READINGS ON THE CORINTHIAN EPISTLES (3)
READINGS ON THE CORINTHIAN EPISTLES (3)
FER There is evidently a difference between chapters 11 and 12. I suppose both refer to the assembly. In chapter 11 we get the Lord; in chapter 12 the body.
JSG And the Spirit in chapter 12.
FER [p. 326] Quite so.
H But that is included in the thought of the body.
FER Yes, it is one Spirit makes one body. It is the body that stands in that sense in relation to Christ.
H Then is the idea that the body is the vessel on the earth? We get in the chapter “so also is the Christ”, 1 Corinthians 12:12.
FER Well, I think it is what the body is characteristically, or morally, the body is the Christ.
H That is to say, that it is the vessel in which Christ is displayed.
FER Yes, I think so. I think that God works entirely now on the platform of resurrection. That is the great platform and principle. The first great revival that you get in Scripture is the Christ, and the second great revival is Israel.
ED What do you mean by ‘revival’?
FER It is the living again where death had come in.
Ques That the dry bones might live?
FER Yes, Israel comes out really on the platform, on the principle of resurrection. They are conscious in a sense of having been into death. They have been in the dust of the earth, and God revived them. I think the same thing is really true in a much greater sense in regard to Christ. Christ has died, but you get Christ revived, not simply personally, but I think He is revived in the church.
Ques “Why persecutest thou me?”, Acts 9:4.
FER Yes, He is revived. I do not think anything can be much more important than for saints to apprehend that that is the divine platform, and therefore the important point is for us to reach that platform; not simply the belief in the fact, but to reach the platform.
ED Does not justification commence with that platform?
FER [p. 327] On the divine side.
H That is the line on which the Spirit is working?
FER I think so.
EC Then you would say that Christ is the state and the Spirit the sway?
FER Yes, really the Spirit forms the state. You get the renewing of the Holy Spirit. But after all, the effect of the renewing of the Holy Spirit is to produce Christ here.
H Morally it is really God’s character that comes out?
FER I think so.
Ques So you get love in the next chapter?
FER Yes. Well, what was seen down here upon earth in Christ was the life of God in a man, but then, I think, it is the life of God coming out morally in the saints, and that really means that it is the revival of Christ in a moral! sense in the very scene in which Christ has died. It goes right on, not merely now, but the same principle comes out in the millennium.
O In the earthly sense.
FER Yes, especially in Israel. “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”, Daniel 12:2. It is moral resurrection and national resurrection.
H Then is the idea that in the body (that is, in the assembly) there is that which is adequate for the display of God?
FER I think so. I think it is in that sense that the church is spoken of as His body. It is His fulness. I fancy the force of that expression is that it is adequate for the expression of Himself.
ED Does the term ‘body’ here go as widely as in the end of Ephesians 1?
FER I think here it is more local. He says, “Ye are Christ’s body”, 1 Corinthians 12:27. They had that place. It is characteristic in that sense; you are that.
O Each local church had that. What was the [p. 328] object of the reference in the beginning of the chapter that they were of the nations led away to dumb idols, and as to the Spirit of God? “No one says, Curse on Jesus” (1 Corinthians 12:3) etc. Is that a test to prove the difference?
FER Yes, I think it had this bearing that there was nothing down here outside of the Holy Spirit. That is, idols and idolatry had no part in the Spirit. No one would say ‘Anathema Jesus’ by the Holy Spirit. And on the other hand there was nothing on earth but the Spirit, because no one could say ‘Lord’ to Jesus except by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is spoken of in the chapter as forming the body, as having formed the body: “By one Spirit are we all baptised” (1 Corinthians 12:13), etc. One body is dependent upon one Spirit, and one Spirit must form one body, that is, an indwelling Spirit. That is certain. It is really what hangs on, what is necessarily consequent upon, the Spirit indwelling. If the Spirit indwells, He cannot indwell one. He never could indwell one man, and if the Spirit indwells, you must have one body. You would not speak about the Spirit indwelling Christ. I do not think it would be right. Scripture does not speak of it in that way. And it appears to me that it is the necessary consequence of one Spirit that you must have one body.
Ques You do not mean in incarnation? We read “the Spirit abode on him”.
FER But you would not speak of the Spirit indwelling the Lord. He stands alone.
