RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SALVATION
[p. 103] RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SALVATION
Ques In what do you connect, in moral order, righteousness and salvation?
FER We have to look at the past and to the future. We read here, “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?” That is the past. Then the future is, “Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away”. We have to look both at the past and to the future, to see what righteousness and salvation mean. The promise is, “The Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody”. Then in the fifth verse, “My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust”. Then in verse 6, “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished”. Then in verse 8, “For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation”. Evidently righteousness and salvation have been set forth in the past, and they are spoken of in regard to the future, and the effect of God bringing them in is seen. If you want to understand principles, the great thing is to see them in the light of all God’s ways.
JSA If they are really divine principles they will hold good through all.
FER Change of dispensation can never alter principles. Moral principles must remain. What is of God must remain, simply because God is the same, through every change of dispensation.
Rem The references to righteousness and salvation here reach back to Israel in the beginning and refer to Israel in a coming day.
FER Not only to Israel, but to the universe; it is the world. You cannot limit these things to Israel. You get, “the isles shall wait upon me and on mine arm shall they trust”. I think our vision has been limited, as to the future, too much to Israel. Israel comes into prominence as the light of the earth, but the point before God is not simply the establishment of Israel, but the establishment of the universe; you cannot limit Christ to Israel. Christ is Head over all things, and it is the universe which is set in the light of God of which Christ is head. Israel has its place, just as the church has its place in the universe, but they are only items in it.
JP I see then the principles that will obtain in that universe are the principles that obtain now.
FER Exactly, because that universe is already brought into existence as far as we are concerned. I mean we apprehend it. It is established. It is not displayed yet, but everything is established. God’s righteousness is brought near; His salvation has come to pass. It is not yet displayed, but it is established in Christ.
WM I suppose this is a period of light.
FER Yes.
JT When God took up Abraham, it was not for his own seed, but in connection with the whole race.
FER Yes, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed”. The moment promise came in, it had reference to all the nations of the earth.
JP I see where we have failed; we have not had the full scope of God’s ways before us.
FER We have taken up this detail and that, and not got the whole.
JP We have rushed ourselves a little too much to the front, and if not ourselves it has been Israel.
FER Exactly.
HF Does it not go back further even than that, to the woman in the garden, where it speaks about the One who would bruise the serpent’s head? Was it not brought out long before Abraham?
FER Yes, I think so, and really it goes back further than that, for Christ comes in to meet the whole principle of sin. “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”. The Lord goes back to the outset. There was an outset of sin, and I think Christ came to deal with it. He takes a place which affects things, not only on earth but in heaven. Christ has taken up the question of sin, not only in the world, but in the whole extent of it, and hence it is He is the Head and centre of the entire system. Angels are put under Him. Jesus said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”; in the fact of Man going up to heaven, in the person of Christ, Satan falls as lightning from heaven, and Satan is the outset of sin; the outset of sin was not with man. “By one man sin entered into the world”, but the devil sins from the outset. I think Christ has come in to meet sin in all the extent of it, and hence as Son of man He is put over all the works of God’s hands, angels not excepted. He has come in to establish everlasting righteousness.
PCR Was sin there before man was corrupted?
FER How would man have been tempted if there had not been sin there? It was by one man sin entered into the world, but the fact of man being tempted proves [p. 106] that sin was there. So the Lord says in chapter 8 of John that the devil sins from the outset.
JSA Do I understand you to say we shall not understand these things today in their application to ourselves unless we apprehend them in all the ways of God?
FER I think not. We have made the mistake of looking at principles too much in their application to ourselves, and not seeing them in the light of all God’s ways. The chapter here goes forward to the future prophetically and it goes back to the past, and the principles that have come out are God’s righteousness and salvation. They are near; prophetically near.
JT What do you mean by the past?
FER It says, “Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?” Then again in verse 9, “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?” There was God’s salvation in redemption. The ransomed of the Lord passed through the Red Sea and the arm of the Lord smote Rahab. There was God’s salvation and righteousness on behalf of Israel, and it goes on prophetically to the future in connection with Christ. “My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust”.
