RECONCILIATION AS CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH
[p. 355] RECONCILIATION AS CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH
Reading, Revised by F.E.R.
Colossians 1: 18 - 29 This seems to be a step in advance of what we had this morning, we did not get anything about the Head, but here we begin with the Head.
FER Yes; in Corinthians you do not get much more than the elements. Of course they may be put together; in due time they are put together, but you get them as elements there.
JSA And do you think reconciliation is necessary before headship can be appreciated?
FER Reconciliation brings in the thought of headship; at all events the two things go together.
WM Is it in the character of Head that we derive from Him?
FER That is true; but it is important for us to see what reconciliation means. In many minds the idea connected with it is extremely indefinite.
R. What does it mean?
FER What I understand by it is that where distance was there is complacency.
GE How is that brought about?
FER It was brought about in the death of Christ. God came in where man was removed. No one could understand reconciliation apart from the death of Christ.
HC And now we can say, “Be reconciled to God”.
FER Quite so.
GR We have here, in this scripture, that He “made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things”, as if there were two thoughts; peace has been made and reconciliation is the [p. 356] result.
JP I suppose it is by “It” instead of by “Him”.
FER No, it is by “Him” unto “Itself”.
RSS In connection with reconciliation, it is that which was estranged and at a distance which has to be reconciled; God does not need to be reconciled.
FER I think it is that complacency comes in where estrangement was; that is the idea of it.
WHC Is it the removal of everything unsuitable to God?
FER I think you see that in Christ. Christ comes in to remove the distance, but He occupies the ground which He has cleared.
JSA Therefore it can be said, “all things are of God, who hath reconciled us”, etc.
WM Reconciliation, I suppose, does not mean that the man who was estranged is left alive, but he is gone.
FER The distance has been removed in the removal of the man. I do not see in what other way God could remove distance. The distance came in by man, and the removal of the distance means the removal of the man. But the point is that where the distance was now there is complacency.
Ques What is it then that is reconciled to Him?
FER All things are to be reconciled and we are reconciled.
GR I would like to ask, do you see the distance and the character of it expressed in the Lord when He cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
FER He entered into the distance, and it was removed in His death. It was the ending of that man that removed the distance.
GR That is true in Christ now.
FER The principle obtains all through; it is true in the church and it stands good as to all things.
JA Could I say, to begin with, I have accepted God’s verdict as [p. 357] to myself?
FER That is where it begins with us, we have to accept the removal in the death of Christ. And where the distance was marked there the complacency exists.
GR Was not that when He became incarnate?
FER The moment He became man there was complacency, it was in principle true. “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. That came to pass in Christ, but another thing had to be effected, that is, the removal of the distance.
GR I think you pointed out recently that in the very chapter which announced the birth of Christ you have His death prominently brought out. Having touched humanity He must remove the distance in which man was.
FER Quite so.
JP So the ministry of reconciliation begins with Christ’s life down here.
FER Certainly. It was God in Christ reconciling. The complacency was here. Then you get “the word of reconciliation”, which is the testimony that the distance has been removed in order that where distance was complacency may be.
WM Was not the distance emphasised by the presence of Christ here?
FER Yes.
HC Was God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself anywhere before the cross?
FER The beginning of it was the presence of Christ on earth; the eye of God rested with perfect complacency on Christ.
C Does reconciliation bring in the order of things in which God could have good pleasure?
FER It says, “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works”; that shows the distance, “yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”; that was the removal; “to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”; that is, that complacency is there.
JSA In Christ on earth you have the attitude of God in reconciling, and in His death the work accomplished.
FER But there is another point, that in Christ you have the Man in whom the reconciliation is effected. Reconciliation means the displacement of man and the introduction of Christ where man was; Christ comes in where the distance was. Hence it is there is that which is holy and unblameable and unreproveable.
WM Would you say that in reconciliation individuality is gone?
FER The individuality of the old man.
