THE IMPORT OF THE RESURRECTION
THE IMPORT OF THE RESURRECTION
FER I think up to the end of chapter 14 the proper effect of what comes out was to set them clear of man. What spoilt the church at Corinth was man.
H You see that at the outset of the epistle, chapter 1.
FER I think so. The evil there was not the worst thing — the worst thing at Corinth was man.
P Would you explain that?
FER What spoils the church of God is man and man’s desire for prominence. Every bit of the working of man’s mind does not tend to holiness.
WB By the working of man’s mind, do you mean the mind of man subject to the Spirit of God?
FER I mean the working of man’s mind in divine things.
WB In the last meeting you said something about the mind.
FER I quite admit man’s mind, but I make a great difference between mind and the activity of the mind. I think man’s mind is like an eye; in that sense it is useful enough, but the moment it goes beyond that, and gets into activity in divine things, it appears to me to be most destructive.
K “With the mind I myself serve the law of God”, Romans 7:25.
FER That is the mind in complete subjection to the law [p. 390] of God.
Rem That is what our brother means.
FER He is proposing to make me responsible for inconsistency.
WB No, I only wanted an explanation.
Rem The mind is subject already.
FER I do not think so: the mischief is when mind is active.
A I suppose the mind is as bad as any part of the man.
FER If it is active in divine things. A man may work in a certain sense in things under the sun; but any activity of the mind in divine things is most mischievous to the man himself.
P Does the apostle mean the spiritual mind when he says, “We have the mind of Christ”, 1 Corinthians 2:16?
FER In chapter 14 the mind is a very important thing because it enables you to understand how other people look at things. It is not simply how you have got things, but you are enabled by it to ascertain how far people have got things. For instance, if you are speaking in a meeting, if you have mind in that sense, mind enables you to ascertain how far people are taking it in — how far people understand you.
H Or perhaps wish you would sit down.
FER Very well. If you had perception in that sense, you would see how they do not understand you.
P What is perfectly intelligent to some is not so to others, according to the spiritual way their mind has been reached.
FER You can see whether you are holding people’s attention.
Ques Is the proper function of the mind apprehension?
FER I think so. The mind is the faculty in that sense — it is the means by which you are in intelligent communication with others. It is the faculty which belongs to man and not to the brute creation, because there could be no interchange of thought between you [p. 391] and a dog, though a dog may look up into your face with the greatest affection. Nor do I believe that there can be any real intelligent interchange of thought between man and man except through the mind — that is my opinion in spite of what scientists may say.
WB Does not that involve a certain amount of activity?
FER I do not think so. What I mean by activity is that kind of thing that often leads to the lunatic asylum. People go religiously mad in that way. There is undue activity in divine things, and I think it may lead to the mind being overbalanced. The great point is to keep out activity of mind in divine things, because we are taught of God, and that does not call for activity of mind on our part.
H What was said last time, I think, was that gift was subject to desire, and was regulated by mind.
FER Yes, but that is not activity; it is regulation, so that the assembly should not be a bear-garden or scene of confusion.
Rem I suppose that the assembly of God is the sphere for the Spirit to act, not a man’s mind.
FER Well, to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge. It is the manifestations of the Spirit which are given to profit, not the activity of the mind, and the way in which man puts things together. In divine things you cannot put two and two together; in human things you can, that is the faculty of the mind, but not in divine things.
Ques Does not the Spirit of God communicate through the mind?
FER Yes, I think so; it is the eye of the heart.
WB That is what I meant by the mind being subject to the Spirit of God.
FER But I do not give any place in that way to any activity of mind. If it is acquiescent I do not object to it. It is then prepared to act simply the part [p. 392] of an eye. It is that through which the Spirit of God conveys certain things to the heart. They must come through the mind by the Spirit if you are to have any intelligence about them.
ASL The affections are to be active.
FER Yes.
Rem You might say the word enlightens it.
FER Yes, the word enlightens the heart.
Rem It must come through the mind.
FER Yes, as far as that goes, who could say that God could not speak, I should not say He does not, would you?
