SANCTIFICATION
SANCTIFICATION
FER I think we get two parts in this epistle. The second part begins at chapter 8. The end of chapter 7 introduces a change of law; there is a disannulling of the commandment going before. In chapter 7 we get a change of law; chapter 8 brings in the new covenant.
In chapter 9 we get purgation of sins; in chapter 10 we have sanctification.
Ques Is it connected with Colossians?
FER I think so. You are risen with Him and quickened with Him. It is stated in that way in Colossians. I think Hebrews presents a little more difficulty to us than it would to a Jew. There is a continual contrast presented which a Jew could understand better than we can. The whole epistle is based on what is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament figures are continually taken up. Purgation, for instance, you find that in the Old Testament; in the same way sanctification also, and the new covenant, and so on. I believe the truth is presented in this way in Hebrews in order to suit the Jewish mind.
Rem In contrast to all the Jewish mind was accustomed to.
FER Yes; you get the antitype in a certain way but continually in detail things are presented in contrast. In chapter 10 you are brought back to where you started from. The first two chapters lay the foundation. Chapter 10 brings you back to where you started from in chapter 2.
M “He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one”. What is that?
FER In chapter 2 you have the sanctifier, in chapter 10 you have the sanctified. I think you have to take things up in this chapter in that way, you take the new [p. 350] covenant, and then purgation, and then you get sanctification. I mean in experience that is the line on which you enter into things.
LHF How does the new covenant stand in relation to the priest? In the new covenant have we the terms on which God can meet us?
FER Yes; I think so. I think that is for our instruction. We could not be priests without the introduction of the new covenant.
LHF And then the new covenant involves response and priesthood — the many sons.
FER But you could not do without the new covenant, it is part of the education.
JD Is it present or future?
FER Oh, present. I do not think any of us could advance further if not instructed in the new covenant. If we do not apprehend what the mind of God is towards us down here, I do not think we can go further.
LHF Would you say the covenant was with Israel and Judah but that we come under the blessings of it?
FER Well, you must be under some kind of covenant. You must be on some kind of terms with God. It is brought in in chapter 8 to shew that the old covenant is completely abrogated. That is the great thought. The system and order of things connected with the old order of things is virtually gone in the light of the new covenant.
MT Would you say it was the link between the old dispensation and the new?
F.E.R. The covenant?
MT Yes.
FER No; I do not think that is the idea of the new covenant.
MT How do we get into the blessings of it?
FER It comes to us not in the letter but in the spirit. It is certain if God has met us in Christ, and we are justified, He must be on some terms with us.
LHF Does that come out in 2 Corinthians 3: “Not of the letter, but of the spirit”?
FER Yes; and in Romans too you have the spirit of the new covenant.
LHF In connection with the gospel?
JD Is it remission of sins?
FER I think that is conveyed by it, but it goes beyond that. It is the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness. The fact is this; it is entirely impossible to conceive of a person being forgiven and no more. It is a kind of impossible conception. It could not be. Suppose a person forgiven — there must be more.
LHF And the something more is what?
FER The something more is the teaching of the new covenant.
LHF The knowledge of God by the Spirit?
FER Well, I think it is divine teaching; but you see you get the gift of the Holy Spirit. What would be the value of the Holy Spirit if not for divine teaching? You want the Holy Spirit for divine teaching. I think it is to make known to us what is God’s disposition towards us. Everything hangs on that, you know.
Ques The new covenant does not depend on man’s responsibility?
FER No, I do not think so. You might get a creditor, he might remit a debt, but there still remains the question, What is his disposition towards the debtor?
LHF Is the question of forgiveness of sins on the line of responsibility?
FER Well, I do not think it is exactly forgiveness of sins in the new covenant. I think forgiveness of sins precedes the new covenant. God will have no more to say to sin. It is righteousness in that way. He assures us He will have nothing more to say to sin. They will not come into God’s mind any more.