RSS Does reconciliation connect itself with new creation?
FER Quite so. How could Christ come in except by new creation? Christ could only be brought in in that way.
RSS But in connection with us?
FER How could you bring Christ in in regard to us except by new creation? You do not bring Christ in by converting a man.
RSS Is reconciliation a bridge between the old and the new?
FER There is no connection between the two; man is displaced as to his moral individuality, but he is displaced to make room for Christ. If I take myself or you, what has come to pass in regard to anyone of us is where man was there Christ is; that is, distance is gone and complacency come in.
JSA And the two things to which Mr. S. referred are expressly connected in 2 Corinthians 5: “If any one be in Christ there is a new creation”, and “All things are of the God, who has reconciled”, etc.
FER Exactly.
WHC How would you explain our identity remaining?
FER That is the point; the complacency is where the distance was; that is in you. It is not that God sweeps all away and brings in an absolutely new race. He does so morally, but not actually. The old man has gone and where he was Christ is; this has come to pass in the church.
RSS Do you connect reconciliation with the assembly? I would not think the assembly needed to be reconciled.
FER I think all is on that basis down here. If you are looking at the church down here, it is on that ground. If you look at the church abstractly, as in divine counsel, I can understand it does not want reconciliation; but as a fact down here it is the first-fruits of reconciliation.
GR Is it not so, that we are reconciled individually in order to be brought into the church?
FER Yes. At the same time it is quite true that the church is regarded as the first-fruits of reconciliation. The apostle brings in the Head and then takes up the subject of reconciliation; then he speaks about the body; it is reconciliation which brings in the church.
JT Would you say that reconciliation is contained in the expression “No longer live, I, but Christ lives in me”?
FER That is the principle of it.
WM Christ takes the place of what man was.
FER He comes in morally where man was. You cannot reconcile what is alienated; it is impossible to reconcile that which is at enmity. If enmity is there it is there; it is enmity of will; that is not to be reconciled. “They that are in the flesh cannot please God”.
HC It is you that were alienated.
FER But the point is, you are reconciled by being [p. 360] removed, and where the distance was complacency is, because Christ has come in, hence it is that reconciliation involves new creation.
WM I suppose a difficulty has existed because people have looked simply at the cross in its efficacy, without seeing that it involves the removal of the distance.
FER Quite so.
JT That which you are morally has to go; personally you are reconciled. Is that the thought?
FER I do not object to that, but you may depend upon it; if you press that on people you will give them the idea that reconciliation is some kind of change of sentiment in them. I have no doubt that is in the mind of the vast proportion of christians.
JT My idea is more, “You ... hath he reconciled”.
FER But you must take the passage as it reads, “In the body of his flesh through death”, not in the body of your flesh.
GR That is what death is, the removal of the man, and judgment is the vindication of God’s rights.
FER Yes; the removal of the man to make place for Christ.
GR You get it in Genesis 3. There was the seed of the woman, but the first man must go to make way for Him.
JP That moral individuality, in which we were enemies and alienated, is gone.
FER But to make way for Christ and He comes in by new creation. The consequence is that reconciliation is not change of sentiment, it is divine complacency in Christ. That is, “If any one be in Christ there is a new creation”, and complacency comes in in that sense.
JT In Ephesians 2 it is, “That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross”.
FER Yes, the church is the first-fruits of reconciliation. The consequence is the apostle first speaks [p. 361] of Christ as the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead. You can understand how Christ is the beginning in that connection; He is the beginning of the new order of things. He takes up that ground so that others can be connected with Him, in order that in all things He might have the pre-eminence; that is, as the Head of the Church, the body. Then it goes on to speak of reconciliation, and afterwards of the mystery; the Head is first introduced, then reconciliation, and then the body.
GR There could be no association with Christ apart from that, or there would be two orders.