JSA It is rather interesting in that connection that when we go on to the passage where righteousness is used in Romans 10, it is introduced in connection with Israel.
FER Yes.
WM I suppose righteousness is a principle that abides eternally outside all dispensations.
FER Quite so; righteousness is what one might call the rule or law of the moral universe. It is in contrast to lawlessness. Righteousness stands in that way in connection with Christ Himself. “Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated lawlessness”. Lawlessness has come in, and brought confusion and disorder, just as it would in any universe, the physical universe for instance. Whatever is lawless goes to destruction. Righteousness is the principle even of the physical universe, in contrast to lawlessness. It is that which made the psalmist say, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork”. When you look at the heavens you see order, not confusion, there is no lawlessness. The only time you see lawlessness is probably in a shooting star, and what is lawless goes to destruction.
The earth sets forth the lawlessness of man, and the heavens declare the glory of God. The glory of God, like the righteousness of God, stands in contrast to the lawlessness of man.
JT Do you mean He had to look to heaven because it could not be found here?
FER Yes. ‘Where every prospect pleases and only man is vile’; that is what the earth speaks of. The greatest thing upon earth is vile. There is nothing to compare with man upon earth, and he is vile.
HF So I suppose there is no righteousness but divine righteousness.
FER There can be none.
JT But righteousness has been taken up too much as a doctrine. The thing has not been practical.
FER I think so. As though it were something substantive, etc. We have talked about people being righteous in nature. All that doctrinal view of things is poor. Volumes have been written on it. and they have only obscured the matter.
JT The necessity for righteousness would arise when things went wrong, I suppose.
FER No; the point is that righteousness was there with God, and that sin came in to invade righteousness.
JT I mean the question of it; the question had to be raised.
FER I think it made it necessary for God to do what [p. 108] He had not done before, that is, to assert His rights. Lawlessness made that necessary.
JT That is what I meant. For instance, in the law.
FER Righteousness was with God, but God did not assert His righteousness till lawlessness came in. Then you get the assertion of God’s rights.
HF You give a definition of righteousness to be God’s rights.
FER I think so. The best definition is ‘what is right’, and that is God’s rights. If God be God, and man God’s creature, and you do not admit God’s rights, there can be nothing right.
JT Then the first thing would be evidently that God should have His place with men.
FER Evidently, and that is what God asserted in the law; His rights; the law was not arbitrary in that way. They were what I may call the proper rights of God in regard to intelligent creatures.
JT He had a perfect right to claim the affection of His creature.
FER Yes, of an intelligent creature, capable of affection; it was only right that man should love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself. Man is capable of affection, and the God who created man has a claim to the first place in man’s affection; man should love Him with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself.
WM It is a remarkable thing that those are the two points at which man departed from God.
FER Yes. Lawlessness came in and the next thing was murder. Adam became lawless. He ceased to be under the influence of God; then Cain comes in with the necessary consequence of that, that is hatred and murder. That is the beginning of evil coming into the world; lawlessness, and then hatred and murder.
JP That is always the order. You see them in that verse in Titus 3, describing man; of the first words is “disobedient”, that is lawless, and then the last words are “hateful, and hating one another”.
FER Yes, never was such a picture of the world delineated as that. It was not only the world of the apostle’s day among the Cretans but the world of today. It is the world on this side of the water and the world on our side of the water. They may cover it up by rank and honour and glory, and all that kind of thing, but that is only veneer. Put all that aside and what describes the world is “disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another”.
JAC Is the idea of Adam manufacturing his clothing of fig-leaves an illustration of man seeking to clothe himself in his own righteousness?
FER I think man wants to keep up appearances. Man lives in appearances and the world is dependent on appearances. Suppose we all appeared to one another as we are actually, and our hearts were apparent to one another, the world would be a pandemonium. The existence of the world depends on the maintenance of appearances.
HF You were saying a moment ago about God having a righteous demand on our affections. We do not often connect affection and righteousness.
FER The right of God is the issue and outcome of His love.