Ques Would you just say a word in regard to the force of ‘indwelling’, as showing why the scripture does not use that expression in regard to Christ?
FER Well, you would not like to say that His body was the temple of the Holy Spirit; it would be irreverent.
Ques You would say that it was the temple of God?
FER Ah, yes; but to say that it was the temple of the Holy Spirit would be derogatory. It would be [p. 329] applying an expression that is used in regard to the saints to the Lord, in regard to whom all must be entirely exceptional.
WB Yes, but then while that is so, there are certain expressions which are used of the Lord and of the saints, such as ‘sealing’ and ‘anointing’.
FER Yes, but you will not find the thought of ‘indwelling’ in connection with Christ.
WB Many would be glad if they could catch hold of the reason why.
O God giveth not the Spirit by measure (John 3:34).
FER I think Christ had the Spirit without measure. He was sealed and anointed, but I would not like to say, viewing Him as a divine Person, that He was indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Rem “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”, Luke 4:18.
FER Yet it is His manhood specially that is sealed in Matthew. If He had not become man, He could not have been sealed. It forms the unity there in the saints, so the Lord is necessarily excepted.
ED What you were saying about the Spirit, if He dwells in one, He dwells in all, is important.
FER Yes, and therefore one Spirit necessarily makes one body. Such a thing is inconceivable as the Spirit of God indwelling one individual.
EC Every person is indwelt.
FER Yes, we have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
Ques And would not the same thing apply to the expression in Colossians 1, “Christ in you”?
FER Yes, Christ could not be in one. He is in every one.
H Then the idea is that one is not adequate for it; you must have the company.
FER Yes; what hangs on that is that it is more than one; one Spirit must make one body. It is a necessary consequence.
Ques What is the meaning of “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 6:19?
FER The body of the individual is the temple of the Holy Spirit where the Spirit dwells. It is individual there.
Ques How do you reconcile that with the corporate idea?
FER Because the body of every one is the temple of the Holy Spirit, but there is only one Holy Spirit. I cannot explain the meaning of it in a moment. It is too great altogether.
EC It is important to remark that there and also in this chapter the definite article is not used.
FER No, it is characteristic. And so too in regard to God’s temple: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 6:19) etc. It is exactly the definite idea that we have connected with it. It means you have that place; your body has that place, as being the temple of the Holy Spirit. And so, too, it is in this chapter: “Ye are Christ’s body”, 1 Corinthians 12:27. It is not exactly the definite idea of the body of Christ, but you have that place, you are Christ’s body. It is characteristic.
A Is not the thought of dwelling rather collective, the fact that God has made a place for Himself here in consequence of redemption?
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques We could not have it before?
FER No, there could be no such thing before. The very beginning of it was what comes out in John 20.
Rem You must have the new company.
FER I think so, but then morally the Holy Spirit forms the new company; that is His special office and function here — to form that which is morally according to God.
Ques Having come, is His dwelling permanent?
FER I think it is permanent as long [p. 331] as the vessel is here. It is dependent on the vessel. He dwells here as long as the vessel is here, and if the vessel is taken the Spirit goes with the vessel. He does not remain after the vessel is gone. I do not see any ground for thinking so.
WB Is it in the ‘body’ aspect or in the ‘house’ aspect that the church is the dwelling place of the Spirit?
FER The house. It is not the proper thought, the idea of dwelling in a body. It is the ‘house’ aspect that He dwells: Jew and gentile builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ques Then at the rapture, the body gone, the Spirit goes, too.
EC But then what about Joel 2, which opens the day of Pentecost — the pouring out of the Spirit? Because He will be poured out again according to Joel 2.
FER Yes: the Spirit will be poured out in that sense, but I do not think it will be the idea of the Spirit dwelling here. “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh”, Joel 2:28. In principle it is fulfilled already, but then it will have a literal fulfilment. The Lord says, “that he may abide with you for ever”, John 14:16. The Old Testament did not speak of that. And then the Lord goes on to say “even the Spirit of truth ... for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you”, John 14:17. Peter takes up both thoughts, that in principle the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled; but that having received of that, the promise of the Spirit He hath shed forth, etc.
H That is so: He connected the promise of the Father with that which the prophet had spoken.