FER Quite so, the old order has been removed, that was effected in the death of Christ. You get an idea of the church when you see the greatness of the scheme, for reconciliation is a vast scheme; you can understand the position of the church in relation to that scheme when you have taken in the scheme. Reconciliation, when it is brought to pass in all its completeness, will bring God into complacency with everything, for the simple reason that everything is taken up in Christ. It passes on here to the whole extent of it, “By him to reconcile all things unto himself”, that God may have complacency in all things.
RSS That will be true in the world to come.
FER Yes.
RSS When you speak of Christ as Head in that way, do Aaron and his sons present the thought?
FER Aaron was the head of the priestly family, and the priestly family all stood in relation to Aaron, and in that sense Christ stands in relation to the saints and the family to Him; He is Head. “You ... hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight”, that is, in the sight of God. It is very much like Aaron presenting the priestly family; Christ presents the priestly family in suitability to [p. 362] God.
JT I thought Aaron and his sons was more the thought of Christ’s house.
FER I do not think there is such an expression in Scripture as Christ’s house.
JT “Whose house are we”.
FER That is God’s house. That is in connection with that of which the tabernacle was a pattern; Moses was faithful in God’s house, but Christ is Son over God’s house, whose house are we.
JP If Christ is the Head of the body and the body is His body, it is impossible that there should be any moral incongruity.
FER And hence it is He has reconciled you to present you in suitability to God, in a sense in His own suitability, if I may use the expression.
GR That is what He was; He was holy, unblameable, and unreproveable.
FER It is what God is, and it is what Christ is, and the church is presented according to that. It is not in the sight of the world or the sight of man, but “holy and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight”. The thought is, I take it, of the saints God-ward. Righteousness does not come in here; the new man is created in righteousness, for that is God’s testimony here; but when it is a question of what is God-ward, it is, “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight”. You get the same thought in Ephesians 1, “He hath chosen us in him ... that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”.
GR So that the church is peculiarly for God’s pleasure.
FER Yes.
JSA It is intelligible that unless that is apprehended in some way we cannot really have the benefit of the Head.
FER I think the Head presents us like Aaron might have presented his sons in that sense. He can [p. 363] say, in regard to us, that all that is unsuitable has gone, all that disqualified us has been removed, and now we are there, holy, unblameable, and unreproveable.
WM Would you say that the saints as a body are a moral continuation of Christ on earth for God’s pleasure?
FER There is another thing, and that is they are Christ’s body — identified with Him; He is the Head of that body.
WM When you say the body, is it in the sense that it is there for His display?
FER Not only that, Christ is set forth in the body, but He is the Head of the body God-ward, because the body is looked at as being the first fruits of reconciliation. There is that in which God can have complacency, and of which Christ is the Head.
GR So that the church is before God in the perfect complacency of Christ.
FER I think it is the complacency which Christ brought in.
GR Because if the first man has been removed there could be nothing but the second Man.
JA That is, in new creation the saints are presented, “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable”.
FER It must be that; you could not conceive of any process which would change the man who was an enemy in mind by wicked works, into “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable”; no such process is possible even to God.
HC All this has to take place in you.
FER Or me. Quite so.
JT Would you say it would appear that reconciliation is for God?
FER Clearly. We have had that before us once or twice; covenant is for man, reconciliation is for God. So, too, as to ministry; the covenant is for man, the ministry is for God, but what brings about the ministry is [p. 364] reconciliation.
GR I think you ought to explain a little there; some of us understand it because we have had it before. Some have thought of ministry as the ministry of the gospel.
FER But there is another character of ministry, which is essentially connected with Christ, and that is the ministry of the holy places. That is not man-ward, but God-ward. Like the priests in the temple; their service was God-ward; it was dealing with things which were before God.
Ques Would you say in the assembly it was all ministry God-ward?
FER “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”; all that is God-ward.
JT You get the priests in the epistle of Peter offering up spiritual sacrifices by Him.
