Christ carrying this out for His [p. 203] own satisfaction.
Ques Is propitiation for God, and the basis of reconciliation?
FER That is connected more with man’s responsibility. It is for sins.
Ques Is reconciliation for bringing to pass the purpose of God?
FER Yes; God’s purpose of reconciliation is outside the question of man’s responsibility.
Ques Is it for bringing God’s purpose into effect in connection with the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man”?
FER Yes, based on the atonement, on the putting away of sin. “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”.
Ques Would you say the blood is the witness that reconciliation has been effected for God?
FER I would say rather that blood is the witness of peace, that peace is made by the blood of the cross.
Ques Is there any difference between the ordinary use of the term reconciliation, and the scriptural use of it?
FER You must find out from Scripture what is the force of the word. It is one of the terms the force of which you must find from its use in Scripture. The dictionary would not give you the scriptural use of it.
Rem In the ordinary use of the word the sense is that two persons estranged have been brought together.
FER That is not the Scripture idea. It is not minds that are reconciled.
Rem “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”.
FER But how was God reconciling the world unto Himself? There was no enmity on the part of God towards the world; and certainly the mission of [p. 204] Christ was not to make people more pleasant. Yet in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.
Rem I thought it came out in the Lord’s ministry of grace here on earth.
FER Then you will be bound to admit this, that His ministry was ineffective.
Rem I know the world was not reconciled, but I thought that that ministry began with the Lord, and was afterwards committed to the disciples.
FER I do not think it is exactly that. The apostles came out with the word of reconciliation which altered the whole position of things.
Ques You distinguish between the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation?
FER Yes; the ministry of reconciliation began with Christ Himself, and meant that in the presence of Christ here everything was under the eye of God on a wholly new footing in connection with Him. That was the effect of the presence of Christ.
Ques Was that before His death?
FER Yes, it was a foretaste of what is yet to come. In the presence of Christ God was not dealing with man on the ground of law or prophets, everything was on an entirely new footing.
Ques What was the new footing?
FER Grace and favour. God was in a new light toward man. He saw what was perfectly suitable to Himself on earth in Christ.
Ques Did that take place when the Lord was born into this world?
FER Yes; but there was a presentation in connection with His being here of what was perfectly agreeable to God. It was as though God was as favourable to man as possible.
Ques Has not the song “Good pleasure in men” that signification?
FER Yes, and Christ’s presence formed [p. 205] the crucial test so long as He was here. The eye of God rested on Him. It was a ministry of reconciliation. Supposing that not one single person on the face of the earth had been affected by the ministry, yet it would not for a moment have altered the fact. I do not think the fact depends upon persons being affected by it. The fact remained whether people were affected or not.
Rem It was not the presence of Christ here that was to put the world to rights.
FER No; He presented Himself to man entirely independent of man in that which was perfectly agreeable in the eye of God. That is the wonderful thing.
Ques But death was necessary for the effect?
FER Yes, of course; it all had His death in view, but it was so far independent of results.
Ques What is the difference between the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation?
FER The ministry of reconciliation was effected in Christ in His life. God approached the world outside of it. He was favourable to the world, in Christ, not hostile; but when you come to the word of reconciliation it is the testimony that reconciliation has been effected in death. It is not now simply that God has approached the world in another Man, in Christ being here, but the man hostile to God has been removed. So you have both things now, God’s approach to man, and the man antagonistic to God removed in death. That is what I understand by the word of reconciliation, and we have to accept it.
Rem I fear but very few know anything about it.
FER Do you believe the bulk of Christians could give you any idea of what the new covenant is?
Rem I fear they could not.
Ques Have we both the word and the ministry [p. 206] of reconciliation?
FER I think so. The disciples and others accepted the attitude of God.
Ques In receiving forgiveness of sins?
FER Yes. Take the case of the woman who was a sinner; Luke 7.
Ques Do you say that God reconciling the world unto Himself includes the death of Christ?
FER No. I don’t think so, though it led up to it. It is beautiful to see that God had a way of approaching man entirely independent of man, and yet entirely favourable towards man, in spite of his state, because He was approaching men in a man entirely agreeable to Himself.