Rem That has been closed — it is a question of non-imputation.
FER Yes.
JD The “cup of the new testament in my blood”?
FER There you get a more advanced view. You get what God has set forth in the death of Christ. I think that is divine teaching — that is the great idea of the new covenant. We are led by the Spirit of God into the love of God. Everything for us hangs on the love of God. Everything that has been obtained for us, all that we anticipate, all that we hope for, hangs on the love of God; and it is this love which is made known to us in the new covenant. In principle the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us.
MT Would you say forgiveness of sins entirely precedes the new covenant?
RT Is the new covenant with a people who are forgiven?
FER The new covenant is the revelation of God’s mind to His people.
RT Just as the old covenant was to Israel.
Rem It is His mind towards us.
FER Yes; you find in a will a man’s disposition is made known. He disposes of his property but he also makes known in a kind of way his disposition towards those who are to inherit it. The process of a covenant is this that the covenant is valid on the death of the Testator. The death of the Testator has come and now the new covenant is valid.
JD You said forgiveness of sins precedes the covenant, but in chapter 8 the new covenant is brought in and purgation of sins follows.
FER Well, I think it does, but you see ...
JD It involves it.
FER Well, it does, but at the same time it goes beyond it.
Rem The thought of the new covenant is that God’s love cannot alter.
FER Yes; quite so. You mark how everything hangs on the love of God. “God so loved the world [p. 353] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. Our place in heaven hangs on the love of God. “God, who is rich in mercy ... made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”. Everything hangs for the christian on the love of God. You get the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. You can see the immense importance of the new covenant. You get in it divine instruction in the love of God.
Ques Is that the only term of the new covenant?
Ques I was asking the difference between righteousness and love?
FER Well, to tell the honest truth it is most difficult to me to distinguish between righteousness and love. Some may be better hands at it than I am.
Rem In human things it may be done, in divine things it is very different.
FER It is very difficult in divine things. What I understand by righteousness is the right, the supreme right God has to hold the affections of man. That is His righteousness.
AM I think it is more in connection with the kingdom.
FER But I think the kingdom is God’s assertion of Himself — righteousness is the law of the kingdom.
M That is, we get to acknowledge God’s rights and therefore His righteousness. God’s righteousness, as you were saying last night, is His right to govern the affections of His creatures.
Rem We have been accustomed to think of righteousness as His attribute, love as His nature.
FER You see you get this coming out — that God loves man and He has a right that man should love Him. But really that hangs on God’s love. The moment you know His love you know God, and in that way He has a right to demand the affections of man. His right is to govern the affections of men. And our right if you look at it in that way, on the side of human righteousness, is [p. 354] to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. If they did that it was their righteousness. You see it is most difficult to distinguish between righteousness and love, I found that out in John 3.
Ques In what way do you refer to John 3?
FER I refer to the great subject of the chapter — righteousness and love. You see the place of God — what you might call the right of God to assert. The place of man is to admit that right; that is the great difference between our righteousness and God’s righteousness. God asserts His rights. I do not know if you understand me.
M You might explain a little further.
FER God asserts His rights over the minds and affections of man. Man admits His right. Man cannot assert a right. A neighbour cannot assert his right, he has no more right than I have in that way; but I admit God’s right. He has rights, and I admit my neighbour’s right. I love him as myself.
LHF Is that the difference between Romans 3 and 8?
FER Exactly. Romans 3 is God’s right. Chapter 8 is the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.
LHF And you are described as those who love God.
FER Exactly.
P Would you say the more one admits God’s rights over you, that is the way we progress in the new covenant?
FER Well, I think it is so. You come more and more under divine teaching by the Spirit. I think it is progressive in a certain way.
M But you begin when you admit it.
FER You must admit God’s righteousness. You become servants to righteousness. It is the practise of righteousness. You admit God’s righteousness.
Ques Is that in divine teaching?
FER I think it is. There are two elements in divine teaching and there are two elements in the new covenant.