FER I think you must get to heaven to understand the assembly, for the assembly will have its existence in heaven. I do not think we shall address one another in heaven; in the assembly then there will not be ministry man-ward; we have it down here, but there will then be only ministry God-ward.
PC Then in reconciliation it is that with the High Priest we are enabled to minister pleasure to the heart of God.
FER I think Christ leads in that way. He is the Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle. You get the covenant first, and then you understand the ministry. We have had it once or twice before us that the moral progress in souls is the kingdom, the covenant, reconciliation, and eternal life. Things must come in that order, no other moral order is possible.
JSA I remember Mr. Stoney saying, ‘I do not think you ever find your place down here till you have found it above’. You must get up to heaven before you have any sense of the assembly.
FER I [p. 365] think so.
WM Do you think the saints in the Acts entered into that when it says they ministered to the Lord and fasted?
FER Yes, the Holy Spirit was here in such power that it was not so much intelligence on the part of the saints as subjection to the mighty power of God, and saints were led aright almost instinctively.
RSS Yet there is ministry in the assembly man-ward, is there not?
FER Certainly.
RSS But it is not the highest character of ministry?
FER It is all proper; we have it in 1 Corinthians 14. The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, etc., and everything is to be done through the mind, so that everything shall be intelligible; but there is another view of the assembly, as connected with the service of the sanctuary and reconciliation; that is, ministry properly God-ward.
GR So that every saint has part in that, whereas, if you take the other side, man-ward, there are certain ones who have to be silent.
FER Yes. In reconciliation and all the order of things it brings in, the body and the Head, you have to lose sight of all distinctions in flesh, and to regard saints according to what they are under the eye of God, that is, holy, unblameable, and unreproveable.
JP It would be impossible to connect any of these distinctions with new creation.
FER Quite so.
JT To minister in the sanctuary we need to know what it is to be priests.
FER Yes; when you are before God, inside, holy, unblameable, and unreproveable, you are in moral suitability to God.
JT I made that remark in connection with what Mr. R. said, that ministry God-ward belonged to all, but I say that there are many who know nothing [p. 366] about it on account of not understanding our priestly character.
GR That was what was in my mind in noticing it; we have talked about new creation, but we have very little reached up to it.
Ques I think you said that the church is the first fruits of reconciliation. What is the full scope of reconciliation?
FER In its full scope it takes in all things. Christ is the Head of all principality and power, and it is in the fact of all things being taken up in Christ that all will be reconciled.
Rem That takes in the whole universe.
FER Yes.
HT How about things under the earth which are spoken of as under subjection?
FER When one speaks of the universe one hardly refers to things under the earth, but rather to the moral universe, the scene of God’s ways. Under the earth is not the scene of His ways; it is the place which He has prepared for the wicked.
JP I suppose the dispensation of the fulness of times in Ephesians 1 points to the same thing.
FER It points on to everything being headed up in Christ, and from that fact all is evidently reconciled.
GR Would you say that this is perfectly reached until the new heavens and new earth?
FER According to the thought of Scripture the world to come is on the ground of reconciliation, that in it God should have complacency. The rest of God is found in reconciliation; God has complacency where distance was.
JP That rather shuts it out from the eternal state because there never was any distance there.
GR I thought that in the world to come there will be sin.
FER Though that may be, God finds [p. 367] perfect complacency in everything in Christ. God, as God, rests in perfect complacency in everything being taken up in Christ.
GR But is not that true today?
FER Things are not taken up in Christ yet.
GR In the world to come there is still sin.
FER But things are all taken up in Christ. Sin may be there in men, but it is not allowed to dominate; everything is brought into order and suitability in the world to come.
GR You get in 1 Corinthians 15: “He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death”.
FER In the millennium enemies do not appear until the last moment. There is a season of perfect rest on the part of God, and in the scene where the distance has been.
GR I think of what was before us last night in your address. A small beginning in Luke, but a large ending in Revelation 21.
