READINGS ON THE CORINTHIAN EPISTLES (1)
[p. 289] READINGS ON THE CORINTHIAN [p. 290] EPISTLES (1)
FER I think it is interesting that in 1 Corinthians you find the germ and principle of every form of evil which has come out in the professing church. It gives the epistle a very special interest to us.
Ques Would you just explain a little further because though one knows a great many evils are referred to, yet I think the legal line of things — the judaistic line was not one of the things.
FER Well, I do not doubt that you get that brought out in this chapter. You get a kind of combination of sacramentalism with unsubdued flesh, it is really Judaism. And that is pretty much the character of things abroad in christendom — sacramentalism and unsubdued flesh.
Ques And when the two things go together, you get idolatry?
FER Yes.
Ques And do you get anything akin to the Galatian evil, and which we find now carries everything before it?
FER I do not think it is the doctrinal part which comes out in Corinthians. It is more the practical things; for instance, divisions, schisms, etc. I will tell you where you get an allusion to it — the building in of the wood, hay and stubble. The good foundation was laid, and others than those who laid the foundation came along and built up wood, hay and stubble. It is certain that the judaistic teachers were doing that. The apostle refers to them in the second epistle. He says, “Are they Hebrews? Are they Israelites?”, 2 Corinthians 11:22.
Ques You take it that is the idea of his referring there to the early history [p. 291] of Israel?
FER Well, I think it is to bring together two things that marked the Corinthians — sacramentalism and unjudged flesh, because the description of idolatry here is very remarkable. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play”, 1 Corinthians 10:7.
Ques Has legality anything to do with the flesh as to the form that it takes here?
FER I think sacramentalism is really legality. What I mean by sacramentalism is the disposition to attach a positive and substantive value to the sacraments.
Ques Do you mean the Lord’s supper and baptism?
FER Yes.
Ques What is the idea of sitting down to eat and drink, and rising up to play?
FER Well, I suppose it implies complacency with the course of things down here. People sit down to eat and drink; they are very well content with the course of things down here, and rise up to play. It is idolatry.
Ques May it not be a reference to the abominations found in christendom? If one makes one’s self one’s centre is not that in principle idolatry?
FER Well, I think if you make the god of this world the centre, covetousness is idolatry, and if you do homage to the god of this world, you are more or less idolatrous.
Ques Does the term ‘play’ refer to licence of the flesh?
FER Exactly; they sat down to eat and drink — complacency with things down here, and they rose up to play. But the point is that that may be combined with sacramental system. The fact is, it is, if we look around in christendom. And the more the sacramental system is pressed, the more you get self indulgence and idolatry.
Ques Satisfied with the sacraments?
FER Yes, they attach a substantive value to the [p. 292] sacraments — they suppose they are some kind of means of grace. But they mean a great deal more than that in a large part of christendom.
Ques “Sat down to eat ... rose up to play”, 1 Corinthians 10:7. Is that in connection with the “feast of the Lord”? Because when Aaron made the calf he said “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord”, Exodus 32:5. Is it bringing the things of the Lord into contact with natural things?
FER I think you get that here; chapter 10. The greatest licence given to the flesh and at the same time the existence of the sacramental system. People trust more or less in that sacramental system.
Ques “They did all eat”, etc., 1 Corinthians 10:3. Is that a kind of allusion to the Supper?
FER Yes; they had what in a certain sense corresponded to the bread and wine — the manna and the water from the smitten rock. The spiritual food was the manna and the water was the spiritual drink. They are symbolical of spiritual food and drink. It comes to us in the Lord’s supper in a sense.
Rem That is they shared in the external privileges.
FER Yes, they had communion — they had participation in things which were really figurative of Christ. They had baptism, and then they had spiritual food and drink.
Ques Is not this departure put here in moral sequence? It is not in historical order.
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques When it says in Acts 7:41, they “rejoiced in the works of their hands”, what does that mean?
FER It refers to the golden calf, I think.
Ques Is 1 Corinthians 10:5, “With many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness”, as much as to say, ‘It is better to rest in the enjoyment of eternal things’?
FER Yes, ‘perishing’ to us as christians would be to fall entirely short of the purpose of God. It is not that you do not get to heaven on the ground of [p. 293] grace; but the application of it is that you do not get out of the wilderness. You never get into the purpose of God.