H No. I think we say on the contrary that He did.
FER I should not say that God should not or could not.
P What is the force of “gird up the loins of your mind”, 1 Peter 1:13?
FER I understand it to be that you are not to be slack, not to let the mind run riot. That is a great verse to me, “Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth”, Proverbs 17: 24.
H Does that convey to your mind that a fool’s mind is what we call ‘all over the place’?
FER Yes, distracted; whereas if a man has understanding his mind is centred on wisdom.
K Would you state what you meant last time by ‘gift is subject to desire’?
FER If a man really had the interests of the church at heart, the interests of Christ at heart, and desired gift, he might get it. The apostle puts them on to that, “Covet earnestly the best gifts”, 1 Corinthians 12:31.
A I suppose there would be more gift displayed if there were more real activity.
FER If there were more real heart to serve, at all events — more gift would be developed.
H But for that, man [p. 393] must be entirely set aside.
FER Yes.
H And love must be in exercise.
FER What spoilt the assembly at Corinth was man — man’s mind and man’s love of pre-eminence; and to meet that the apostle brings in the truth that it was God’s temple, the Spirit of God dwelling there, and that it was Christ’s body. And in Christ’s body there can be no pre-eminence. I think the two things, that is the presence of the Spirit and the pre-eminence of Christ, put man out altogether. It is the most complete exclusion of man, to my mind, that can possibly be, because the holiness of God never could be apprehended by the mind of man. And if you take the church as Christ’s body, you cannot have any pre eminence in the body. My head is not pre-eminent, and if my hand is wrong, my head is just as much concerned about it as if my head were wrong. If you had paralysis in your hand, your head would be just as much concerned about it as if the paralysis were in your head. As a matter of fact the source of paralysis is in the head.
H The result is that we get built up in the divine nature.
FER I think so, only you get man out. That is the great point in chapter 15. When he has got the church clear of man, he deposits there God’s testimony.
Ques Is the point in the testimony of God the resurrection?
FER Yes, that is the way in which I understand chapter 15, he really there deposits God’s testimony when they were fit for it.
Ques Is that like beginning again?
FER No, because they had a good foundation, the apostle had laid the good foundation, which is Jesus Christ. They bad believed the facts of the gospel, and had the Holy Spirit. But that is one thing; to have God’s testimony deposited there is another, and that is really what chapter 15 [p. 394] is.
B What do you mean by ‘he deposited it’?
FER He declared unto them the gospel which he preached. It is a most interesting chapter, because when it is a question of the facts of the gospel, the apostle ran simply with the twelve: they were all one there; but when it comes to the significance of the facts, then the apostle stands alone.
Ques. How stands alone?
FER I do not think you find any other apostle bringing out the great truth of the last Adam and second Man.
Ques That is the import of the resurrection — not the fact, and that is what you mean by ‘depositing’?
FER Yes.
H And does not that same thing then turn up again in 2 Timothy when he says, “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner”, 2 Timothy 1:8?
FER Yes, and note the expression in the same epistle, “Remember Jesus Christ raised from among the dead, of the seed of David, according to my glad tidings”, 2 Timothy 2:8.
Ques Well, but did not they all preach the resurrection?
FER Yes, but this is “raised from among the dead... according to my gospel”, 2 Timothy 2:8.
WJ Would you think that section begins with verse 20? “Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21), etc.
FER What identifies that specially with the apostle is that it brings you on to the end. “Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him... that God may be all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15:28. So you have the peculiar line in which the gospel was given to the apostle. The facts are the same for all. And my firm conviction is that all God’s testimony is comprised in the death and [p. 395] resurrection of Christ.
Ques Is the thought here the kingdom — that aspect?
FER I think so, but he opens things up right on to the end, even to what is eternal, when God shall be all in all. Because I think his point is to show that it is connected with man, and the resurrection of man is the complete putting aside of every enemy. That is all in connection with the last Adam, but then the last Adam, by the very fact of being the last Adam, is also the beginning of another order of man. If you have another Adam — the last Adam — you must have the second Man, and that means another order of man, so that you get man’s eternal place with God.