FER I was presenting the great end of what began in the birth of Christ, and the millennium is a means to that end; but you must not underrate the time of the millennium. For instance, it says in regard to Israel, “He will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing”. Everything is brought into suitability to God in being taken up in Christ. The great point is seen in Colossians, “by him to reconcile all things unto himself”.
JSA And then sin is put down. You do not see that now; it is only known to us in faith.
FER There is one great point and that is death is swallowed up in victory. Sin does not rule by death in that day as now. Everything being taken up in Christ and thus reconciled God finds rest and complacency in all; where dishonour has been God is glorified.
GR I can see that and rejoice in it, but it does [p. 368] seem to me imperfection as long as these distinctions exist which sin has introduced; for instance, national distinctions exist. All that will be true in the millennium and that is the fruit of sin.
FER I think you get the reconciliation of all things in the fact of everything being taken up in Christ, so that in that sense God can find complacency in them.
GR They are all to be swept away.
FER That may be, but at the same time God first proves Himself to be superior to the evil that has come into the world and finds a way by which He may have complacency in all.
WHC Is it the triumph of God over Satan?
FER Yes.
JT It is a great thing to see that God regains His object where His rest was disturbed.
JP I think it is a wonderful thing to see how God triumphs.
FER And it is a great thing to see the manner of His triumph. It is by displacing the man that was there, and introducing the Man who was agreeable to Him; for things in heaven and things on earth, whatever has come in and has been entrusted to man, all are taken up afresh in Christ.
WM It is God’s sabbath day?
FER Yes, it is the rest of God.
Ques What would you say the things in heaven were that needed to be reconciled?
FER We do not know very much about heaven; what we do know is that the seat of evil is in heaven.
Ques You mean by Satan being there?
FER Yes. Satan is to be cast out, and Christ is to be supreme; this is the great change in the world to come; everything put under the Son of man — even angels. It is the fulfilment of Psalm 8. Psalm 8 is in a sense greater than Psalm 2, and the Lord puts it in that way in John 1. Nathaniel quotes [p. 369] Psalm 2 and the Lord quotes Psalm 8, and speaks of it as being “greater things than these”. The complete triumph over spiritual evil, in the Son of man, is even greater than the subjugation of opposition in Israel and the nations on earth. In everything being put under Christ you get the reconciliation not only of things on earth, but in heaven.
JP I see the expression “all things” occurs twice in the chapter, only in verse 16 it is in connection with creation, and in verse 20, in connection with reconciliation.
FER Christ takes up everything by a double title; that is, as having created all things He is the pre-eminent One, and He takes all up on the ground of reconciliation; He has a double title.
JP The expression occurring twice gives what one might speak of as the scope.
FER Yes.
Rem The thought of reconciliation always carries the idea of what is offensive being removed and replaced by what is agreeable to God.
FER So that what is suitable comes in in the place where the distance was. You can readily apprehend that in the case of the church; distance was true of all of us here this afternoon, but complacency is there; that is what we have to accept. That is, we were “enemies in mind by wicked works”, and now there is complacency. The purpose of Christ was to present us “holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight”; that is what we are in regard to God.
WM It is similar to what you said about eternal life. Eternal life is in contrast to the scene of death and you do not carry these thoughts into the eternal state, but into the world to come to replace everything that was contrary.
FER Quite so; the same thing is true in regard to the kingdom, where the power of Satan was, you [p. 370] are brought into the kingdom of the Son of His love.
RSS Speaking of the sanctuary and the ministry of the sanctuary, God-ward, how is it that there is so little of it?
FER Because there is so little apprehension of what saints are in the presence of God. If you come to the practical working out of what we have been talking of, we know how little there is of practical displacement; how little prepared we are for the displacement of that which is distasteful to God.
RSS Do you think it depends in any measure on our knowledge of God?
FER Everything depends on that.
WHC Would you say it is only realised in the assembly?