Ques Though the attitude of God in the presentation of Himself in Christ effected nothing, did not that bring judgment on the world, as the Lord says in John, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin”, and further He says, “Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father”. Had not this brought out the enmity?
FER Yes, it had that effect.
Ques What is the effect of reconciliation?
FER The effect is very profound; it changes a man’s thoughts entirely. I do not suppose that many of us here this afternoon are in it. The profound effect it produces is this: you are here for God’s pleasure, and not for your own. It changes everything. If I am only in the good of justification I may be here, cleared of sin, but still in a way for myself; but when reconciliation is understood it is no longer a question of what I like. “I have nothing to seek nor to choose”. I am wholly and entirely for God’s pleasure and satisfaction.
Ques Do we not grow in the apprehension [p. 207] of that?
FER Yes; but the point is first to accept it.
Rem One effect of it would be, we could be with God to take in and enjoy what is God’s good pleasure.
FER What pleasure or joy in God could there be without it? People joy in other things. When a person changes his residence for the bettering of himself, it does not indicate to me that he is here for the pleasure of God. If it were so, it would be immaterial to me whether I live in the worst place or the best.
Ques Do you not think that the full effect of reconciliation in the eternal state will be that everything is brought into the blessedness of God Himself?
FER Yes, and God will be reflected in everything.
Rem Nothing will be in the slightest dissonance with Himself.
Ques When the apostle says, “Be ye reconciled to God”, had they touched it?
FER I do not think the Corinthians had touched it.
Ques Then the Romans would be an advance on them in that way, for to them he says, “Through whom now we have received the reconciliation”. Where does the receiving of the reconciliation in the case of the prodigal come in?
FER When he accepted the father’s embrace he was conscious that the father was favourable.
Ques Where does the best robe come in?
FER That goes further than reconciliation. It really is new creation, Christ formed in the Christian.
Ques Then reconciliation goes on to new creation?
FER Reconciliation could not be complete without it. In fact it involves new creation.
Ques Were they effected historically in the prodigal at the same time? Do they go together?
FER You cannot get things clearly in a parable. No parable goes on all fours.
[p. 208] Ques What does the best robe indicate?
FER The embrace presents the father’s side, and the best robe the prodigal’s side. You see that though the prodigal might be perfectly suitable for the father’s eye, he needed the best robe to enjoy what was the father’s pleasure.
Ques What is the basis of the reconciliation spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5?
FER The removal of sin is the basis. It carries you back to the day of atonement.
Ques “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. That would be reconciliation?
FER Yes. Christ has appeared “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”. That is the basis.
Ques No one could have accepted it apart from that?
FER No, it would not have been possible apart from that. The removal of sin judicially was necessary to carry out reconciliation.
Rem He has reconciled us in the body of His flesh through death.
FER That is how it is effected subjectively for us.
Ques Is reconciliation for a Christian or for a sinner?
FER I do not think a sinner as such is conscious of wanting reconciliation, but forgiveness; he wants justification.
Ques Would you preach the ministry of reconciliation to sinners?
FER It would not be much good to them. What is announced to sinners is forgiveness of sins. “That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name”.
Ques Where is the ministry of reconciliation to [p. 209] be exercised?
FER I think very much amongst those who believe.
Rem When we preach the gospel we preach to many of the converted, and in that way we could preach reconciliation.
Ques But do they need to be reconciled?
FER I think so, if they are to be for the satisfaction of God. To be to His satisfaction, they must not only be justified, but reconciled. It is all a question of where you are going to stop.
Rem If reconciled, one would be entirely for God’s pleasure.
FER Yes, and it is important to see that it is in another man that holiness comes in. It is the new man that is created after God in righteousness and holiness of truth.
Rem Holiness is for God’s pleasure.
FER Yes, that you may be according to Himself; but you cannot touch holiness apart from love, it is by being in the presence of holy love, and the subject of holy love, that holiness is promoted in us. “That we should be holy and without blame before him in love”.