HF I was thinking of it in connection with His love, that it was the revelation of His love that really drew out the affection.
FER I think it is, but the rights of God are the rights of His love, because God is love, and love is of God; and when love is connected with sovereignty it has certain rights, and the rights of God were that He should be loved. Whether man love Him or not, He had a right to be loved.
HF I think so, but I was thinking of it in connection with this; do you think that ever the affection of a child of God was drawn out to God in the way it is since love was revealed in the Lord [p. 110] Jesus Christ?
FER No, I will tell you why. It is because God asserted His rights in the law, if God had never been love He could not have commanded people to love Him. But it obtained no answer. It was evidently on account of man’s state. Then it is that God comes out with another right of love, and that is the right of mercy. Love has the right of mercy; then it is God obtains an answer. That is, through redemption God obtains an answer on the part of man.
HF That is what I was thinking, till that moment when the Lord revealed God in love.
FER That did not alter the fact that “God is love”. He has the right to beloved, because He is love, and God maintains that still; even in regard to us the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, but you have the Spirit through the mercy of God; God has come in in the rights of mercy in redemption, and imparted the Spirit; now you get the original right of God fulfilled in those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. All depended on God coming out in grace.
JT Hence God does not need to have the testimony of His rights sealed in a box.
FER No, Christ has come as the ark of the covenant.
Rem Righteousness was never seen on earth till Christ was here manifesting it.
FER No, because when man is lawless, righteousness must be in the fact of man being brought into attachment. How is man going to be brought into attachment?
JT That is what we would like to know.
FER It can only be in one way, that is the way God has opened through redemption, taking up the liabilities under which man lay, and the establishment of a head. Christ has accomplished redemption and is the divinely appointed Head, and righteousness now consists in man being brought into attachment to Christ.
WM Just as everything in this material universe is kept in place by the sun, the head [p. 111] of the system.
FER Yes.
JT And would you say the testimony of righteousness came out livingly when Christ was here?
FER As long as He was here the Lord was doing everything in anticipation of the cross. So far as He was concerned personally there was His personal righteousness, but that would not avail for man. He is continually spoken of as the righteous One. He hated lawlessness and loved righteousness, but that would not be available for man.
HF Would you not say as well as being the revelation of God’s love He was also the revelation of God’s righteousness to us?
FER I do not think you get the revelation of righteousness, in regard of us, till you come to redemption. Redemption is the establishment of righteousness in regard to us.
Rem Thus the thing could not be made manifest or made available till Christ is established as Head.
FER No, you can easily understand that. So far as man was concerned, he had come under liabilities, under the judgement of God, under curse and death. Those liabilities must be respected. If you take up a property with a mortgage on it you are compelled to respect the mortgage. You cannot take up the property and disregard the charges on it. Looking upon man as being the inheritance of God, the property was under liabilities, and those charges had to be respected; if God were to take up man in any way those liabilities had to be met, and of necessity must be met in man, because man was under them; and therefore the Son of God became Man in order that those liabilities should be discharged. That is where redemption comes in. But the man that has the power to take up those liabilities and discharge them, evidently becomes pre-eminent among men. I think anyone will understand that, and righteousness on our part is that we are brought into attachment to the Head. You are no longer lawless, but in attachment to the Head,
[p. 112] and the Head has met and discharged the liabilities under which we were, so we are not only justified, but brought into attachment.
JT In regard to the Lord’s position before the cross, was there not the setting forth of the rights of God in a man there?
FER I think in this sense, as a perfect man He was the righteous One. I see the rights of God set forth every now and again in the ministry of the Lord Jesus, but you ought to look at the detail of the Lord’s life in the light of His death. I do not think you can understand it otherwise.
HF So that the righteousness which was revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ was His own personal righteousness.
FER Yes. The way I see the righteousness of God coming out anticipatively when the Lord was here upon earth was in the forgiveness of sins. “Thy sins be forgiven thee”; it was the Lord intervening in mercy, and coming out in anticipation of His work, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house”. It was the right of God in mercy.
JP That is to say it was not seen in what He was personally, it was rather in what He ministered to others on the part of God.