Ques Is it not literally true with many in christendom? They receive the sacraments and are overthrown in the wilderness?
FER The sacramental system is only put forward in the Church of England as the way to life.
Rem But then among us there are many who attach a substantive value to the sacraments.
FER I think that is a question that concerns us more particularly! And what is the exact place that the sacraments so-called have? That is a question we want to get at: what is the idea of the sacraments?
Rem I only used the word because it is a common expression.
FER You cannot get much from the literal meaning. The ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper have been greatly misused in christendom.
Ques What value do you think some amongst us attach to these two things?
FER I think they regard them as very important as keeping up a link with Christ, and therefore you find a great many that come to the breaking of bread who are never seen otherwise.
Rem And are not happy unless they come.
FER They are not very happy, when they do come.
Rem But the one sacrament is of course never repeated.
FER I think the reason it is never repeated is because you can never begin your christian course over again. On the other hand the assembly really begins on the first day of the week, and therefore you get the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week.
Rem The assembly begins every first day of the week.
FER Yes, in the coming together. We come [p. 294] together on the first day of the week, and the initiatory act in coming together is the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is properly speaking the introduction to the assembly. When we come together next Lord’s day morning, in a certain sense we leave all the past behind in regard to the assembly.
Rem I do not quite understand that phrase, ‘the Lord’s supper introduces to the assembly’.
FER Well, it is the introductory act in assembly.
Ques You mean it is the object for which are we gathered?
FER The Lord’s supper is the rallying point. It rallies the saints. You come together to break bread.
Rem Whereas as a matter of fact the meeting occasionally is proceeding for some time before the breaking of bread.
FER Well, that is because we are detained and hindered by habits. We are accustomed to it from the systems where the Supper comes in at the end.
Rem When people come to the Supper last, they do not come to the assembly at all.
FER No.
Ques May there not be a thought of not being in a state for it?
FER That is a poor state of things, because I really do not know what goes before it.
Rem You have not got the Lord there until you come to the Supper.
FER But then is not the idea of the assembly where the Lord is? Or, if one may so put it, He takes the place of leading the worship of God’s people.
Rem And that really is the thought of God in the assembly.
FER Yes; what you find is that the thought or idea of the assembly is continually marred by the hymns.
Rem I have noticed it again and again — perhaps [p. 295] we have very few hymns really suited for the assembly.
FER We have some, but then people will even go and drag a hymn from the appendix in order to foist it on the assembly.
Ques You could hardly say they do it with evil intent?
FER Oh, no: not for a moment. I will tell you what I mean. There are so few hymns which have any recognition of Christ on our side.
Ques What do you mean by ‘Christ on our side’?
FER That is the very essence of the assembly. In the assembly Christ properly comes to our side. If you are singing hymns to Christ as Lord and Master it is all very right in its place; He is Lord and Master; but that is not Christ in the assembly. That would be very right in the breaking of bread. The Lord is the prominent Person before your mind; but if people speak of the assembly in its proper relation to God, I understand that the Lord Jesus Christ leads the praise and worship of the assembly and we take His place.
Rem He went into death in order that He might take a place on our side, not merely that He might be on God’s side. That is what I think is the idea of the assembly.
FER What I mean by coming over to our side is not in connection with His title as Head. He is Head, but He identifies Himself with us. He is pre-eminent, but then He is pre-eminent among His brethren.
Ques Leading His own company?
FER He says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren”, Hebrews 2:12. He is on our side then, and all sense, under those circumstances, of weakness, feebleness, poverty, simpleness, and all that class of thing, seems to me to be banished. The moment your soul is there, they are unsuitable. It is not that they are not true.
Ques Do I understand then that no hymn after [p. 296] the breaking of bread should ever be addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself?
FER I would not say that, but I would like that the hymns should recognise the place which He has taken on our side.
Ques Can you give us an example?
FER You get plenty of expressions in the hymnbook: ‘In Him we stand a heavenly band’ (12:2). You get an idea of it in a way. You will not get very much idea of it in the hymns which were written by pious men who never knew peace, or you will not know very much of the assembly. Fancy a man giving out No. 1, for instance.
Rem Well, not very long ago we had given out, ‘The voice that speaks in thunder, saying, Sinner, I am thine’. That is quite true. It is not that anyone challenges the truth of the statement. It is unsuitable, that is the whole point.