[p. 355] I get taught by the Spirit, and that is the way we are brought into practical righteousness.
Ques Is there not a difference between righteousness and love? Is there not the display of righteousness in judgment?
FER I do not think so. I think people have confused God’s righteousness and His righteous judgment. I quite think there is the righteous judgment of God in regard to lawlessness.
JD It says, “He will judge the world in righteousness”.
FER But that is for their blessing. God really intends to command the affections of man in this world. He will hold people’s affections. He will have them for Himself. I quite admit that there is the righteous judgment of God against lawlessness. He will not allow lawlessness.
MT Would you say that while He has a right to the affections of His people, He has a right also to judge?
FER Do you not see — “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness” — that these are the two pillars of the throne? In result not a single trace of lawlessness will be left. In the new heavens and the new earth righteousness will reside.
Ques What does that mean?
FER It means that the claims of God are admitted — there will not be a trace of lawlessness anywhere. Not in hell either.
M Only the love of God.
FER Exactly. God’s claims are admitted in heaven and on earth.
Ques Is that what God is aiming at?
FER Yes; and we look for it.
M And that is the righteousness of God.
FER Yes; it is. The righteousness of God pervades everything; and then there will not be lawlessness anywhere. In my own mind I do not think there will be lawlessness [p. 356] in hell.
Ques. In what sense?
FER Oh, because everything is under the hand of God in judgment. It is here on earth that lawlessness gets place.
M It is the outcome of man’s will, there will not be that in hell.
FER I think there will be the consciousness of being under the judgment of God; but I have no pleasure in speaking of hell.
RT I was just going to say, I should like a little more on the new covenant. Would you say that the whole of the New Testament is the covenant?
FER I should go further Mr. Telford. I think the whole of Scripture is the covenant. In fact you have all the gifts of the Spirit in the new covenant.
P Would you say the old covenant was a shadow of what was coming?
FER No; I do not think that. It was a kind of shadow, but it was not the image. It is put in that way here, you know. “The law having a shadow ... and not the very image”.
P Would you say that the shadow pointed on to the substance that was coming?
FER I think it was so.
RT The way we find a difficulty is we want to put the new covenant into an ark in the same way as the old covenant.
F.E.R. What is that?
RT Into a little place. We confine it in that way. Do we not get in the new covenant all that is in the New Testament?
FER I think you must go further than the New Testament. The apostle says in 2 Corinthians 3, “Ye are our epistle ... the epistle of Christ”. Then he goes on to say, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new covenant”.
RT That is teachers of the new covenant, that is, of God’s mind toward us.
FER [p. 357] He was a minister of it but he could not teach it.
M I think the way the soul learns it is to be found in it.
RT What I mean is, we get it out of the New Testament; it is not a shadow out of the Old Testament.
FER I think they had the teaching of the new covenant before they had the New Testament scriptures.
RT I admit that. Will you make it simpler?
FER I think it is simply this. In the teaching of the new covenant everything is in the Spirit.
RT You could not have the teaching of Scripture without the Spirit.
FER No.
Rem The Spirit conducts us into the love of God.
FER Yes; I think so.
JD The new covenant was with Israel and Judah but we get the spirit of it now.
FER We have [p. 358] the spirit of it. I think by the Spirit of God the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts.
JD In that day they will have remission of sins and the mind of God.
FER I think people make confusion between the efficacy of the death of Christ and the teaching of His death. The new covenant is the teaching of His death. You could not have it without the efficacy of His death. The Spirit gives you the teaching of His death, and the teaching of His death is the new covenant.
M Is that what we get in the Lord’s supper?
FER Exactly. You get the teaching of His death.
Rem You get God’s disposition towards you.
FER Exactly, it is set forth in the Supper.
M Sometimes we are more occupied at the Lord’s supper with the efficacy of His death.
FER Well, I think then you miss the mark, because there you take the Lord’s death purely as an individual thing.