FER When He forgave the sinful woman, that was the right of God in mercy, but that involved redemption. He could only do that in view of redemption.
JP Did He not really state it on one occasion when He said, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice”?
FER Exactly; the rights of God in mercy. Forgiveness is that.
WM That is a very clear instance of the fact that His life must be interpreted by His death.
FER There are two things that come out in the death of Christ; one is the setting aside of man, that is evident, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”; and the other is the introduction of God in mercy. You will find those two principles explain and interpret every act of the Lord here upon earth. He was always bringing in God in mercy on the one hand, and on the other hand He would not tolerate one single bit of fleshly profession.
HF In connection with speaking about mercy, did you not yesterday make some distinction between mercy and grace?
FER I think there is, but it is difficult to make a sharp dividing line. I think grace meets man where he is in responsibility, and mercy takes more account of the condition of man and provides salvation for him; but I would not like to draw a fine line between the two, so we come to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
JT In the epistle to Titus we get the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared.
FER But in the next chapter, “according to his mercy he saved us”, I think it lies this way, so far as one can attempt to put it. Grace is to the forefront. The attitude of God at the present time is evidently in grace, so the gospel is the glad tidings of the grace of God, but behind grace lies mercy, and behind mercy lies love. Of course grace and mercy are attributes of God, but love is His nature, and so love must lie behind all. Grace is beautiful because it is in that way God presents Himself to man. Instead of imputing trespasses God meets man in the grace of forgiveness; and behind that is mercy; the merciful consideration in which God has taken man into account with a view of delivering him from the hand of the enemy.
JP Ephesians 2 groups them all together in a very beautiful way, “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us ... For by grace are ye saved through faith”.
FER [p. 114] Exactly.
HF You say behind grace is mercy and behind mercy is love. Behind that would God’s glory be?
FER I think the effulgence of His love is His glory.
HF They seem to present a little different thought in my mind. I mean you can understand God so loved that He gave His Son, but then there seems to be a little different thought than that of God doing it for His own glory.
FER The glory of God is simply that He shines out. If sin had never come in there would not have been the same effulgence of God. God would not have been any different if sin had not come in, but He would not have shone out in the same way. Sin has become the occasion for the shining out of God and that is His glory.
HF I think that is true, but do you not think there is a different thought? For instance, if you were speaking of a king doing a thing for love, that is one thing; but if he does it for his own glory also, would not that be another thing?
FER I do not think so. His glory would be that he shines out in that way. He becomes effulgent in the eyes of the universe or the kingdom, that is a king’s glory. His glory is the effulgence of himself.
WM God could not receive any glory.
FER Nothing can be added to God. All on the part of God is a question of effulgence, that is, He shines out. Every one says, Glory! If God had not shone out none would say glory, but now every one says, Glory! ‘Glory all belongs to God’.
WM I suppose with Christ it was somewhat different because He, being a man, could be glorified.
FER Where was God glorified?
WM In the death of Christ.
FER Yes, it shone out in the cross, and the universe will have to learn that the death of Christ was the effulgence of God’s glory.
GWH What was the thought of the Lord in John 17,
“[p. 115] Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee”?
FER That is, He was to shine out in holy splendour by the Son. The Son was to be glorified that in the Son the glory of God might shine out; that is, His holy love might shine out in the Son. Where does the Son glorify Him? In the eyes of the universe, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him”. The Son makes God effulgent in the presence of the universe. He does not add anything to God, but what God is shines out in splendour.
JT Hence the gospel is said to be the gospel of the glory of the blessed God.
Rem The effulgence of His glory you get in Hebrews.
GT Who is God getting glory from now?
FER Only the church, I should say.
JG Would you say the heavenly host ascribed glory to God?
FER Yes, they meant, now God will be effulgent in the eyes of the universe. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”.
JSA It is quite clear that God’s glory existed in the time of Moses because Moses said, “show me thy glory”.
HF Is it not necessary that those who are not for His glory should be condemned, and where does love come in there?
FER It is the necessity of His love that calls for it.