FER It is realised in the assembly. You cannot take account of yourselves as being “holy, unblameable and unreproveable”, except as you are “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable”. It is, in a sense, God’s estimate of you, but you cannot take account of it unless you are it. Of course, any service of God depends on how far you can really take account of yourself according to God’s thought.
WM We have mistaken light for life.
FER I think so, very often.
RSS Yet I hardly think you would get much help in thinking of yourself at all.
FER No, I would take account of God; but you cannot take account of God except as you are according to God.
WHC And in the assembly we should have the sense that we are suitable to God.
WM Is not that what the apostle meant when he said, “Of such an one will I glory”?
FER Yes; but suppose I am thinking of the scripture, “holy and without blame before him in love”, I cannot enter into it by accepting a statement; I can only enter it by being it. The consideration of it [p. 371] would never make you it; you must be the thing itself in order to be before God according to that.
RSS And when you are, you have God before you and His sense of satisfaction.
FER You never think of yourself at all; love does not think of itself. Love invariably thinks about its object, and as “holy and without blame before him in love”, undoubtedly we should be thinking about the object of love; but the statement will not bring it to me or you; the statement shows what God’s mind is about you, but it will not make you the thing.
JT Being presented “holy, unblameable, and unreproveable”, before God. Is that a thought in advance of being reconciled, or do they go together?
FER I think they go together.
JT I notice it reads, “You ... now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”; I thought it was a thought further on.
FER You must, I think, connect the presenting with reconciliation, because reconciliation brings in the thought of complacency.
Ques In the ministry God-ward what is ministered to Him?
FER Worship, and so on. I suppose in this Christ leads. I can appreciate worship coming out in the recognition of what God is and His wisdom.
WM Is not that what the sanctuary is, the full light of God?
FER That is my idea of the sanctuary, at all events. It is the full light in which God has been pleased to make Himself known in the accomplishment of His counsels in Christ.
GR And if that was entered into God would be the object of worship, and in that the Lord leads.
FER Yes. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement”. You get that in Romans 5.
RSS I think it has been said that ‘We thank [p. 372] God for what He gives, we praise Him for what He does, but we worship Him for what He is’. You must know Him in order to worship Him.
FER In reconciliation you are presented to God in such wise, that you may be able to appreciate Him according to what He is, not simply according to what He does.
WM Are the gatherings composed largely of those who simply have the light of the kingdom?
FER Probably.
WM That makes a practical difficulty in saints entering into this.
FER Yes, but how many saints, in any meeting you are acquainted with, have any apprehension of the Head?
JT Would you mind giving us your idea of the Head again?
FER I think that as Lord, Christ is on God’s part; as Head, He is on our part.
GR That is, as Lord He makes good the authority of God.
FER The kingdom and all that goes in connection with moral sway, is connected with the Lord, and the Lord is thus an object of faith. You never find the Head presented as an object of faith; you appropriate the Head because the Head is on our side. “He is the Head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence”. He takes the place of pre-eminence on the ground of resurrection in connection with the saints.
WM It is like the priests if you think of association.
FER In the same sense as Aaron and his sons; you could not say Aaron was lord to his sons.
HC Would you tell us the difference between the body here, and the body in 1 Corinthians 12?
FER I think there it is only the fact of one body.
[p. 373] You have the body here in a way morally — in connection with the mystery. “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”. There is a body formed morally, according to Christ. In the baptism of the Spirit the Spirit claims the body. When the saints were baptised on the day of Pentecost they were claimed by Him for Christ. It was another thing for Christ to be in them; here it is that aspect of it, a step in advance.
JP Evidently the moral suitability was lacking at Corinth, and yet they were the body of Christ.
JT But Christ being in the Colossians involved the work of the Spirit.
FER Exactly, and consequently Christ was presented before God in the body and was the Head of the body in the presence of God. It brings out the truth of reconciliation in that where distance was, now there is complacency, because Christ is there, and then it is the hope of glory.
JP Christ being there, everything is morally suitable to God.
FER That is the hope of glory.
