GOD'S HOUSE AND CHRIST'S ASSEMBLY
GOD’S HOUSE AND CHRIST’S ASSEMBLY
RT Some have suggested going on with the subject we had yesterday.
FER It is a question for the brethren here, I think.
RT If you will follow up your thought with regard to the house, I think it is new to most of us here. There is some difficulty in the minds of some between God’s house as we had it yesterday and the Lord’s day morning meeting. That is, they do not see the difference between God’s house and Christ’s assembly.
FER We might take up the early part of 1 Peter.
MT Read 1 Peter 2: 1 - 10.
Ques Do you think the apostle, when he wrote this epistle, had anything on his mind in connection with Matthew 16?
FER It has been said that 1 Peter has Matthew 16 in view and 2 Peter Matthew 17 in view.
Ques But Matthew 16, as you said yesterday, is not the house of God, and this was alluded to as being the house of God.
FER It is not quite so. Peter does speak of the house of God. He says, “Judgment must begin at the house of God”, but he does not use the expression house of God in this chapter. He says, “Ye ... are built up a spiritual house” — that is the character of the house. Still, I think the thought, “Upon this rock I will build my church” — “Thou art Peter” (a stone) — seems to connect itself with what we get here, about living stones. They are not really the same, but there is a kind of connection.
LHF You said that the second epistle was connected with Matthew 17 — in what way?
FER The great point in Matthew 17 is the kingdom, and in 2 Peter the vision on the mount has a large place.
You remember he says, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty”. That refers to what is related in Matthew 17.
MT Would you say that one was the house and the other the kingdom?
FER Yes; I think so. I think 2 Peter certainly presents the kingdom in view of the failure of christianity. You see chapter 2 draws a dreadful picture of the decay of christianity, and in connection with that the presentation of the kingdom was a matter of great importance. You have the prophetic word confirmed, the kingdom in that sense is certain. There is a certain connection between these things — the thoughts of scripture hang together. I do not think you get a right impression of the passage if you do not use it in connection with the thought in previous scriptures. You see in a kind of way you cannot have Exodus apart from Genesis, and you cannot have Leviticus apart from Exodus. The truth stands in that way in its connection.
Ques It is a little different here from what we had yesterday. Yesterday we were the house of God down here. The house in Peter’s epistle seems to be things going on in the house — the house going on too?
FER The idea is a spiritual house. He says, “Judgment must begin at the house of God”. The house is here. Evidently in the mind of Peter the house of God is present.
Rem In the verses you read it speaks about “living stones” being built up, they come to Him.
FER No; I do not think that is quite the idea of it. It was their privilege. If they were built in they were built in. There is a building going on in a certain way. People are converted and brought to it, but they come to an existing thing. It is not like an unfinished building. It is a thing that exists and has a status here.
LHF Do you mean coming to Christ, you [p. 337] are built up? Are they built up into stones?
FER They form part of the house.
LHF If they reach that, there is a new start.
FER I think you come to the privilege of christianity. There are many things which christians have in common with others. There are many things we have in common with saints in the millennium — things which belong to that time do not properly constitute christianity. You may have many things not peculiar to christianity. It is extended to us, but ‘forgiveness of sins’ belongs much more literally to Israel. It is not exactly a christian blessing. It is a peculiar thing in the present day that the greater part of christians never come into christianity at all.
LHF That is a serious thing.
Ques Would you say a word or two on that part, “To whom coming”? It means a voluntary coming — you are not brought?
FER What do you say, Mr. Reynolds?
THR Well, I think firstly they come to the Lord. It seems Peter was leading them out of Judaism. First they find a new centre in the Lord — they tasted that He was gracious; then they came to Him — they were built up. They came to the Lord, there was a new structure and they were added to the Lord. Do you not think so?
FER Yes.
Ques In what way added to the Lord?
THR They had formed a community as Jews, now they come out of that. They come to know He is a living Stone. First of all they come to the Lord, as a new centre of gathering. I think you find the Lord takes that place in the gospels.
Ques And draws to Himself?
THR Then you find He is a living Stone. A new structure is built up.
M How do we come into it now — that is my point — is it the assembly or the house of God?
THR [p. 338] I think you come to the Lord.
M Come to the Lord.
FER I think, Mr. Hawkins, you will have to keep us up to the mark a bit.
JH Oh, you are doing very well.
MT Verse 5 — “Yourselves also, as living stones”?
FER The point there is not simply “living stones” but “chosen of God, and precious”. I think you have to come to this: men and God have joined issue — that which is chosen of God and precious is disallowed of men. I think that is a very crucial point, very few enter into it. What man has disallowed is chosen of God and precious. We come to the living Stone in that way. It shews you the unworldly character of christianity. You come away from all that is connected with man. He is chosen of God and precious.