H That was the special subject of Paul’s ministry.
FER I think so.
Rem The twelve were necessarily occupied a good deal with the dispensational order of things.
FER Yes, they had been witnesses of the death and resurrection and they declared that God had exalted Him. The One whom the people had rejected and crucified, God had raised and exalted to His own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour. That is the character of Peter’s testimony.
WJ Does not Peter touch the eternal sphere in the second epistle?
FER I think he does just touch it there.
H But you would not say it was the special subject of his testimony.
FER No; he does not bring it out in the way Paul does in connection with man. We look for it in 2 Peter, but he does not show its connection with the last Adam.
Ques Is that what Paul calls “my gospel”?
FER Yes. Immediately he preached that Jesus was the Son of God, Acts 9:20. Paul’s testimony, I think, begins and ends there.
[p. 396] WJ Would the moral result of his teaching be the thought of subjection?
FER Well, do you not see it was the special way, on the part of the apostle, of arriving at his great end to exclude man. He brings in, in a remarkable way, the truth here of the last Adam and second Man. But then if that is so, where are the first Adam and the first man?
Rem They are gone.
JMcK You cannot afford to exclude the one unless you have the other.
FER No, not a bit. I do not think a man can part with the one until he has something better.
Rem The death and resurrection of Christ is leaving the one and entering the other.
FER Yes.
K How far does the ‘all’ go in verse 22?
FER That is the all “in Christ”: it is a question of headship. All in the Adam die. In the Christ all are made alive. It is the climax, the consummation.
Rem All connected with Him.
FER Yes, all in Him. It is a question of the two heads, and what is true of the head is true of all connected with Him. “As in Adam all die, even so” (1 Corinthians 15:22), etc.
Rem I suppose it was on the same lines that he says in Romans 4, He “was raised again for our justification”.
FER Quite so; that is leading on to it.
Ques Is it in another man, another order?
FER Well, I see that without resurrection justification is perfectly futile.
A It cannot be maintained.
FER It is no good! God’s testimony to justification is resurrection; if there is no resurrection, justification is a dead letter.
A That is, you connect justification with the world to come.
FER Death is on man, and if it were in the power [p. 397] of God to set man up in death, I would be justified for nothing, if such a thing were conceivable. It is very much like the case you get in the palsied man. The testimony given was that he could take up his bed and walk, that is, the power of God took a man up out of death into life. Then I say God can justify.
H And does not that remain the testimony, man is forgiven?
FER It is the only testimony. He “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification”, Romans 4:25. God has shown us that He can take a man out of death, as you get here, because if there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not raised. You may take the Lord Himself as the representative case, and what God has shown is His power in raising a man out of death into life. If I see that, then God can justify, otherwise justification would be perfectly futile.
H Is that the idea of the expression of “justification of life”, Romans 5:18?
FER No, that is more a present thing. You have got a point further than testimony; you have got to life itself.
Rem It is subjective.
FER Yes.
H But what was the case of the man who took up his bed and walked, but subjective?
Rem It is a great point that we have got to the justification of life, because we have the testimony in ourselves.
H The evidence in regard to the man that you were speaking about was that he could take up his bed and walk.
FER The Lord gave proof in that way that He could raise up man out of his natural weakness, out of palsy, out of paralysis.
A And when the testimony is deposited here,
[p. 398] does it show all to be in connection with the second Man?
FER Yes, but when the apostle has placed the testimony there, in that sense you can understand how he takes up the question in the second epistle.
WJ And what you come to is moral recovery.
FER Yes, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15. It is a worshipping body, but at the same time it is the pillar and ground of the truth; and the idea is that the testimony of God which came through the apostle was deposited in the church and maintained there. That is the idea of it.
A Is the thought of victory in the close of the chapter the exclusion of the first man?
FER Victory is that you are in life out of death, and if you are in life out of death, sin and death are gone, and the grave has lost its power. There are three things that come out in the resurrection of Christ. One is God’s attitude; the second, God’s pleasure; the third, God’s power; but if you want to get the victory you want to be in His pleasure. The first is His attitude.
