RECONCILIATION, INVOLVING A NEW POINT OF DEPARTURE
RECONCILIATION, INVOLVING A NEW POINT OF DEPARTURE
FER I do not think reconciliation is ever understood unless it is seen that it is in connection with a new point of departure.
Ques Will you explain what you mean by a new point of departure?
FER Well, I think you get the idea in the expression “Ye have known him that is from the beginning”. When the Lord came into this scene He was in a certain way the climax of God’s ways — the accomplishment of what had been in the mind of God, but it is important for us to see that in the mind of God Christ was a completely new point of departure, something entirely new. You get it here: “Who is the beginning”. (verse 18). It is not that He is connected with the beginning — He is the beginning. At the same time, as I have said, we have Christ presented as the accomplishment of what had been set forth in the Old Testament, for instance, in regard to the kingdom and many other things also. He was the One who came to fulfil the promises made to the fathers — the Horn of salvation raised up in the house of David. All that and much more was accomplished in the coming of Christ. But at the same time what we get here is, He is the beginning. Reconciliation comes in in that connection.
JD Do you mean His incarnation — from the beginning?
FER Yes; you get the two things: “From the beginning”, and then you get another statement here: “Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence”. You see the kingdom is connected with the lordship of Christ. Reconciliation is connected with Christ as Head.
You get that here, you know. “He is the head”; then it goes on to say, “In him all the fulness ... was pleased to dwell”. That is in connection with the Head.
Ques Is the beginning here in resurrection?
FER I think it is. He is the beginning.
M The moment He was manifested down here He was a new beginning with God.
FER I think so. The new point of departure having reference to the state of man.
P I suppose everything being out of gear, reconciliation could have no meaning until after the Son had come in?
FER Well, it could not have come until the Son came in.
JD You said yesterday reconciliation was God-ward.
FER Oh, yes; it is what God was accomplishing for Himself. It was in contrast with the new covenant — the new covenant is man-ward. Reconciliation presents what God secures for Himself, just as the new covenant sets forth His disposition towards man.
Ques Does the point of new departure bring in the kingdom?
FER No; the kingdom is not a new point of departure, the Old Testament is full of the idea of the kingdom.
JH It might be helpful if you tell us why.
FER Because I think the kingdom is a climax, and what comes out in reconciliation is not a climax but a beginning. I understand that in the kingdom God asserts Himself — He no longer hides Himself. Reconciliation does not take place until Christ comes. Christ is “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”.
JD Would you say that, though reconciliation is not brought out, yet in purpose it was in the mind of God?
FER Certain things were brought out before Christ came, but in reconciliation, we have that which is completely new.
[p. 366] M There were ways of God in the Old Testament of which He was not the beginning.
FER Quite so.
M What do you say with regard to life?
FER Life is most intimately connected with reconciliation — reconciliation and life both involve state, and with regard to state Christ is the point of departure.
Ques In the history of the soul’s experience where would you say life comes in in Scripture? Is it with forgiveness of sins?
FER I think it is connected with the Holy Spirit. If you speak of a person being alive to God, that is a person who has the love of God.
M The word — “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” — was it in that He was the beginning? Is the point of departure with regard to life?
FER He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”.
M Does John 20 bring that out?
FER I think so. He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”.
JD In connection with reconciliation in Colossians, would you explain how it comes in between the Head and the body?
FER I think reconciliation hangs on the Head — at the same time the body is the first fruits. Reconciliation is in connection with Christ as Head. So few people see the difference between Christ as Lord and Christ as Head. I believe that lies at the bottom of a great deal of the difficulty.
RT Would you explain the difficulty?
FER Well, if you get Christ as Lord He presents the authority of the Lord, but as Head He is on man’s side. As Lord He brings in the authority of God. I sometimes illustrate it by the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is head of the House, but he is not lord of it. As head he leads the [p. 367] House in a certain way, but he is not lord of it. If the Queen were to come in he would give place. As Lord, Christ presents the authority of God.
LHF Is that connected with the kingdom?
FER Yes; Lord is connected with the kingdom.
LHF Is it not the thought in reconciliation that another Man has come under the eye of God?
FER That is as Head. I do not feel myself able as a natural man to cope with the great men of the world. There are plenty of men in the world — men of great mind, of great power, and all that kind of thing — great men in a natural sense — but at the same time what I find is this, that the world has gone wrong for want of a head. The working of it is this — you get as many wills as there are men. Then the question comes in, whose will is going to rule. You get a country like France at the time of the Revolution — first one man gained the rule and then another; thus that dreadful Revolution went on until they got a man — a military despot — who rose up and ruled them all, but it all ended in disaster. J.N.D. had a kind of thought that Napoleon was referred to in Revelation in connection with antichrist — not as being the antichrist but as being on that line.
LHF The devil’s imitation.