Rem God is building up another structure — you could not have a better — that is the assembly. It is built up outside the old order.
FER It does not say disallowed of the Jew, but disallowed of men.
Ques It would be helpful if you would explain what you mean — that the great majority of christians do not come into christianity?
FER I do not think they do.
Ques. In what way?
FER I think the kind of christianity we see around us, which has been set up in the world, is set up on the pattern of Judaism with an element of heathenism in it. They have clergy and details of divine service (as they call it) all constructed on the pattern of Judaism and the name of Christ put on to it. I believe the mass of christians do not get beyond that.
JH It might be helpful if you would just say what christianity is?
FER What I see is this. If you take the order of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus it will help, I think. What you see in Genesis is the determined purpose of God to bless, then in order to effectuate this blessing [p. 339] you must have Exodus — redemption must come in. In Exodus the great point is redemption and the setting up of the house of God. God comes in to dwell in order to effectuate blessing. Then if God comes to dwell, that brings in the question of approach to God. You get that presented in Leviticus. That is really christianity.
Ques Are we entitled to look at ourselves in these three aspects you have spoken of just now, in relation to the kingdom, the house, and the body?
FER Well, I think christians are connected with the house. The kingdom is here, but the kingdom is not peculiar to christians. I have no doubt that the present form of christendom is peculiar, but the kingdom is not peculiar to christians.
Ques Are all christians connected with the house?
FER Oh, I think so.
Ques You say all christians are connected with the house but are all christians built into the house?
FER I think if anyone is a participator in the Holy Spirit, he is a component part of the house.
Ques What is a christian?
FER I was thinking of it in connection with what we have before us — “Chosen of God, and precious”. There are two sides. The point for me is which side I am on. What is disallowed of men — is that what I appreciate? Am I on God’s side, or man’s?
Rem Those who were really christians would be found in the company of Christ. He says, “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious”.
D The reason I asked that question was to know if all christians come to christianity?
FER No; I do not think so at all.
MT What do you mean by having come to christianity?
FER They have not come to christianity properly, but I do not say they have no part in the house.
D But yet you would say they are [p. 340] built in?
FER How do you mean, ‘built in’?
D Part of the house.
FER It was said to the Corinthians, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”
LHF Do you not think there is confusion in some of our minds about being built in, and built up?
FER I think he is speaking here of the work of God in souls.
LHF In souls. Is that how the house is formed?
FER No; I do not think that is the idea. You have to admit that all christians form part of the house — all those who have the Holy Spirit; but on the other hand I suppose a large proportion of those who have received the Holy Spirit are not built up in this sense.
Ques Do you say this chapter is connected with Matthew 14 — to whom coming?
FER I do not know what you refer to.
Ques Peter walking on the water.
FER I think it is more connected with Matthew 16. It is Peter’s confession. The Lord takes the ground of being rejected, but the One rejected is the Son of the living God.
Ques Then, is “coming” a measure of spiritual apprehension?
FER I think it is so in a certain sense. As T.H.R. said, You come to the Lord as a gathering centre. I know in system in the different churches and chapels masses of christians have no idea of Christ being rejected. I know in my time it was so; we had not any sense of Christ being rejected — not until one began to be exercised.
Ques Would you say that souls having the Holy Spirit have come?
FER No; I do not think they have come to Christ as a gathering centre. Do you think so, Mr. Reynolds?
THR No; I do not think so. It is important to see that up to a certain point the Lord was working with the [p. 341] nation as they were, but when it came to the point that they called Him Beelzebub, then there is a new departure. As the rejected One He carries on His work apart from what was going on around in the nation. At first in His miracles — when He healed the leper He sent him to the priest — in a certain way He was working in connection with Israel, and the state of things then existing; but when He began to speak in parables there was a new departure. The nation was blinded. He expounds the parables to His own. He is working on another line — there is a new departure.
FER Yes; quite so.
Ques “To whom coming” — is it anything like this — coming to the Lord?
FER I come to the rejected One — He who is our Lord.
THR No, because you see we have come into things later. People have an idea of being in a christian country, yet they are mixed up with political organisations of the country.
Rem I think that is a very important point.
Rem It is very evident in christianity that they have not come — if they had, they would have been built up.
THR It raises the question with us, How far can we say we have gone outside the camp? It is a great point, How far we surrender things here. Do we surrender position, possessions, and things in this world, so that all our interests, all our treasure is in the house of God?
MT Many have just paid their half shekel.
THR I think so, they may have got a memorial there like the half shekel — they may have built an altar to see to, to shew their connection with the land.
JD I should like to ask a question — Do you think the house of God is the sanctuary?