Ques How do you explain that?
FER He is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Romans 3:26; that is the attitude in the resurrection of Christ. The second, His pleasure; you are risen together with Him; that is life. The third is His power to usward who believe; that is to put us in a condition for the hope of the calling and the enjoyment of the inheritance.
H But when you spoke just now of God’s attitude and referred to Him as being just and the justifier, that seems in Romans 3 to be connected with the blood.
FER That is the ground of it, but the administration is that you believe on Him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, and because God presents Himself to us in that way in the resurrection of Christ, and you [p. 399] are justified by believing what God has done. “Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God”, Romans 5:1.
WJ Do you think people get settled peace until they get into the light of purpose?
FER I think when they get into the light of God’s testimony they ought to come into peace. My conviction is that very few people are consciously in the light of God’s testimony.
Ques When you say ‘the light of God’s testimony’, are you referring to this chapter, and so too to other parts, as Romans?
FER Romans is the light of the testimony of God from beginning to end.
H But when you say that, I think a good many persons might perhaps suggest that all this is very elementary in a way; and persons when freshly converted are supposed to be in the light of God’s testimony in the resurrection. Would you explain that?
FER I think they believe the facts, but I do not think they apprehend the import of the facts. If you want to be in the light of God’s testimony, the point is not simply to believe the facts, but to apprehend the import of the facts. There are tens of thousands of christians who believe the facts, and salvation is by faith; but I do not think they apprehend the import of that.
H Take Romans 4 as a sample, “To whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead”, Romans 4:24. What would you say in regard to that?
FER I think you come into the import of it in Romans 4, because death comes in in chapter 3, but in chapter 4 you get the import of the facts.
Dr. R. That is shown in the case of Abraham: he really got into the import of the facts.
FER He received Isaac from the dead in a figure. In Romans 4 all that you have got to is Abraham’s God: “Who is the father of us all... before him whom [p. 400] he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were”, Romans 4:16,17. You have got to Israel’s God in chapters 9, 10 and 11. That is, you have the Almighty and Jehovah. You never get the Father in Romans.
Rem I suppose it is implied in chapter 8.
FER Yes, because you have the Spirit, but the idea that you have reached the Father is not in chapter 8.
WJ As to the import of resurrection, are there two parts, because it is according to God’s pleasure, as you said, that we are raised with Christ? Is not that the import of resurrection?
FER No. I think there is another point beyond. That is part of it, but I think the closing part of it is that it is the power of God towards us who believe. “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead”, Ephesians 1:20. I think that is the climax of it all.
WB When Mr. R. said that tens of thousands are instructed in the facts, but who need to be instructed in the import of the facts — I am sure it is true.
FER I think you cannot be too elementary, and the things upon which we should be continually harping without any fear of being accused of reiteration, are the death and resurrection of Christ.
WB Certainly. And when you get among souls, if you fully gain their confidence, and they open up to you, you see how true are the remarks of Mr. R.
WJ The fact that the epistle to the Romans is addressed to saints is a proof of that.
FER Quite so. But I think it is important to get a clear and definite idea to understand what the testimony of God is. That is what I have thought lately. My conviction is that God’s testimony is the death and resurrection of Christ. It consists in that which has been brought within the cognisance of man.
Rem It is that by which men are saved?
FER Quite so, and that is [p. 401] the common testimony as to the facts. It was the common testimony of the twelve and of Paul also.
A As to the import, does not that require assent to the facts, and then the teaching of the Spirit?
FER Yes, spiritual teaching enables you to enter into the import; but salvation depends on faith in the facts. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”, Acts 16:31.
AEW Would you say a word on verse 2, “If ye keep in memory” (1 Corinthians 15:2), etc.
FER The truth tested them. If they believed in vain it was all up. What really tests people in regard to preaching is their continuance; “If ye continue in the faith”, Colossians 1:23.
Rem It is more a test there than a proof of it.
FER Quite so.
H Then we ought to endeavour to preach in the same way; to set forth not the facts only, but also the bearing of the facts.