EC There is one other expression, “I will put my spirit within you” in Ezekiel 36.
FER I should not refer that exactly to the Holy Spirit: I think it is more moral.
EC It was said just now that Peter connected the giving of the Holy Spirit with [p. 332] Joel; does He not say, This is the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy?
FER He says, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet”, Acts 2:16. There is no definite fulfilment. I think it is of that character.
H It always struck me that it is the character of the thing rather than the literal or direct fulfilment; and the omission of the latter part of the prophecy of Joel shows that.
FER Yes; see how many things spoken of by the prophets are quoted in the Acts as being fulfilled in principle. It is not at all an uncommon thing. For instance, in Acts 15, when Paul went up to Jerusalem, James speaks about the tabernacle being raised up which is fallen down, and of God taking up the residue of the gentiles. It is prophecy which is fulfilled in principle.
O It does not put them down in the same sentence. Peter gives the first part of the prophecy of Joel, and then afterwards he comes to the resurrection, “This Jesus hath God raised up ... see and hear”, Acts 2: 32,33. He makes a distinction between the two.
FER Quite so. I think the giving of the Holy Spirit in the true christian sense properly hangs on John 14, that is, the demand of Christ. “I will pray the Father ... Comforter”. “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit”, Acts 2:33. Then I think it is the Spirit’s coming in that way that necessarily brings about one body. One Spirit must bring about one body.
Ques You think it is connected there with John 14?
FER Yes.
Rem Many of us have thought it was individual.
FER You get the individual brought in afterwards in connection with the tests. When the Lord is speaking in that way He is looking upon the little company of the disciples as the vessel of testimony,
[p. 333] and the Holy Spirit was to come in that way, that they might be here in testimony to Himself.
Ques What is the thought of drinking into one Spirit?
FER It has been thought sometimes that there is an allusion to the two sacraments — baptism and the Lord’s supper.
Ques Would it give the idea of communion?
FER I think it does. It shows that the link between the saints is not outward. It does not lie in the body, but very much deeper. That is where the secret of unity lies among saints; not in the outward, but in the inward, in spirit. We “have been all made to drink into one Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12:13.
Ques; Is there life in the expression at all?
FER I think there is. I do not think the second ‘spirit’ is the Holy Spirit, but it is that we have all been made to drink into one spirit.
Ques What the Spirit would produce in us?
FER Yes; it is more character in a way.
Ques Something the same as the Spirit of Christ?
FER Yes, but I think the allusion there is pretty definitely to the Holy Spirit; He takes that character.
J In the close of 1 John 3, “The Spirit which he hath given us”, and then in chapter 4, “He hath given us of his Spirit”. Does that give the thought?
FER No, I think not. I think in every case there it is the Holy Spirit. For instance, “He that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17) — you cannot say that is the Holy Spirit. “He which is joined to an harlot is one body”, 1 Corinthians 6:16; then the contrast, “He that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 6:17. The link lies deeper there; it is not outward, it is one Spirit. So we “have been all made to drink into one Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12:13. It shows where the secret of unity lies, not in outward association, but in the fact of having been made to drink into one Spirit.
[p. 334] Ques Would the outward association be the baptised forming the body?
FER The outward association is in the house, the fellowship; but at the same time there is something that underlies all that, and that is the truth of the one body, and that depends upon our having been made to drink into one Spirit.
Ques I suppose in a way you might confound the outward association with that?
FER I am sure you might.
O It is a living power in the body.
C In a certain material sense it is figured in the cup which is passed round.
FER Exactly. I think the figure is drawn from that. I suppose there is the idea of life in it as someone said just now. The Lord speaks in John 6:63, “The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life”; that is, they have that character.
H Would you say something about the distinction of gifts by the Spirit, and differences, etc., “the same God who operates all things in all”, 1 Corinthians 12:6.
FER I think it is a very important passage, because really it shows the divine Persons in their proper relation to christianity. Not divine Persons simply as divine Persons, but in the place which they have respectively taken; and I think it is the way in which we have to apprehend divine Persons.
Ques That is in their relation to christianity?
FER Yes, in the place they have taken.
Ques Would you say a word about the place they have taken?