FER I have said sometimes that no living person can understand the assembly if they do not go back to the gospels. If you do not apprehend what the Lord was, you cannot understand the assembly.
Ques ‘Where He Himself is gone’, (12:2) is that coming to our side?
FER It is not that He comes to where you are after the flesh, but you have to go through His death to where He is.
Ques Do you not get very much the same thought in Aaron and his sons?
FER There they were in a privileged position. It is quite true Aaron himself was a poor feeble man, but in his priestly character he had a place before God, that he was entitled to take, and his sons had a place in connection with him which they were entitled to take — the priestly place and privilege of nearness to God. And in the exercise of the privileged place they were not at that moment in connection with their own circumstances, and their feebleness, and weakness [p. 297] as men, and all the difficulties of this life — things perfectly true, but wholly unsuitable in that connection.
Ques You do not often get these things brought in in the morning meetings — the difficulties of the pathway — do you? If so, yours is different from mine.
FER Well, I think it is very important to see that service in the assembly is priestly service. I think in the assembly we are priests. If you take up Hebrews that is the idea of it. “We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”, Hebrews 10:10. It is priestly. Well, now I come to another point, you are only a priest as risen with Christ, you are not a priest in the wilderness:
and therefore what I judge from that is, that, properly speaking, the service of God is really on the other side of Jordan; and that only confirms what we were saying in regard to the service of God — you have left the wilderness entirely behind.
Ques So that coming to our side does not mean coming to our circumstances?
FER Oh no. He identifies Himself with the object of God’s purpose: “He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, Hebrews 2:11.
Rem If our souls got hold of that we should have a sense of the assembly.
FER Yes, you are there as His companions, but then it is only as risen together with Him. It is not as a people of God even, but it is only as priests that you can be identified with Him. And it is evident you cannot be identified with Him as priest except as risen with Him. That comes out in Numbers: life beyond death was an attestation of priesthood, Aaron’s rod that budded. How could you be in company with Christ as after the flesh?
Ques We get that place in virtue of association with Christ. Must that be after the breaking of bread?
FER I do not think in spirit you reach that [p. 298] except through the breaking of bread, It is through the breaking of bread that you call the Lord to mind after that order. That is the effect of the breaking of bread.
Ques Because that comes in before resurrection? And all the Lord’s love in drawing you into association with Himself passes before you in connection with the Lord’s supper so blessedly, and we get thoroughly severed in our souls from all the old things and thoroughly put in connection with the new.
FER Yes, and I think there is the full recognition of His title to headship. I think the Lord claims headship on the ground of the supremacy of love. He is Head, He is pre-eminent, and the pre-eminence is in love. His death is the expression of that, and that is what is recognised by the saints in the remembrance of Him. They recognised His headship in the pre-eminence of love.
Rem That is introductory. As all that passes before our souls with the memorials before us, it is brought to mind. We at once, as led by the Spirit of God, take our place in association with this blessed One.
FER But then you naturally, almost instinctively, give Him His own proper place as Head and the result of that is that you are drawn out in affection to Him and to one another.
Ques Is not John 20 a very good picture of it?
FER Yes, of course, that inaugurated the thing in a way. I have often noticed (I do not know whether others have) when for example the scripture is alluded to “henceforth I call you not servants”, etc., and then “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”, John 15:13-15. I have noticed so many servants of God appear to prefer to alter that word ‘friends’ into ‘enemies’; and that they think it much stronger to say He laid down his life for His enemies. But the whole point is lost.
[p. 299] They lose the sense of the position of intimacy into which they are put.
Ques The idea, I suppose, comes from the hymn, ‘Thou for thine enemies wast slain, What love with Thine can vie?’ (341:3)
FER Yes; that is very right, and would be under certain circumstances; but we are there to remember the Lord, in the light of His friends in nearness to Himself in which His love has placed us.
Ques It is mixing up Romans 5 with John 15?
FER Yes, but that does not convey the same idea, because Romans 5 only alludes to an antecedent state. It refers to the actual moral condition in which you were.
Ques What did you mean when you said we really have not the Lord until we come to the breaking of bread?
FER It is the way in which the Lord is called to mind in the assembly. It is His own way — the way in which He would be called to mind.
Ques What have we up to the time of the breaking of bread?