FER I think so.
—.H. How they apply?
FER Yes, I think it is a most wonderful thing to be able to set forth to a miscellaneous congregation what the attitude of God is towards every man — to bring to bear upon people the full light of God — the attitude of God towards man. The death of Christ declares what God is, but the resurrection of Christ declared His attitude — He is a justifier. He is not in the attitude of a law — giver or of a judge.
EM That is towards all men.
FER Yes, that is the great importance of life to my mind — to come on to the ground of life as in Colossians. You cannot make it universal, because it brings in the thought of divine purpose. But when it is a question of light, it is what God is towards all. If God has sent light into the world it is towards all.
EM I only mentioned that because a [p. 402] good many combat it.
FER They have no business to combat it.
EM Even those breaking bread do so.
FER I am very sorry to hear it. God shines forth in light, how can you limit it any more than you can restrict the shining of the sun?
Rem It is Calvinism.
FER Yes, it comes to that. If Calvinism shuts up the light of God to the elect, it is downright error. It is the same to me as attempting to restrict the sunshine.
EM It is said in many places you are not to go out to all.
FER But the light of God’s testimony goes out to all, and what is more, God has got the victory over every single person on the face of the earth. Would you not say so?
H I think it says so in John 1, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world”, John 1:9.
FER Quite so.
Ques Then is life on the line of God’s purpose?
FER It must be: “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will”, John 5:21.
H Then when you speak of pleasure, and connect that with “risen with Christ”, is not that going on that line?
FER Exactly; that is the point of departure in Colossians. In Colossians 3 you get “Elect of God, holy and beloved” (Colossians 3:12), and he addressed them thus.
Rem The resurrection shows God’s attitude.
FER The attitude of God is that He is a justifier.
Ques What do you say about the death?
FER The death is the setting forth of Himself. There never was a soul in the world that ever learnt anything about God except through the death of Christ. He is righteous and holy, and He is love; but the death of Christ is the expression of all that God is [p. 403] in righteousness, holiness and love. The death of Christ is the setting forth of Himself, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son” (John 3:16), and the death of Christ is appealed to as the testimony and expression of God’s love. In the death of Christ I learn Himself: what a wonderful thing it is that all the light of God Himself has come out in the removal of the man that offended Him. That man has gone, and all that God is has come out. The veil of the temple was rent in the midst from the top to the bottom. That was in the death of Christ, not in the resurrection.
H Do you get the things you are speaking of, namely, the attitude, pleasure and power of God, spoken of in their way in Exodus 15, in the song?
FER Yes, quite so.
Ques Do you connect power with this chapter or with Ephesians?
FER The power in regard of this chapter is towards Christ. But the wonderful thing you get in Ephesians is that the power that operated in the resurrection of Christ was not towards Christ, but power towards us. Christ did not want the power of God to operate in Him. I am sure people do not understand the truth of Christ. It is bringing down Christ too much to man.
Ques Do you mean the truth as to His Person?
FER Yes, they lose sight of His Person.
Rem That is that He raised Himself.
FER He said, “I am the resurrection and the life”. What does that mean? The power that operated in the resurrection of Christ was the power of God to usward who believe which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead, Ephesians 1:20.
WJ When it says “quickening spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45), that refers to a divine Person.
FER Exactly. He has life in Himself, and in that way He is a life-giving spirit.
[p. 404] H But is it not objectively set forth in Christ when He raised Him from the dead, but for our benefit?
FER Exactly. He was raised again, not for His justification, but for ours. So life was brought in, in Christ risen, not for Christ, but for us. We are risen together with Him, but life was there just as much before the resurrection as after: only He was separated in death from every order of man, in order that He might stand in a new order, that we might be with Him.
WJ Does not resurrection vindicate the path of the Lord here; Psalm 16?
FER I do not know. It is to prove that He is the Son of God. But if a man were a duke, his continually wanting to give testimony that he was a duke, would make me doubt whether he was a duke at all!
ASL Will you say a word as to the connection between the end of Romans 4 and Colossians as to the import of the resurrection?