FER It is nothing new. The abstract idea of God is presented to us in the Father. Christ has taken the place of administration — one Lord. Then the Holy Spirit has taken the place of indwelling. I think we have to recognise divine Persons according to the place they have taken. For instance, we do not address prayers or hymns to the Holy Spirit for the [p. 335] simple reason that the Spirit of God has taken the place of indwelling.
Ques Why does verse 4 connect the diversities of gift with the Spirit?
FER Because I think everything down here is in the distribution of the Spirit. Everything is under Christ: the administration is centred in Christ. But I think that everything down here is really in the distribution of the Spirit. The Spirit distributes, that is, He acts in divine sovereignty down here; but at the same time those who receive His distribution are under the Lord. For instance, Christ ascended up on high and gave gifts to men. They were given in that sense by Christ, but at the same time all those gifts are here in the distribution of the Spirit.
Rem In service the Lord is looked to.
FER Yes, because all comes from Him. He gives the gifts, and the Lord has the place of supremacy in regard to administration; but then everything is in the distribution of the Holy Spirit. And that is why you do not get miracles now. They have been given, but the Holy Spirit does not distribute them.
H Does not this come out in contrast to heathenism, and the way in which people connected every manifestation with some god or other — it is in contrast to that sort of thing?
FER Yes.
D Is the manifestation of the Spirit the exercise of the gift?
FER Yes, it is the way in which the gift comes out. But the great point that comes out is that every manifestation of the Spirit should be there profitably.
Ques What would you say as to the operation?
FER Well, I think that is the great principle of the thing, “through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”, Colossians 2:12. It gives you the character and principle of [p. 336] the thing.
O And all would come out in harmony and unity?
FER I think so; whatever administration there is, it is all in connection with the operation of God. The operation of God is what God chooses to effect. Administration all comes in on that line, and so, too, the distribution of the Holy Spirit. It is what the Lord prays for in John 17, “That they may be one as we are one”. Every divine Person was employed in the creation. Therefore when it speaks of God in the abstract, it necessarily brings in the thought of the whole Godhead.
Ques And when you say it traces everything up to God, it is by the Holy Spirit?
O It is the wonder of Luke 15 that you begin with the Trinity there.
FER Yes, it all comes out in John’s gospel, that is the Father and the Son in the unity of the Spirit. That is the principle that comes out in John’s gospel. The Son does nothing but what He seeth the Father do. It is the Father and the Son in the unity of the Spirit, therefore there could be no divergence; all must be in perfect accord.
O “That they may be one as we are” (John 17:11) necessarily waited for the power of the Holy Spirit for its fulfilment.
FER Exactly. I think what I said at the beginning is a little important, that is, that chapter 11 presents to you the Lord; chapter 12, the body. In regard to the assembly, it is a very great point that the Lord has His place.
H Do you mean ‘on our side’ as we commonly speak?
FER I mean in our recognition of Him. You have to give Him His place in regard to the saints, in regard to the assembly. His great object is to bring them into concert with Himself. That is certain; I think the Spirit has that in view; really to bring them [p. 337] into concert with Himself, but at the same time if there is impropriety He will chasten. In chapter 11 He comes out in the title of Lord. He is distant in a sense.
H Quite so, because it is not a title that is intimately connected with communion.
FER No, but I think that refers to what was going on at Corinth. The Lord holds Himself in a sense distant and yet with the thought of bringing the assembly into concert with Himself, into the sense of identification with Him.
A Is your thought of giving the Lord His place individual?
FER It has to be regarded individually but I think the place is to be given to the Lord in assembly, because individual conduct in the assembly is collective responsibility. Where there is disorder in the meeting you cannot say that one person is simply responsible — it is the meeting that is responsible.
A When you say the Lord is there to bring the saints into concert with Himself, that is the object in view.
FER It is the object in view with the Spirit.
H The other idea comes in rather by way of accident, the thought of disorder and the like.
O It ought not to come in; but if it does, then the Lord is there to correct.
FER Yes.
O But it would not come in if, as you say, the Lord had His place. It is a proof that the Lord has not His place.
FER I strongly suspect that in the assembly, if things were as they should be, He would not be thought of so much as Lord, but as Head. We have no identification with Him as Lord. He stands alone in that, but we are identified with Him as Head.
A That is where the thought of the body would [p. 338] come in.
FER Yes, that brings in chapter 12. Following properly on the Supper, chapter 12 comes in and brings in the body.