THR I have no doubt the sanctuary is a special aspect of the house — it is contained in the idea [p. 342] of the house of God.
FER You cannot find the sanctuary outside the house of God.
M What is the difference between Psalm 27, the temple, and what we have here?
THR I do not call it to mind.
Rem The psalm says, “One thing have I desired to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple”.
THR Yes, I suppose the temple was the inner part of the house where the mind of God was specially made known. Do you not think so?
FER Yes; I think so.
JD Is there not a connection between the sanctuary and the house?
FER You cannot have the sanctuary apart from the house.
JD If the sanctuary is in the house, what about the Lord’s day morning? I have heard it said that breaking the bread is entering into the sanctuary. If all form part of the house, are all part of the sanctuary?
FER You are speaking about Leviticus. I do not think anyone can accept the teaching of Leviticus if they do not accept Exodus.
LHF Did you say Exodus is dwelling?
FER I say if you have not got that you cannot touch Leviticus. The mass of christians at the present day have not got the thought of dwelling.
LHF Then you could not approach God in the sanctuary if you did not accept God dwelling?
FER Of course they could not. The whole system around us is set up on the pattern of Judaism. We do not know what a fearful thing christendom is. I mean measured by the truth.
Ques Approach to God — what do you mean?
FER Well, I mean what we get here: “A spiritual house, a holy priesthood”. You want priesthood for approach to God. I think there is reference to spiritual growth in apprehension. There is the apprehension of [p. 343] the Lord in that way as a living Stone disallowed of men. I think christian progress is a question of spiritual apprehension.
JD Would you say the reason there is such ignorance is because the house of God is not understood?
FER I think it is, and I would go a step further. I do not think they understand redemption, and the consequence is I do not think they can possibly know God’s dwelling.
M In what way do you think they do not understand redemption?
FER I think they do not understand the real meaning of the work of Christ.
JH Do you mean they do not understand where the work of Christ has brought them?
FER I do not think they understand that the death of Christ is the basis — the means whereby it was possible that God could dwell.
LHF Did you say yesterday that was the great object of redemption — that God might dwell?
FER I think so. From Psalm 132 we learn that the mind and purpose of God was to have a habitation — a place where He might dwell.
M If God desired to dwell it was for the purpose of blessing.
FER He would dwell with them. It was referred to last night. If the people were redeemed they were to prepare for God a sanctuary.
Ques Is that christianity proper, when you get the knowledge of God’s dwelling?
FER I think it is the first side; then there is the other side, that is approach — that is how christianity comes in. There is approach. Leviticus brings that in. Hebrews answers to Leviticus; God dwells, and we approach.
THR Would you say that one great idea of God dwelling is that He manifests Himself — that He makes known the fulness of blessing there is in Himself, and [p. 344] the people He dwells amongst having learnt what He is in Himself, He invites them to approach? His house is where He manifests Himself. His glory fills it, then He speaks out of His house and invites them to approach. In the house the great point is His glory fills it — there is manifestation by the Spirit. Then in the millennium God has His dwelling-place. Then still further in the eternal state the tabernacle of God is with men. He will dwell with them. He will be with them, sorrow shall pass away and He will wipe away all tears from their eyes.
M Does the house of God go on to the eternal state?
FER “The tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them”.
THR In the hymn we had last night — ‘Where the Lamb’s glories dwell’ — we get the thought that there is a place where God displays Himself. Where that is made known, we come in in the sense of it.
P Would you say approach is the answer to it in the way of worship? Is that where priesthood comes in? We must understand where His grace has brought us in order to worship.
FER Well, I think if it is a question of worship we must worship according to what God has appointed.
JH What is the difference between this and verse 9 — between the “holy” and the “royal” priesthood?
FER The one is inward; the other is outward.
M Do you mean by ‘inward’, Godward?
FER Yes; it says so: “That ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light”.
THR That is the people; the other is the holy priesthood. The people — Israel — were the royal priesthood.
Ques Who are we to shew this to?
FER To everybody.
JD In connection with approach to God, has the meeting-room the character of [p. 345] the house?
FER Oh no, I do not think that.
JD I said ‘character’.
FER I think we come together as a holy priesthood. I think that is the proper character in which we come together. I think the house is always here — the house does not depend on our being gathered together. We come together as a holy priesthood and the purpose is to worship God.
Ques Do I understand that God dwells in the house that we may approach Him and that the outcome of approach would be worship?
FER We have to come and the order in which we come is as consecrated priesthood.
Ques Would you explain what you mean by ‘consecrated’?
FER I think people consecrated have the apprehension of the calling of God in a way. They could not be consecrated apart from the calling of God. I think the consecrated priesthood are those who enter into the call of God. If we approach God at all we approach Him according to His calling and in virtue of His calling.