Ques Then reconciliation is with a view to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight?
FER Do you think a man, an enemy to God by wicked works, could ever be changed into unblameable and unreproveable in His sight? It could not be. That person could be, but not that man.
Ques What are the ministries?
FER The ministry of the gospel, the ministry of the new covenant, the ministry of reconciliation, and the ministry of the mystery.
Ques Why do we get the ministry of the gospel, and the ministry of the mystery here?
FER One takes in the new covenant ministry, and the other is connected with the ministry of [p. 210] reconciliation — the new covenant ministry is all on the line of what God is towards you.
Rem The ministry in 2 Corinthians is the highest form of the gospel ministry.
Ques How is reconciliation connected with the body?
FER Because when you come to what is for God you necessarily come to new creation. You cannot stop short of this when you come to what is for God, and really enjoy Christ. Then it is, “If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new: and all things are of the God ..”. Then you come to the scene of God’s purpose in what is in Christ. You come to the truth of the body, for Christ is not fully expressed in any one saint.
Rem New covenant ministry is more in connection with the kingdom, but reconciliation carries you to the purpose of God.
FER Yes, and you come into the light of the body.
Rem New covenant ministry is more in connection with righteousness, reconciliation more with holiness. Reconciliation takes you into the holiest.
Rem We could not enter into the holiest without reconciliation.
FER No; you are not suitable else. But when you come to that line of things, into the truth of association with Christ, the point is, you cease to be simply an individual, you become one of a company. I do not believe you really reach the idea of the body until you reach the Head, except as a dogma.
Ques Do you come to that through the ministry of reconciliation?
FER Yes, reconciliation is connected with the body.
Ques. How so?
FER If you are associated with [p. 211] Christ you are in Christ, you are of His order. But then of necessity He is the Head of that order. The moment you come to the expression “in Christ” you come to another side of things; you could not be said to be created in “the Lord”, but “in Christ”, the Head. You are now created in Christ, you apprehend Him in a new state, and this brings in the body.
Ques Then reconciliation is connected with headship here?
FER Yes.
Rem Say a word on “If ye continue in the faith ... and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel”.
FER It is brought in on account of the apostle writing to a company, every member of which he could not know; their responsibility was maintained.
Rem There was danger of their slipping away.
FER Yes, quite so.
Ques Is sanctification at all in line with reconciliation?
FER Hardly, I think. Sanctification comes in from the very outset. It is on the line of God’s sovereignty. It is scarcely the idea of reconciliation.
Ques Is “the new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us”, in connection with reconciliation?
FER Yes, and it is the sanctified company who go in by that way. That is the effect of reconciliation. In chapter 9 you get reconciliation established, and the effect of it comes out in chapter 10. There you have the sanctified company with boldness to enter.
Ques When it is forgiveness, it is the death of Christ, but when reconciliation it is by the death of His Son. Why?
FER Because reconciliation brings in the full light of divine purpose. God sent His Son. It brings you into the full light of God.
Ques Would you say that in reconciliation all moral distance is [p. 212] removed?
FER Distance was removed in the death of Christ, but in reconciliation there is more than that, you are entirely according to God. You are in the presence of the fulness of God, conscious of His perfect complacency in you, you are before Him, according to Him.
Rem All moral distance must be removed for that?
FER Yes, but reconciliation tells you it has been removed; and you are conscious of being before God in love — suitable to His eye. It is made good to you when you have accepted His love and are formed in it. All our difficulty about reconciliation is because we are so little acquainted with the love of God. It would be very simple to us if we were.
Rem It would be a sort of natural conclusion.
FER Yes, exactly so.
Ques Was not all that set forth in Christ, the good pleasure of God in Him?
FER He was the beginning of it, “Who is the beginning”.
Ques Is the sanctified company and the reconciled company the same?
FER Yes; but sanctified brings in another idea. Sanctification is on the line of the sovereignty of God’s will, which has set you apart for Himself, according to Hebrews 10.
Ques What brings us into the effect of reconciliation?