K Do you connect responsibility with the Lord?
FER I think ‘the Lord’ brings in the thought of responsibility; but then chapter 12 is to me one of the most important chapters that can be. Chapter 11 is not merely for instruction. It comes in, too, in the way in which Christ is connected livingly with what is renewed down here in the assembly, “I have received of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23), etc. Then again afterwards, in the passage referred to, “we are chastened of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 11:32.
Ques For not discerning the Lord’s body?
FER Yes.
EC ‘Lord’ is not there, it should be “not discerning the body”, 1 Corinthians 11:29; not distinguishing the body.
H But then everything comes to us from God through the Lord administratively.
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques And through the Spirit distributively?
FER Yes, it must be so.
Ques Why in chapter 10 is that altered: “the cup of blessing ... communion of the blood of Christ”. Why is it not ‘Lord‘ there?
FER Because it is fellowship.
Ques Fellowship is not in connection with the Lord?
FER No, I think fellowship is in connection with the death of Christ.
H And you have not come exactly to the assembly there.
FER The great point in chapter 10 is separation. I do not think you can really come to the assembly except through separation.
Ques You mean separation in connection with that passage our brother [p. 339] has quoted?
FER Yes, separation from all that is not suitable to the death of Christ.
Ques That is why you said we reach the Supper through the table.
FER I think that is the case morally; you will not value the Supper except as you are clear of all association and fellowship which is unsuitable to the death of Christ. I really would not care to break bread with a freemason even though he were a christian, would you?
H Certainly not, he is not free of fellowship with things and associations here.
D The same would apply to Good Templars.
EC Then you would say chapter 10 is the “exclusive brethren”!
FER Yes, I think so. I am not a bit afraid of exclusivism if you make it moral and not ecclesiastical:
I would go as far as anyone in it, if you make it moral.
A You said just now that the table is the road to the Supper; is the Supper the road to the assembly?
FER The Supper is introductory to the assembly. I am more and more convinced that the effect of the supper is really to put Christ and the saints properly in touch, and I believe practically you find that out, too.
H The Lord takes His place in connection with the company.
FER Yes, I think His pleasure is to identify Himself with the company; I think the Lord has a great controversy with us because we are so slow to accept it — to accept His pleasure in identifying Himself with us. We do not take into account the love of Christ. Love will have company and if the Lord loves the saints, His pleasure is to come into their company.
J Is that His compensation?
FER All I say is, give Him the compensation.
A Would you say that is where we get Hebrews 2, “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?
FER Christ takes the central place in leading praises, not simply in the church but in the universe. He says, “My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation” (Psalm 22:25) and “I will sing unto thee among the nations”, Psalm 57:9. He takes that place in regard of the whole universe.
N Does not the Lord have more delight in the company of the saints than the saints have in each other’s?
FER It is an awful reproach to us how unready we are to give Him His place.
Rem It is a proof of the low moral state amongst us. W.B. What do you mean by ‘giving the Lord His place’?
FER I mean to give Him the place which He delights to take on our side in company with us. He will serve us all the week as High Priest really to attach us to Himself in order that when it comes to the question of the sanctuary we shall allow Him to have His place, in identification with us, as Head.
Dr. R. Does John 20 illustrate that? “Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord”, John 20:20.
FER Quite so.
O I think it is only really as we enter into that and give Him His place that we can rightly remember Him according to His desire.
FER Quite so. I think the Supper really gives Him His place, He brings before us His death as the expression of His love. When that is accepted it gives Him His place. He will serve you individually in a thousand ways and watch over you, that you may be really attached to Himself, so that when it comes to the sanctuary you may give Him His place as minister of the sanctuary — like Aaron and his sons: Aaron was not lord with his sons — he was identified with his [p. 341] sons; so Christ identifies Himself with the many sons whom God is bringing to glory.
H There is not only the thought of attachment to Himself, but also the idea of relief in regard to our things, so that we may be free to enter into the sanctuary.
FER I think so — so that you may come into seclusion.
H Yes, that is a very great point.
WB Does that only take place on the first day of the week? Would you confine it to that? Coming into the sanctuary.
FER I think it is when the assembly comes together.
WB Yes, but then how about the continuation of that meeting?