FER It is not a question of what we have; it is a question of what we realise. I do not see very much good in the assembly except in what we realise.
Ques Would verse 16 of this chapter help?
FER No, it is only an allusion to it. You have to pass into the assembly through this chapter.
Rem But you do not get anything about the assembly in this chapter. The point is association with Him in this world outside of this world. It is a question of fellowship.
FER The great point of this chapter is association and fellowship, and if you are not right in relation to that, I do not think you will ever touch the assembly. You may depend upon it, it is a very much more serious point than we are aware of. What hinders people to an immense extent is the question of association.
[p. 300] They are not clear in relation to fellowship.
Ques Do you not think that lies at the root of what Mr. H. was speaking of in regard to our meetings, that if people are not true to the fellowship of His death when they come together, you cannot force them into these things. Do you agree with that?
FER I quite agree with that. I have said very often, you must go to the Supper through the table.
Rem So that while we deplore these things, we must see what the reality is.
Ques Is it fellowship first?
FER You must be right in regard to your association, in regard to what is unsuitable to the Lord and His death. You must be apart from all that kind of thing.
Ques Do you connect fellowship with the table?
FER The idea is connected with the table.
Rem The supper is often turned into a gospel meeting to assure the people who are very shaky, it is really a kind of sacramentalism.
FER It would be a very undesirable thing to give out hymns beyond the state of the assembly.
Ques Do you not think there is outlet in that — not to give out hymns at all?
Rem I should say that I do not suppose the Spirit would lead a brother to get up and go off into very exalted strains if the assembly is not up to it.
FER Well, you know Forest Hill and I know Greenwich pretty well; you cannot do it in any meeting where you know the people at all.
Rem Though you do not know the people, I do not think the Spirit of God would lead to that.
FER But still I think the Spirit of God supports you so far in seeking to maintain the true ground of the assembly. I think He would do that.
Ques Is not the important thing for us to have a right standard before us?
FER I think so. What is the worth of our testimony [p. 301] if we are not seeking to stand in the truth of the church? We might just as well go back to where we came from. If we are not seeking positively to stand in the light of the church, I think we had better dissolve!
Rem It is stated that there should be no singing before the breaking of bread because we are sitting at the foot of the cross. I have heard it stated.
FER Well, I do not see a law laid down in Scripture, that is all. If the law were laid down in Scripture I would accept it directly; but I could not accept any man’s dictum as to what is to take place or not in the assembly. I should not accept it.
Ques What is all this talk about the foot of the cross?
FER I should say it is a sentimental idea, but we are not at the foot of the cross: who said so?
Ques The idea is, how can you sing in the presence of the suffering of the Lord?
FER But we are in the presence of the Lord, and how can you help singing? The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Ques Would you say a little more as to the thought that we must go to the Supper through the table?
FER I have no doubt at all, if you were to take stock of our meetings you would find that a great part of the people come to the meeting pretty much in accord with what other people are doing in going to church or chapel. It is not that I have any thought at all of disparaging them, but in their sentimental feeling of things they have the idea that they are acting more or less in concert with what other people are doing. But what I see is this; christendom is really built up on the existence of the sacramental system with unjudged flesh. How can you be in accord with that? The fact is you are really in protest against the whole thing. Can you understand anyone who has really been in fellowship with us going [p. 302] back to church or chapel? It is the most astonishing thing to me that I can imagine.
Ques Do you not think that the light may become darkness?
FER I suppose it must be so.
Ques What is the difference between the Lord’s table in this chapter and the Lord’s supper in the next? They seem to be so much confounded.
FER The first thing is imperative — to flee from evil: that you should in spirit receive the whole state of things down here.
Ques Which is the object the Supper or the table?
FER What has been a help to me is seeing that chapter 10 is not instruction but the line of the chapter is moral association, and you cannot be in moral association with the Lord in regard to His death, and in moral association with things that are contrary to Him. You cannot touch the assembly apart from association with His death: that really leads to the Supper. That is our own proper portion. We feed in the Supper. You come to the assembly. People may come to the meeting, you may say what you like — to come to the meeting is one thing — to come to the assembly is another. If you are not in the fellowship of His death, you do not touch the assembly.
Ques What would you do with people whose measure is very small, who are very unintelligent as to these things?
FER I would bear with them with inexhaustible patience.