FER Yes; you may depend upon it the world has gone wrong for want of a head.
M In the sense of rule — do you mean in authority?
FER No; I do not think so — it is like the head of the House of Commons. He directs there, but if the Queen came into the House the entire House would acknowledge her presence. I suppose she has the throne.
Ques Are you thinking of the head as the head of the body?
FER Christ is Head of every man.
DD It is the Head who will reconcile all things?
FER He is Head of all principality and power. He is Head of every man. He is Head to the church. It is [p. 368] all one headship in a certain sense, but it is spoken of in three connections. He is Head of all and Head to the church.
DD Do you say that the church is the first family that is reconciled?
FER Yes; I think the church is the first to come into reconciliation — evidently from what is said here.
JD Do you say that reconciliation is the work of God and the covenant is the disposition of God?
FER Reconciliation represents His work.
S “Principality and power”. Is that Satan’s power?
FER Well, I do not know; so far as that goes Satan has authority and power. That may be what is taken up, but I do not know.
S Can the Lord be Head of that?
FER He is Head of all principality and power.
MT Do you say reconciliation has to do with sins or sin?
FER Sin. Reconciliation has to say to state.
MT I was thinking of the difference between atonement and reconciliation.
FER Atonement refers to responsibility.
MT You do not get sin in the Old Testament.
FER No, you do not. I do not know that there is an offering which refers to sin. In fact we get a remarkable statement with regard to it by the Lord Himself “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin”. Sin is that man will not let God in. That did not come out fully until Christ came. The coming of Christ proved that man would not have God. “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father”. The principle of sin was there, but it was not brought out until Christ came. Christ was here doing the works and the words of the Father and they would not have Him.
MT Until then there was simply atonement covering the man.
[p. 369] M It brought out their state.
Ques When we were enemies — does that take in what they had done?
FER Well, it refers to wicked works. You get it stronger here — wicked works were the expression of enmity.
LHF The great point is that the enmity was removed in the death of Christ.
FER What will you do with the enemy?
LHF I do not know what could be done with him. I do not know how he could be removed except in death.
JH The difficulty with many is that you are reconciled, and yet you are put out of the way.
FER I do not know that you are reconciled.
Ques You must explain that.
M Is it that the man is put away but the person is not? Is that it?
FER Your individuality is put away — individuality is gone.
LHF What do you mean by individuality?
FER You speak of strong individuality marking certain men. If I knew you well enough I might be able to speak of your individuality. I should be speaking of what marks you as a man.
LHF Of what I was morally?
FER Yes.
DD Does that include the person?
FER No; that is not what goes to make up a man. In a babe you have not individual character and will and all that goes to make up a man. All that is gone in the death of Christ, the man has been removed.
P Would you say it is what the apostle expresses when he says, “I am crucified with Christ”?
FER Exactly. The individuality of Paul was gone. Paul had a strong individuality. The christians of Paul’s day had to feel that, but the strong individuality that Saul had was gone in Christ.
JD Would you say there was a [p. 370] new individuality and that the new individuality was reconciled?
FER No; I could not go so far as that.
J.H. What is reconciled?
FER You.
JH That is what I mean.
FER The point is He has reconciled us to Himself.
JH But I am here.
FER No you are not; if you are here you ought not to be.
JH That is just where the difficulty comes in.
FER But I cannot conceive how you are here if you are reconciled.
JH I am expressing a difficulty in many minds.
FER But I do not think they ought to have difficulty.
P I think the way you get reconciliation, it is brought to us in death. It is said if anything goes into death you cannot revive it again.
FER If you are reconciled you are before God holy, unblamable and unreproveable in His sight.
Ques Is that where individuality comes in?
JD As to new individuality — no one would say Christ needed to be reconciled?
FER He has reconciled us.
JH Is it being in the good of it?
FER Well, to be in the good of it is to be holy, unblamable and unreproveable in His sight.
JH Is it a present thing?
FER Oh, yes; undoubtedly a present thing.
Rem God can have good pleasure in man.
FER Yes.
M That is state.
FER Holy, unblamable is a question of state.
S And you are conscious of that.
M Did the Colossians get into that?
FER I do not know at all; the apostle presents it to them.
Ques Would you say it is what the church is [p. 371] to God?
FER Yes; relatively to the body; but I do not think any one can understand the body if they do not understand reconciliation. It paves the way to the mystery. The moral idea of the body is the life of Christ. My body lives in my head. The body of Christ lives in the life of Christ. How could you have that but in reconciliation? Then if Christ lives in the body, all that is contrary to Him must be removed.
DD He says to them that they were. “You ... hath he reconciled”.
M Whether they had entered into it was another thing.
FER I should suppose they had accepted it.
Ques You could not say that of the Corinthians.