FER The moment the assembly in a certain sense ceases to be together, each one of us goes back to our individual path in the wilderness.
WB But then you have frequently said that the meeting on the first day of the week is intended to be continued on other occasions.
FER The assembly is rallied or gathered on the first day of the week. I do not think the assembly is gathered or rallied otherwise except it be for discipline.
WB When then would all this take place that we get detailed in this chapter?
FER When the assembly has come together.
WB Do you mean on the Lord’s day morning?
FER I suppose it may be continued: it might go on all the week through.
H As a matter of fact it does not.
FER No.
A Is not relief the great need? That we should know the Lord as High Priest, and that prepares us for really knowing Him in the assembly. Is it because we [p. 342] know so little of the relief, that we are so little attracted to Him?
FER I think so. Why does all the truth come out in the early part of Hebrews? It is to anticipate the sanctuary. The first seven chapters are preparatory, and then in chapter 8 you come to the sanctuary. Then when you come to the sanctuary it is a most remarkable thing you find the covenant — you find the minister of the sanctuary and the divine service, but we have the priest. You have nothing external like Israel. In the priest is your sufficiency without any of the things which a Jew would look for, “A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man”, Hebrews 8:2. Christianity is very remarkable in that sense, because you are apart from everything external on which the Jew depended and all earthly worship depends; but you have the Priest.
Rem That is the end and aim of priesthood.
FER Yes, it is all set forth in chapter 2. Chapter 2 is the Lord’s condition and position.
J In that way is there not a certain analogy between 2 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 11; in the one case outside and in the other case inside? Chapter 10 is outside, and in the early chapters of Hebrews you are outside in order to prepare for the inside.
FER Yes, quite so.
FC Is that because we are so little at leisure from ourselves that we do not give the Lord His place?
FER Yes, I think so. If I judge from myself, we have a very poor appreciation of the living service of Christ, His interest in His own people, His love to His people. Whatever does the Lord serve His people for? Because He loves them, and so that we may really get the benefit of His priestly service.
Rem We should be at leisure.
FER I think so. I cannot conceive anything [p. 343] more marvellous than that you are loved of Christ because the Father gives you to Him.
‘Thou gav’st us in eternal love,
To Him to bring us home to Thee’. (88:1)
Rem That is true now.
FER Oh, yes. But He does not bring us home to the Father’s house yet; but the thought is to bring you to the Father’s heart. “I have declared unto them thy name ... that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them” John 17:26. That is to bring them really to the Father’s heart.
H There is a thought in some people’s minds that the pressure of this line of things puts certain people into bondage in some way or other — I do not know how — that when they come to the assembly they are afraid to give out certain hymns.
FER What a good job that is!
H But they do not take it as a good job.
FER It all depends from what point of view you look at it.
Rem All this supposes the knowledge of deliverance.
FER I think so. I do not think you touch the Priest except as delivered. I do not think you touch the resurrection platform except you know deliverance. You have done with yourself; you become conscious that you are loved of the Priest. It is to me the greatest possible liberty that one can conceive. What can possibly give me liberty except the consciousness of love? Nothing can free a man from bondage really except the consciousness of love. All I desire is that every one of us should be in the consciousness of the pleasure of the love of Christ, and there cannot be any bondage about that. If there be bondage, that is because you are not conscious of His love. You would not have bondage then.
WB I think you might find souls conscious of the love of Christ who do not know a great deal about deliverance and all [p. 344] these things.
FER Well, but I think there is a good deal of bondage with them, more than they know of. I very much doubt if they are made perfect in love.
Ques Would it not make us anxious to answer to it?
Ques J.N.D. made a statement that the epistle to the Hebrews and the gospel of Matthew were the only two New Testament books that the Jew would understand. Can you explain that?
FER Well, it is not difficult in regard to Hebrews, because it is cast in such a mould as would suit the comprehension of a Jew.
Ques A converted Jew today, or a Jew by — and — by?
FER I think the truth is in such a shape in the Hebrews that it is particularly suited to the Jew. That is why we have great difficulty in understanding the epistle.
Ques Do you think that J.N.D. thought that a converted Jew now would only own (or ‘know’) those two books out of all the books of Scripture?
FER The thought was that it is these two particular books which would really help him into christian life (or ‘light’).