FER I do not think anything will but acquaintance with the love of God. You are drawn into it in that way.
Ques Would you say once more what is the scriptural thought of reconciliation?
FER I think the idea of the term is the bringing things into conscious complacency with the divine mind [p. 213] and pleasure.
Ques Would you say suitability gives the thought?
FER It is more than that. It is God’s complacency; that God may have satisfaction in all. You must bring Christ in for this.
Ques While it is the present state necessarily, will it not go on to the millennium?
FER Yes. The eternal state is necessary for its full display because the eternal state brings you to the full blessedness of God. It is then not merely rule and government, but God all in all.
Rem Take eternal life: you do not like to connect that idea with God. To my mind it does not reach up to the blessedness of God. It is something that belongs to God, only we are brought into it, and that must be eternal.
Ques You would say the new man would not be satisfied with the millennium?
Rem No. Everything must be brought into the blessedness of God Himself. There is the necessity of love which brings into its own blessedness.
FER “We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth”.
Ques I was thinking this morning, in reference to the Jew being satisfied in the millennium, will not he too look forward to the eternal state?
FER I think so. The blessings of the kingdom and all the happiness that pertains to it would be incomplete without that; for the full expanse of blessing, you must have the eternal state when “the tabernacle of God is with men”.
Ques Who are the “men”? Are they those living on the earth?
Rem I thought so.
Ques Will not the church too have to wait through the millennium for full blessedness?
Rem No. J.B.S. used to say their blessedness was complete because they were with Christ, that the New Jerusalem is not a new thing but a new scene.
[p. 214] Ques Is not the eternal state what God is?
Rem God is, and He exists in blessedness. That is the eternal state as we speak. We connect it with the eternal life, and we connect a thought of time with the eternal state, but it is God is — that is eternal, when we speak of eternal it is difficult to eliminate time from our thoughts.
FER It is impossible to do so, it is due to the limitation of our minds. It is an impossibility for a finite mind to grasp the idea of eternity.
Ques “God to be all in all”, is that the effect of reconciliation?
FER Yes; I think so. Reconciliation has done its work; it has been effected then.
Rem In the day of atonement we get reconciliation, also the putting away of sins on that day, so that both come in there. “It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment”. That is government, and government is satisfied every way in righteousness by the putting away of sins, and that enables man to be brought into holiness.
Ques Then reconciliation is for God’s good pleasure?
FER Yes; justification is on man’s side, reconciliation on God’s side.
Rem A person receiving the reconciliation and approaching God thinks of what God is.
FER Then he has the consciousness of being according to God, he is before Him holy and without blame, not conscious of unsuitability, he has the best robe on.
Rem I think our Lord’s day morning meetings would be of a different character if we understood the meaning of reconciliation.
FER We should know that we were not only a justified company, but a reconciled company. The bulk of people are as to their sense of things a company of believers justified.
[p. 215] Ques How is that state to be promoted?
FER We have to begin with ourselves.
Ques We might ask ourselves one simple question, Do I know the love of God?
FER It is no use seeking what to do with others, and thinking how we are going to affect others. I have asked myself, supposing it were possible that I could affect others, how should I like to affect them?
Rem You can only do that, I suppose, as you are affected yourself.
FER No; but supposing it were possible to affect others — I know one cannot affect others — but supposing one could, how would I like them to be affected?
Rem But you may influence another.
FER It is only God who affects you for good. He does all the work Himself; but supposing I could affect you, how should I like to affect you?
Ques Well, what is the answer?
FER It makes me seriously question what my object would be; I ought to be wishing everybody to be like myself; and I do not know that I am prepared for that.
Ques Is that what Paul meant when he said, “Brethren, be followers together of me”?
FER I do not think I am prepared to say that.
Ques “Present every man perfect in Christ Jesus”, is that the effect of ministry?
FER That is a question of intelligence. “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus”. That is full-grown in point of intelligence.
Ques You look that from the scriptures ministered, souls may be led into God’[p. 216] s things.
FER I have not any confidence in anything effected by man.
Ques Would not God affect them through your ministry?