Ques Many of us here tonight are really desirous of helping others. It is of very great moment that we should be right in regard to what you have just been saying. How many as a matter of fact do really reach the assembly?
FER It is of immense moment that we should be clear in our own souls as to these things, because if [p. 303] we pretend in any way to serve the Lord, to minister to others, it is a great point that we should know the truth ourselves and that it should have got a hold on ourselves.
Ques If the leaders do not know who else would?
FER One thing is this: the Lord holds the angel responsible in regard to the state of the assembly, and that is a point of great moment. Could anyone really discern what was the state of the meeting unless they knew what it was to be in the fellowship of His death, to have been with the Lord in the assembly?
Rem So that what you would say is this, that it is a serious matter for those who take the lead if there is this state of things.
FER What I say is this, that it is to the angel that the Lord addresses Himself — the representative. There is the angel, but the Lord addressed Himself to the angels, they were the representatives of the assembly to the Lord, and they are light-bearers from the Lord to the assembly in a certain sense.
Ques But as to receiving those who break bread, do you not think Judaism prevails amongst us?
FER I do not know how far we are tainted with sacramentalism; and on the other hand I am not at all sure as to how far people are free of flesh.
Rem People who do not know the forgiveness of sins take the Lord’s supper as a kind of sacrament. That would account for the hymns given out.
FER It would be a point of great moment to everybody to apprehend this: that when they come to the assembly in the true character of it, they are really there as priests, and you cannot bring the flesh into it. We are only priests as risen with Christ, and therefore people in regard to the assembly ought to be greatly exercised as to deliverance.
Ques You do not confine the priesthood to [p. 304] the brothers?
FER No, and I do not think they will make good Levites unless they are good priests.
Rem Where people have been through the week will pretty much indicate where they will be in their souls at the Supper.
Rem The people contribute to the priests all through the week: they are ‘common people’ in that sense.
FER I do not think a man will make much of a Levite if he is not a priest. Christians fulfil both these positions, and I think the real power for the Levite is found in the priest.
Ques Where would ministry come in in the assembly?
FER Ministry is levitical.
Ques But did you not say you get no ministry of any real count in the assembly except from one who in a certain sense is a priest?
FER If a man is no good Godward, he will not be efficient manward.
Ques The Levite was given to the priest, and the Levites were the servants of the priests: they got direction from them. I suppose we are regarded as ‘common people’ in 1 Corinthians 10?
FER Well, I think in our own individual path and our responsibility we are ‘common people’, but I think the moment, so to speak, we pass the threshold of the assembly the ground changes. You pass to other ground. And there it is where Christ identifies Himself with us. He identifies Himself with us as to the objects of God’s purpose.
Ques Where in the assembly are we, then?
FER With Him.
Ques You said just now it was not our circumstances at all?
FER In your individuality you are always looked at as in the wilderness.
[p. 305] Ques Is the assembly looked at as passing through the scene, or do we reach heaven in the assembly?
FER You are over Jordan — that is the idea of the holiest; you reach the Lord’s presence. You enter into the presence of God.
Ques And the assembly is actually down here?
FER The holiest is a moral idea.
Ques Is that entering into the Father’s delight in a sense?
FER I think it is Christ identifying Himself with us, taking His place with those who are subjects of God’s purpose, and conducting us into the light of the Father’s love.
Rem So that we go a little further than Hebrews conducts us really.
FER But you cannot know anything at all about the love of the Father except as you know the love of Christ, and hence the first leads to the second. The remembrance of the Lord, and getting into touch with His love leads into the other.
Ques That is why the breaking of bread should be the first thing in the meeting, so that you may get into these things.
FER Yes, Christ is realised on our side, and He takes us as we are attached to Him into the Father’s love.
Rem That is a very different thing from having a long meeting that leads up to the breaking of bread, and directly after the breaking of bread a long pause and ministry.
FER In the Supper it is not so much the Lord’s love to the Father but the Lord’s love to us. It is something done for us. My body given for you, My blood shed for you.
Ques You would not exclude the other thought?
FER The most wonderful thing to me conceivable is that the Lord — that love (as has often been [p. 306] said) will have company. That is true on our side; but it is equally true on His side. He loves the church, and that is the force of the expression “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you”, John 14:18.
Ques You take that up in the assembly?
FER Yes.