FER No, I do not think so. The apostle does not state the thing in the same way to the Corinthians. He states in an abstract way what his ministry was. So in Romans you get, “We are making our boast in God ... through whom now we have received the reconciliation”.
Ques. What is the effect?
FER I think they would not have a word to say. The prodigal had something to say outside the house — he was not in the good of reconciliation then — but when he came into the house, when he had the ring on his hand and shoes on his feet, he was silent. I think he knew he had the best robe on.
M Is that the effect of being in the Lord’s presence?
FER I think you are perfectly silenced in the presence of God. When the prodigal came in he had not a word to say. I do not care for a man worshipping if he is not first silenced.
RT When can we joy in God?
FER I think when reconciled.
LHF What did you say about a man worshipping?
FER That I do not know if a man can worship God until he is first silenced.
M Silent in regard to himself?
FER Oh, no; the thought in my mind was that [p. 372] you are so silenced by the thought of what you are brought into. Who would talk in the holiest?
Ques Do you mean by silenced that you have lost your individuality?
FER I will tell you where I think you get it illustrated — in the queen of Sheba; there was no more spirit in her. She was completely silenced. People do not know what a wonderful thing it is to be seated in the Father’s presence with the ring, the shoes, the best robe, and feeding on the fatted calf. As Mr. Telford said, “We are making our boast in God ... through whom now we have received the reconciliation”. What a wonderful thing to think of sitting before God, and that He should find complacency in you! It is not that He has forgiven you, but He is complacent in you.
LHF That does not mean that you approve of total silence on Lord’s day morning?
FER I would if I could get it in that way, but it is a sort of impossibility. I think they would be bound to break out.
Ques In what way would they break out?
FER I cannot tell you.
Ques It would break out after silence.
FER It would break out in heavenly notes if one can say so.
P You could not say a person was in the good of reconciliation if he was looking for rights in this world.
FER The man is gone. For a man to assert his rights is to deny that. I have heard of a man put out of fellowship going to law to attempt to vindicate his character. I think we ought to be greatly humbled over such as that. We have to be very much on our guard as to people coming in, for if you get unbroken people coming in they may cause us a great deal of trouble. I fancy such a case as that occurred in Glasgow — that is, a man put out of fellowship going to law to vindicate himself. Think of such as that in divine things!
JD Plenty of saints do not see that that is wrong.
FER [p. 373] I think they ought to be outside, that is all. I think they cannot know, they cannot have entered the least bit into reconciliation.
P That is why the apostle besought the Corinthians to be reconciled. If they had really entered into the good of reconciliation they would not have acted as they did.
FER No.
JH A new departure. Is it that the testing of man is over, and God has another Man before Him? I think that was very helpful which we had yesterday.
FER Yes; you get certain things in time gone by spoken of in Ephesians 1 for instance: “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will ... that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth”. I suppose that thought is conveyed in Psalm 8: “Thou hast put all things under his feet”. The kingdom is spoken of very much in the Old Testament, but all that comes to an end. Nothing of that goes beyond the millennium. I take it the millennium is the dispensation of the fulness of times — all that comes to an end with the millennium — it is the end of the dispensation. But then I think you see this in Christ that He is a new departure — the beginning of a new order of things which goes on to eternity. The body comes in in connection with that line.
Rem The day of God.
P Does not that explain the difference between kingdom truth and reconciliation truth? Reconciliation to Himself always stands.
DD What do you understand by “things ... in heaven”.?
FER I do not know very much about it; there are things in heaven — principalities and powers in heavenly places. You get that thought.
M It is different from heavenly things.
FER Oh, I think so, quite. There are heavenly things — things in heaven, here the reference is to principalities [p. 374] and powers.
Rem That is brought out in Philippians — things in heaven.
FER Yes; things in heaven refers to principalities and powers in heaven in contrast to thrones and dominions on earth. Satan is a principality in heaven.
P Then there will be by and by perfect reconciliation between heaven and earth.
FER I think all will be brought into unity and harmony in Christ.
M I suppose one of the great efforts of the enemy was to disconnect heaven and earth.
FER Yes; he succeeded too well. The practical result has been that God has hidden Himself behind providence. God has hidden Himself behind a veil. In the kingdom God asserts His rights — in providence He hides Himself. I think it is wonderful to see the way He takes to assert Himself, because the kingdom came in the Person of a humbled Christ.
Ques Would you say a little about verse 25?
FER That is His Godhead. “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God ... to fulfil the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”.
LHF The present moment would be the ministration.
FER “Christ in you”; that is Christ’s body. I do not think any of us could tell how near to glory we are. “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. That is the ground of testimony.
LHF Is the thought of Christ in you, Christ formed in the saints by the Spirit?
FER It is Christ in the Gentiles really — the hope of glory.
M. Is it collective?
FER Yes; it is the general idea of Christ in the Gentiles the hope of glory.