FER Romans 4 brings you to this that you are justified. You are brought to the Lord because you understand, you apprehend Christ risen. He is Lord.
ASL He cannot be risen without being Lord. The moment you apprehend Christ risen, you come to the Lord. When you come to that point, then are you risen together with Him?
FER No; you may be in the mind of God, but you have not come to it yet; but you have come into the benefit of Christ’s administration of God’s kingdom, with the benefit of the kingdom. Then you are led on in a kind of way to apprehend really that in the resurrection of Christ there was the expression of God’s pleasure that you are to be actually in life before God quite outside of every order of man down here.
Ques Is that crossing the Jordan?
FER Yes.
WB But you will not get a soul to learn the truth of Romans 4 in five minutes.
FER [p. 405] It has taken me a pretty good thirty years to get a touch of it.
ASL Most of us have taken more than five minutes to get into it.
FER What delights me is to get an idea of God’s testimony. The testimony is to the death and resurrection of Christ. That is more pleasure to me than anything, because when God gives a testimony to man, He gives a testimony of what has come into the cognisance of man; the source and power of the testimony has come from the right hand of God, but when you come to the testimony itself, it is that which has been brought within the cognisance of man, and therefore the apostle appeals here to witnesses who had seen Christ risen.
Ques Are you not continually learning the import of the facts?
FER But you get an idea of what God is about in the import of the resurrection of Christ. He takes up that position of last Adam, raised again from the dead, and that really involved the complete destruction, the setting aside, of every enemy. You begin to apprehend what God is about in that way.
H But is it not true that Jordan is rather experimental; whereas you were speaking of what is the pleasure of God, first of all presented objectively and then entered into experimentally?
FER I think you are not quite prepared to accept the pleasure of God if you are not prepared to accept death. It must be presented to you objectively first, that is, what you have presented to you objectively is the death and resurrection of Christ. Whether people are prepared to go on to the practical acceptance of it, I cannot tell. When you come to the apprehension of it, you see that it was God’s pleasure from the beginning.
Rem I suppose the import of this is that complete victory has come in in the end of chapter 15.
FER [p. 406] You can only come into victory in life. But now you can go on steadfast, immovable. The point is that you are to be steadfast.
Rem That was to lead them on to the ministry in the second epistle.
Rem So that you would say that this chapter is exceedingly important.
FER Yes, because when the apostle has cleared the assembly and vindicated the Spirit of Christ in regard to the assembly, he can deposit with them the testimony.
Rem On the ground of that the ministry comes out.
FER I think so, that is the connection.
Rem I wish you would say a word as to the subjection of the Son.
FER I think in what we speak of as ‘the kingdom’ God is presented in the Son. What is prominent in the eyes of the universe is the Son. The kingdom is taken up mediatorially, and Jehovah comes in in that connection.
Rem I think the Son is rather a correlative name.
FER I think it is; but then the Son is the Mediator, so that you get the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think it is the relative name in that way, but at the same time I think there is a certain pre-eminence in the mediatorial state of things. The Son stands pre-eminent before the universe as the head of all principality and power, Colossians 2:10. Only after the kingdom the Son takes His own place in subjection to the Father. That must be from the fact of His having become Man.
Rem The Lord is always true to the fact of His having taken that place.
FER Yes, just as He was down here.
Rem It could not be anything else.
FER I do not think so. But in the mediatorial kingdom all is presented in the Son. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead”, Colossians 2:9. Just as when Christ [p. 407] was here in humiliation, it was really God presented to man in the Son. When the state of the kingdom is over, He takes His place that He entered upon as Man in subjection to the Father.
Rem How fruitful of moral results is the application of this.
FER I think that very few have entered into what this chapter opens up all in a few verses. And then you get another thing coming in, a new order of man introduced, of which God is the beginning; He is not simply the last Adam, but a life-giving spirit and that introduces a new order of man.
Rem “As is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”, 1 Corinthians 15:48. I suppose nothing is more important than to get clear on the testimony of God.
FER No, it is absolutely impossible to be too simple about the testimony of God.