THR And apart from flesh.
FER Apart from flesh. They properly come with their hands filled.
LHF Do I understand you make a difference between priest and consecrated priest?
FER No; I do not think I did so. The consecrated priesthood refers to the company; that is Aaron and his sons. Here in Peter we have, “To whom coming, as unto a living stone”. We know Him. As we learn, as we apprehend Him as the living Stone, we become living stones. I think that is the idea — in other words Christ is Head. In our coming together in the meeting my impression is that the great bulk of the people come together, more or less, as a right thing to do — they think it is a right thing to gather. I fancy they come pretty much in the same way that people go to church or chapel, only that we do not go to church or chapel. I [p. 346] do not think the underlying thought in the minds of many is very different to that.
Ques Do you understand those coming from Judaism come to Him as the living Stone?
FER I do not think they had the apprehension of Him as the living Stone. I think the great idea of coming together is that in a certain sense we really leave the world for the moment and come into the seclusion of the sanctuary.
LHF Do you make a difference between the holiest and the sanctuary?
FER Well, the holiest is the sanctuary to us.
LHF I suppose “minister of the sanctuary” in Hebrews should be minister of the holy places.
FER I think the thought of many people is to dress in their best and go to the meeting.
P One thing — we may come to carry out the request of the Lord: “Remember me”, and thus enter into the thought of priesthood.
FER I think people come together to a large extent to meet one another. I think a great point is coming to meet the Lord. To leave everything connected with the wilderness, and the wilderness path, and to come to meet the Lord. But then I think everything ought to be in connection with the Lord.
Ques It is not a question of what we appear before one another?
FER It is that we might be in accord with His mind.
JH Do you mean Hebrews 2: 12, “In the midst ... will I sing praise”?
FER Yes; I think so. I think we ought to be in accord with that. That is the condition of meeting the Lord. My mind is in complete accord with what is set forth in the Supper.
Ques How do you get into the seclusion of the sanctuary?
FER Well, I think it is to be in accord with the death [p. 347] of Christ.
LHF What do you mean by our mind being in accord with the death of Christ?
FER What is set forth in the bread and wine. Your mind is in accord with it.
THR The blood was put on the ear, the hand and the great toe of the priest — he was in accord. I think that is the first great thought in connection with the consecrated company. The second is you are in the apprehension of His preciousness. You may soon find out if a person is in the presence of Christ, whether it is merely a doctrine with him or if the soul is really in the presence of Christ.
Rem The breaking of bread may be a form.
FER It may. Or it may be a sacrament.
Ques What do you mean by a sacrament?
FER Well, I think it is taken up by people to be in accord with the death of Christ as a sort of pledge.
M As a means of grace.
Ques Do you think such a thought would find room in the assembly?
FER Well, I think it is so with nine people out of ten.
Rem I think you will find people occupied with Matthew 18: 20. It does not say anything about the assembly.
Ques Is it not the assembly?
JH What is the thought in that?
FER Oh, I think it is that Christ will come wherever He can. If you have two or three gathered together He will come. Perhaps I ought not to use the word, but He will come where He is welcome.
JH Would that be to a reading or prayer meeting?
FER I think He will come wherever He can. Wherever possible. I think you must look at it as a moral thing, gathered to His name.
LHF Do you mean gathered to His name is moral?
FER Yes, I think so. “If ye shall ask anything in my name”. I think the idea is moral.
Ques Does not the name involve [p. 348] the Person?
FER I think it does.
Ques Is it that there must be certain qualities in persons?
FER I think it has no meaning unless gathered to His name. It is a tremendous thing to be gathered to His name.
Rem His name includes all that He is — and excludes all else.
Ques Is it “unto my name” on Lord’s day morning, or all through the week?
FER I think it is specially where gathered to His name. It is not the week through. I think it is gathered to His name.
Rem It is the assembly.
FER I do not think that is the assembly.
Ques I should like to ask, When the present dispensation is closed and we go to meet the Lord in the air, will Matthew 18: 20 be made good for those who come on the scene afterwards?
FER I cannot tell you at all.
Ques When did Matthew 18: 20 begin to be made good?
FER I think it was made good to the assembly. The Lord says, “Tell it to the assembly”. Then He says, “If two of you shall agree on earth” and, “For where two or three are gathered ... there am I”.
Ques There might be two or three of the assembly gathered?
FER Oh, I think we must take the passage simply.
Ques When you speak of leaving the world, is it only on that day we do it?
FER I do not think we could come to the assembly except thus.
Rem We leave our things and turn to God’s things — that is the great idea of the assembly.
Ques Can you not do that without being gathered?
FER No; I do not think so. I do not think people touch eternal life apart from the assembly.