MT The Jew had the kingdom — the Gentile was shut out of there.
FER We rejoice in hope of the glory of God, but Christ in us is the hope of glory.
P “Christ in you, the hope of glory” — does that give consciousness in the soul?
FER Oh, I do not know that it is that. It is shewn in the heavenly city — there you get the answer to it, that is, the glory of God, It is no longer the hope of glory — the city comes down having the glory of God. Until that comes to pass it is Christ in us the hope of glory.
Ques Mr. Raven, we should be very thankful if you would just touch on the new covenant, new creation, and reconciliation — just a sentence on each to shew the connection?
FER Well, I think you know morally God must assert Himself — unless He is going to condone the whole state of things down here. He must assert Himself; then it is only a question of how He proposes to do it. I think there you get the kingdom brought in — that is the idea of the kingdom. Grace reigns through righteousness. God has asserted Himself in Christ; I think the effect of that is that souls are brought into the kingdom. I take it they must learn what the disposition of God is toward them. I think they want to get confidence in God. I think the new covenant comes in there, it is that man may have confidence in God. Then if man gets his portion, God must have His portion. That brings in reconciliation — the worshipping company of which Christ is Head — the firstborn of many brethren. New creation is brought in in connection with reconciliation — reconciliation must be by new creation.
Ques Is that the order in which we learn it?
FER Yes; undoubtedly. It is not possible in the [p. 376] nature of things for one to learn it in any other order.
P I think that should help us, that we might be able to measure ourselves as to where we are.
JM Is the preaching of the gospel connected with the kingdom?
FER Yes; the gospel is the testimony of the kingdom — grace reigns through righteousness. The kingdom comes in and then it is presented in the way of testimony.
JH I wanted to inquire if holy, unblamable, are on the responsibility side? “If ye continue in the faith”, there is condition there.
FER Yes; I think so. You see the Corinthians had the two things mixed up together — the work of God and their responsibility. It is the old question of mixed condition — I accept it — I think you accept it. I accept my responsibility in that sense — to continue in the faith and not to be moved away from the hope of the gospel. At the same time I may be sensible of God’s work in me, but I have responsibility. In the absence of Christ there must be responsibility.
Rem I think that is a very important point for us all to get.
FER Yes.
Rem It is a responsible thing to admit into fellowship.
FER Yes, quite so; for fellowship is to be maintained according to God. If you find a person acting contrary to fellowship you are bound to put him out. It would be a fatal idea that there was no responsibility for us.
LHF The apprehension of a mixed condition helps us. There is a sort of idea that if you touch heavenly truth you are free of all responsibility.
FER Where can you touch heavenly truth except in the assembly? You are not always in that sense in the assembly. A great part of our individual life is in the wilderness. There are certain privileges which God [p. 377] has given us which we have only in the assembly. In a kind of way they control us in the individual life of faith.
LHF And would not the individual life of faith be markedly affected by our entering into them? I suppose that is connected with the apostle’s service — he was a witness of the mystery.
Ques Would we not understand as individuals our responsibility better if we understood our privileges?
FER Well, I do not know. It is everything to my mind that the christian should be in the knowledge of God. You may understand many things, but they will not avail you a bit without that.
Rem It is only that that will make a mark on our lives.
FER It is what makes a man of you. I do not think a man is half a man if he has not the knowledge of God; there will be some weak spot, something out of gear.
Rem You find many christians who feel their responsibility in a way and yet who never meet their responsibility, so many are on the line of Romans 7.
Ques I suppose that would be a man under law?
FER Yes. If you talk about responsibility you are kept through the power of God unto salvation — the power is equal to the responsibility. I am not a bit afraid of responsibility — not a morsel — I accept it. The Spirit of God has come in to take the management of the house. He concerns Himself about you. What I am concerned about is to advance in the knowledge of God. “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God”.
M It is the full knowledge of God there — the clear knowledge.
FER I think we want to get near to Him. I believe half of us do not get near Him and so we remain babes in a way. Depend upon it no one is half a man without the knowledge of God.
M That would be according to [p. 378] the divine nature.
FER If you can understand the expression, it makes you independent. I do not care for anybody — I do not care even for the devil; I can go about without a fear. If you have the knowledge of God it makes a man of you.
Ques Did you say we have the support of God in connection with our responsibility?
FER Of course you have. You are kept by the power of God.
P “If God be for us, who can be against us?”
FER Exactly. “How shall he not with him also freely give us all things?”
Ques Is that what you get in 2 Peter 1?
FER Yes; if you want a pattern of a man in the knowledge of God, look at Stephen.
Rem A man of substance.
FER His very face shone. He looked like an angel. I do not think Stephen cared for anything — he was perfectly fearless. That is my idea of a man.
RT I am afraid there are not many of these.
FER I am afraid not. The world is the mischief.