LHF When you speak of the teaching do you mean the Spirit of God in the saint?
FER Yes; I think He teaches the meaning of Christ’s death. I do not think the Spirit of God has any teaching which is not seen in the death of Christ — the Spirit makes it effective.
Ques. Is it progressive?
FER I think it is progressive in our apprehension. It is set forth in the death of Christ; we apprehend it as we grow in the sense of it.
Ques Would you say the teaching of His death is that we should be conformed to His death?
FER I think you would be that, but I think you must be very deeply in His love for that. I have no doubt that in christianity we have the idea of the efficacy of His death, but very little idea of the teaching of His death.
Ques Is it the teaching of love?
FER Exactly. That is divine teaching.
LHF I think we are rather hazy as to this teaching.
M What we get from God in testimony becomes, does it not, the power of love in our souls?
FER I think it does. We are not keeping to your point — that is priesthood.
RT I think it is very good what we have had.
FER It is certain we cannot get the priest without the covenant. In God’s ways with us you could not exaggerate the importance of the covenant. No one can touch reconciliation without the new covenant.
Ques Would you have any objection to calling it the declaration of God?
FER Well, I think not.
T With regard to divine teaching, is there present actual teaching while the bread is being broken?
FER Oh, no, no. You come to it as divinely taught. I think the great point in coming to the Supper is, your mind is in accord with what you do. Your mind is in perfect accord with what is set forth in the cup and the bread. I think that is the great point.
Rem Those who partake of the Supper [p. 359] are those who are divinely taught.
FER Exactly; I think no one else partakes.
T But is there not positive teaching at that time?
FER I do not think that is the way we reach it. I think we come with our mind in accord with it.
M Do you not partake of the bread and the wine because you are taught?
FER Exactly. If your mind is not in accord with what you do, it makes it a mere formal act. If you are in accord with it, that is fellowship — that is what fellowship is.
JD Do you say reconciliation is not known until the new covenant?
FER But people do not understand reconciliation either.
LHF We know very little of either.
FER Very few. If you come to the mass of christians, I believe there are very few who could tell you the difference between children and sons. If you do not understand sonship you cannot understand worship.
LHF Perhaps you will tell us the difference between children and sons?
FER Well, I think this in connection with children — you get love in activity; in sons you get the love of God at rest. That is where the Lord’s supper comes in — God can be perfectly complacent. When you come to children God has many things to meet in us with which He cannot be complacent; therefore discipline and many other things come in in connection with children. The idea of sonship is complacency, that is where the sonship of Christ comes in. Sonship is where God can look upon us favourably.
Ques What is that — “Greater love hath no man than this ..”.? (John 15).
FER It is a proof of love.
Rem It is more.
FER Undoubtedly it is. It is dying for enemies.
RT Is that not effected by reconciliation? That is,
we are brought into God’s favour. He can delight in us.
FER I think reconciliation brings you into complacency. If you take the parable of the prodigal, I think when he had the best robe on, that was complacency. You cannot go beyond God’s own work. All things are of God. Nothing comes under His eye except what is of Himself.
RT That is, the distance is completely removed.
FER Yes. There is a work in which God can be perfectly complacent. That is my idea of the holiest. God can be perfectly complacent.
Rem God rests in His love.
JD We have to come into it by reconciliation.
FER Do you not see that reconciliation was there? In Christ God could rest — there was that in which God could be perfectly complacent, because it was of Himself. Then I think the word of reconciliation had to come in that distance might be removed; and thus we might come into reconciliation. But complacency was there before ever Christ died. Man was at a distance and Christ died to remove the distance.
RT It is only then we can joy in God.
FER Yes.
Ques Can nothing be reconciled of the first Adam?
FER You cannot get it that way. It is not looking into doctrines. You get it by words which the Holy Spirit teacheth. You have to get the spiritual meaning of the words. It is a curious thing in the Old Testament that you never get the word reconciliation, and in the New Testament you never get the word atonement, strictly speaking.