N When ministry takes place in the assembly, does the person become a Levite? Is it levitical service, in that way, if he gives a word?
FER I should hardly run it quite so distinctly as that; you cannot lose your priestly place quite in the assembly.
Rem I think the priestly place had really to do with God and the holiest. There would not be any need of the ministry there.
FER I think it is all priestly — all that is in the assembly is properly priestly — you cannot carry the idea of levitical service into that.
Ques If we have the assembly in function as in chapter 12, you do get room [p. 345] for that?
FER Quite so, but can you speak about it as levitical service?
Ques Would you say a word about the one body?
FER The truth of the one body is to show that all the manifestations of the Spirit must subserve the one body. They are all subordinate to the one Spirit, but all the manifestations of the Spirit must be subservient to the one body. The body is really morally greater than all the manifestations.
H Is the idea that all the manifestations are for the good and benefit of the body?
FER They are all to be subservient to the truth of the body. The fact is — one knows it perfectly well — that whatever people may have in the way of endowment, they all go wrong with it when they do not apprehend the truth of the one body. There could not be any independency in the exercise of it.
Rem I think it is to exclude all idea of independency.
A The great point is to exclude clericalism.
FER If people get into their own particular things, if a man rallies round him certain disciples, all that is practically ignoring the one body. It is making a body in that way round himself.
Rem Making everything of one’s gift.
FER Yes, it is heresy. That is practically what was being done in Corinth, and the apostle is speaking to correct that state of things. And the man who acts thus proves this — that he has no sense of the one body. The fact is in the chapter there is no Head, but there is the body — if you can understand it; and that is exactly what the church is down here. There is no Head down here, the Head is in heaven, and if a man makes himself a bead, he is guilty of schism.
Rem You get the eye and ear in detail but there is no Head here.
H You get the expression “the head cannot say to the feet” (1 Corinthians 12:21), is that not an allusion to the [p. 346] human body?
FER Yes. I think people would be greatly subdued if they entered into God’s purpose in the revival of Christ in the very scene where Christ died. It means the complete defeat of all the power of the enemy — just as when Israel is revived, it will really mean the setting aside of the whole present system of the world.
O What an awful spectacle the success of Satan has made of all around!
FER “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Matthew 16:18; that set aside the power of the enemy and brought it all down in a way, but then the tactics of the enemy were to corrupt the church — to bring the church into association with the world, to spoil people by associations. The church has lost the place of separation, as brought out in 1 Corinthians 10, and thus all the power is gone — it is like Samson shorn of his locks.
EC “The gates of hades” means the power of evil.
A Would you say the two revivals spoken of tonight include the whole purpose of God?
FER The whole purpose includes and goes on to the new heavens and the new earth. Everything really is in new creation. Until that point is reached, resurrection is the platform on which God works.
Ques Do you not get the two things, the spiritual and material?
FER Yes, I think the material comes out in the case of Israel by-and-by, with them it is national resurrection.
Rem You get millennial blessing.
FER Yes; but the point to me is this, that on the resurrection platform God can deal with man on the ground that sin and flesh have been completely removed. That is the importance of the resurrection platform; sin and flesh have been completely removed from before God in the death of Christ.
[p. 347] O God has a free hand now.
H Would you say a word in regard to new creation and resurrection? You were drawing a distinction just now.
FER I think new creation has its climax in resurrection, that is its full expression. New creation, of course, is a moral expression, “if any one be in Christ ... new creation” 2 Corinthians 5:17, but I do not think it ends with what is moral. It eventuates in its physical condition in resurrection.
A Would you say that resurrection is the basis of new creation?
FER I think so, because it is the platform on which God operates. I do not think people are so ready to reach God on that platform. They say it, but they are not so very quick. The road by which we reach that platform is a deal more difficult. You must go through death to reach resurrection. Two things are essential to it. We have to reach it in the same way as God reached it. God reached it very quickly in the death of Christ. We have to appropriate the death of Christ — to make it good morally in our souls.
-H. God has reached it actually in the death of Christ.
FER Yes, people think they can reach it by the acceptance of what God has done. I do not think you reach it by faith. It is only reached experimentally. How can you get free from sin until you have learned what sin is? How can you get free from flesh until you know what the flesh is? No person gets deliverance without having had the sense of bondage.