FER It is a great thing to bring before people what is the divine mind, to enlighten them, that they may know the mind of God. Then the next thing to come to pass is the subjective effect. We are to be exercised by what we hear, and if we are, then through that God will work; but He will do the work Himself. I might shew you how you ought to be affected, but it is only God who can affect you.
Ques Why does the apostle put “warning every man” first in the passage you quoted?
FER Because you can do that; a wise man can warn against snares and such like.
Ques What is the bearing of the expression the apostle uses in 1 Corinthians 4: 15: “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel”?
FER I think they were all accounted his children in that way. They were converted through him. All whose eyes were opened through him he looked at as his children.
Ques Do you not in saying “through him” admit the point contended for?
FER No; for although they were converted through him, and so begotten by his gospel, he was used only to enlighten them.
Ques So that when you said yesterday the Lord alone can teach you, that is what you mean?
FER Yes. For my part, I think it is too serious a responsibility to affect one another. I could not bear the responsibility. It would be too much man’s work.
Ques “He worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do” — what [p. 217] of that?
FER I think that was in the way of testimony, we may learn a great deal from one another. We may get intelligence of the mind of God, but that is not a work wrought in you. It is a great thing to get this, but intelligence in the mind of God must lead to exercise on your part, or nothing is wrought in you. Through the exercise God works in you.
Ques Do you make any difference between the apostles and ministers in the present day in this respect?
FER The apostle did not, as it appears to me, accept the responsibility as to the work in the soul. He looks at what had taken place in the saints as God’s work from beginning to end.
Rem For instance, at Corinth the Lord says, “I have much people in this place”.
FER The point with the apostle was to bring these to light.
Ques Then you think that the only way in which we can influence one another is to bring light to the conscience to lead them to exercise?
FER Yes.
Rem The apostle says, “That they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God”.
Ques Has the evangelist any more power to open people’s eyes than he has to turn them from darkness to light?
FER Yes, he has power to open people’s eyes, he can enlighten them. Suppose I have been grossly deceived all my life by somebody, and you know that somebody perfectly, and expose him to me, you would open my eyes, and you would in all probability produce a profound impression on me.
Rem It is a very common expression, a person says, “You have opened my eyes”.
FER Yes. The devil had grossly deceived the Gentiles, and the apostle was sent to enlighten them,
[p. 218] to undeceive them. Then they turned to God, for they saw that they had been deluded by Satan; when the light was brought to them they could see what God was, and they turned to Him.
Ques Does to open the eyes involve a work of God?
FER No person would appreciate the light which you bring, except there was a previous work of God in him. New birth is the previous work of God.
Rem You must have the honest and good ground. It is only there the seed springs up and brings forth fruit. The ground must be divinely prepared.
Rem A person must have been born again to accept the truth.
Rem Just as with the men of Samaria, they say, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have heard him ourselves”.
FER Yes, she simply drew attention to Christ.
Ques Would you preach only to those born again?
Rem I said no one could accept the truth without being born again.
Ques Have you not seen people very much unconverted brought under the sound of the gospel, and then converted?
Rem But God did it.
Rem I know it is all God’s work, and I would like to speak to five hundred people desperately unconverted, and if any of them were converted, I know it would be all His work from first to last.
Rem And the hand of the Lord be with you.
Rem Yes, or nothing would be done.
Rem “A man can receive nothing unless it be given him out of heaven”.
FER The point is of vital importance. If you take B.’s company of five hundred, and suppose four hundred and ninety-nine converted, in these there would have been a previous work of God independent of B.
[p. 219] Rem If four hundred and ninety-nine of that company were converted, all of them would owe that to God’s work and not yours.
Rem Every shred of it, but the Lord might use the word which falls from His servant’s lips. While one is preaching God may work.
FER But while He uses you to enlighten He works independently of you. If they are going to receive your testimony He must have wrought a work in them before. It is not your preaching that does that work. The point is whether the beginning is God’s work or man’s work. It may have taken place only a few seconds previously, but it is not man’s work but God’s work, and that is vitally important.