LHF What is the difference between the thought of atonement and reconciliation?
FER Atonement recognises the individual, the other shuts him out.
LHF Has atonement to do with guilt?
FER Yes.
MT In atonement would you say the man [p. 361] is covered?
FER That is the idea.
MT And reconciliation is that the man is removed?
FER The man is gone.
Ques Is there any thought of the house in sonship?
FER Oh, yes; I think so. I think children come in in connection with His house. One very simple thought I think makes sonship clear, and that is that sonship is in connection with Christ. You are brought into sonship in order to be companions with Christ; that is where priesthood comes in. You could not be a priest without association with Christ. It is like Aaron and his sons. The thought of children does not bring us into association with Christ; for that you want sonship.
M That scripture in connection with this may be read properly, “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”.
Ques Where do we get the thought of reconciliation in Hebrews?
FER In the end of chapter 9: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others ... but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”. Then in chapter 10: 10, “By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. That is, sanctification really lies in reconciliation.
Ques Would you say, “He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one”, brings in sonship?
FER Well, yes. But then how are we one with Him?
Answer. By the Spirit.
FER No; I think it is in relationship in the divine nature. I think it is in that way we are all one.
Ques Son over God’s house in chapter 3?
FER I think you have to recognise that Christ has a certain place in connection with [p. 362] the house of God.
You cannot have the house of God without Christ.
JD Is the word of reconciliation connected with the testimony in accord with the mind of God? You were saying that reconciliation is in accord with the mind of God, and thus we get association with Christ.
FER I think you find the old man is gone and there is the presentation of Christ. You are nothing at all for God except after the measure of God’s work.
M That is what He has effected in us.
FER What He has effected in us. I think the object of the new covenant is to give us confidence. We have confidence when the love of God is made known to us. When I have confidence in God, then I can take account of His work in me.
Ques Do you think the will of God comes in there?
FER I think Christ came to give force to the will of God in all the extent of it. I think the offering up of Himself was involved in it, but it is not simply that. The will of God is God’s pleasure in the whole extent of it. It is the will of God to give us the place of priests. I do not think anyone can serve God in priestly service except those who are called to it. God may bless man on the earth, but He may not call them to this. If you are to serve the living God you must be called to it. I do not think people can take that place for themselves.
Ques Is it in that way saints are all priests?
FER Sons are all priests by the calling of God. At the present time He is calling out the priestly company.
LHF Would you say the teaching of the Spirit is to lead us up to that point?
FER I think so. It was to lead them away from a carnal system in which priests were a kind of separate class to lead them by the call of God. Ephesians opens up the call of God: “That ye may know what is the hope of his calling”.
M To lead us to sonship.
FER Exactly. “That ye may know ..”. “By which will we are sanctified”. I take it that is to separate [p. 363] saints to priestly service. The point of chapter 2 is, “It became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings”. Then it goes on to say, “For both he that sanctifieth ..”. The sanctified ones are the many sons.
Ques What is the thought of priests at the present time?
FER Well, I think there are two things with regard to priests: one is access, the other is discernment. The priest has access to God, and on the other hand discernment. The spiritual man discerns all things. And then another thing — they are clothed with salvation.
LHF What is the force of clothed with salvation?
FER “By grace are ye saved”. By the Spirit of God. You are able to judge things, and therefore delivered from the whole system of things around you set up by man. You judge everything in that way.
Rem Yourself included.
P Is the thought of sanctification, for the will of God?
FER Yes; sanctification is setting apart for holy service.
LHF By the death of Christ.
Ques “No more offering for sin”?
FER You cannot revive anything; everything is gone in the death of Christ, and therefore to bring them up in the assembly is most unbecoming. If you revive them, you ought to bring a kind of sin-offering with them. One wonders how it can be in the face of this verse “no more offering for sin”.