WM And that is the Colossian view.
FER If you apprehend the church in that light in the presence of God, you are not much removed from glory. “Christ in you the hope of glory”. The assembly is not far from glory; it is as near as can be.
HC Only waiting the time.
FER Exactly, but morally it is very little removed. Imagine a company down here which is in perfect accord with Christ, and of which Christ is the Head; do you think that company is much apart from glory?
GR That shows how little we have got hold of it.
JT I think we understand ‘the Lord’ better than we do ‘the Head’, and hence seeing that the Head is on our side [p. 374] is very helpful.
FER Very helpful; He is the Head of the body, who is the beginning. What is He the beginning of? Not of God. He is the beginning of what is for God. He is “the firstborn from the dead”. He takes that ground in order that we may be with Him. “Firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence”. Pre-eminence on our side, for He is associated with man and therefore pre-eminent.
GR There was no man for God till He came.
JT So that apprehending Him that way I can claim that Man.
FER You appropriate Him if you have strength of heart enough for it.
R.S.S. How is that done?
FER Well, I have said sometimes that it is love that appropriates.
GR It is illustrated by Peter — “If it be thou”. He wanted to be with Him.
FER Yes. I see I am entitled to Him and I will have Him. The principle of it comes out in Mary. “If thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him and I will take him away”. She would have what remained of Him if He were in death.
WM And that appropriation leads to the assembly God-ward.
FER It is there you get the worshipping company, and He is Head to it; pre-eminent in it.
WM Would you say the moral display of Christ is consequent on that?
FER The one hangs on the other; if the church is right God-ward, it will be right man-ward.
RSS Is it what Christ is to God that you reach?
FER Yes, but this comes out in reconciliation, you are suitable to Him and to God, too.
JT And there you reach the fact that you are for God’[p. 375] s pleasure.
FER Yes, Christ among you, or in you, the hope of glory.
WM I suppose the love that leads to appropriation of Him is the sovereign work of God.
FER Yes; as Lord, Christ represents to us the kingdom or authority of God, but the Head brings in the thought of love. As the husband is the head of the wife, so Christ is the Head of the church. God has put Him in that place in regard to the church, and the saints appropriate Him as Head; they get His acceptability in the presence of God.
JT And would you say love delights to give Him the place of pre-eminence?
FER Certainly.
HT Is that the thought in the book of Psalms? Psalm 90 shows mortal man in contrast with the living God. Psalm 91 shows the man who made the Most High his habitation, “Because he hath set his love upon me”. Then God finds rest now, the moment that man is on the earth, and by-and-by it will all be established; and then from Psalm 94 to the end of Psalm 100 it is salvation through judgment and still the man is wanting. He is not seen yet. But in Psalm 101 you get the man, and Psalm 102 shows where that man was found, the One who went down into death, and took the lowest place — He is Jehovah. Then Israel and the whole creation are brought into blessing; Psalm 104.
FER Yes. You get here also all the labour of the apostle as connected with what we have spoken of. “Whom we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily”. The apostle laboured to that end. It is a great thing to preach Christ. Christ is the true subject of all preaching.
HC There is an ‘if’ comes in. “If ye continue”.
FER I think you can understand that, because the apostle was addressing what might be a mixed company. He could not be certain of every member of that company, and I think it is in that way that He introduces the ‘if’.
JT Going back to reconciliation, I would like to ask what the ‘word’ of reconciliation means and the ‘ministry’ of reconciliation.
FER I think the ministry of reconciliation began with Christ here, and you see in this the first great phase, that is, the introduction of a Man here entirely according to God’s pleasure, in whom God could be presented and in whom God could be complacent; and the second phase is the removal of the distance in the removal of the man under death. That was in the death of Christ. There you get reconciliation completed in principle.
JT But then the ‘word’ comes in afterwards.
FER Because it is the testimony of the removal. But the ministry began with the presentation of Christ — of God in Christ here.