JT I think there is a disposition sometimes to make God something different to love.
FER But you cannot, because the statement that God is love is absolute. You cannot qualify it at all. You may depend upon it, whatever comes to pass, though we cannot understand, is a necessity of what God is, that is, the necessity of love.
HF Is not the statement just as unqualified and explicit, “God is light”?
FER It is not, it adds immediately, “and in him is no darkness at all”. It is relative.
JSA What it shows is we do not know what love is; we have a very human thought of love.
FER There are many things the human mind cannot compass, because man’s mind is not like the mind of God. We cannot see things which God sees as necessary; people cannot understand eternity of punishment because they cannot judge of things as God judges. God only can judge as to what is according to Himself. But it is clear to me that by the very fact of God being what He is, that is, love absolutely, that whatever He does is in the necessity of His love.
HF So as to make it plain, would you give us a definition of what you understand by love as connected with God?
FER I could not undertake that. It would be beyond any creature.
HF The reason I ask is because I believe that God is righteous and God is love.
FER But you cannot put the two things in that way. Righteousness is an attribute of God, and every attribute of God is an attribute of His nature. The root of every attribute of God lies in His nature. Holiness is an attribute of God, but lies in His nature.
HF But holiness is involved in righteousness.
FER Holiness is a characteristic of God’s love, and righteousness an attribute of God.
GWH I suppose that nothing that God could do would ever be the violation of the fact that God is love.
FER On the contrary it is a necessity of love.
HF Of course we would not for a moment claim because we think that God is righteous that that would be a violation of the fact that God is love.
FER But His righteousness is the necessity of His love. I cannot understand how people can put righteousness distinct from love. Righteousness is the rights of [p. 117] love.
JP That is why you say that all God’s attributes lie in His nature, and His righteousness is the right of His love. Holiness is the characteristic of His love.
WM So the demands of the law brought the two things together.
FER Yes.
HF I cannot see that there could be holiness without righteousness or righteousness without holiness.
FER There could not be in God. But the two are quite different ideas. Holiness is one thing and righteousness another. Holiness is the characteristic of God’s love, and righteousness is the rights of God. The two ideas are different, but they lie in God’s nature.
GT I find in Revelation 20, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire”. Is that an action of love?
FER That is consistent with God’s love; I do not care who says ‘No’, and I think it bad to say ‘No’. Whatever God does is consistent with His love and the necessity of His love, and if anybody were to deny it, it would only prove that he did not know God.
FC Would you say it is an adequate expression of His abhorrence of evil?
FER It is not only that. If God is going to rule the universe God will never tolerate lawlessness, Therefore lawlessness will be limited and fixed in its own place; but that is in love, because God takes in the good of the whole universe. It is for universal good. It is all the necessity of love, because to tolerate lawlessness would be inconsistent with love. God has to take the whole thing into account. We are such poor things we can only look at this little bit, or that little bit, but God is great and takes the whole universe into account.
JG Even with ourselves we see it brought out. We see the parent correcting the child for lawlessness and it is love which corrects the child.
FER God has almighty power, and the whole universe in view, and it would be inconsistent with divine [p. 118] love to tolerate lawlessness. God may tolerate it for the moment, but in result He will limit it in the lake of fire.
Ques What is the righteousness reckoned unto Abraham?
FER Abraham was looked at as righteous, as being morally in attachment. Man could not be attached to God; that would be too great a thought. Man has to be brought into attachment by the introduction of a head, that is Christ; and it is in Christ that God is made known to us and redemption exists.
WM In that way it would appear that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the death of Christ.
FER “They are they which testify of me”. That is what the Lord said about the Holy Scriptures. They were indited by the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God had Christ in view.
HF So that Christ is the key to all God’s word.
FER Yes.
Rem The necessity of the lake of fire and of judgement is, that all that is not according to God must be removed out of sight.
FER But that is the necessity of love, because God has the whole universe in view.
CHB Does attachment to the Head produce practical righteousness?
FER Yes. “He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous”. He “that abideth in him sinneth not”. The effect of being in attachment is that we practise righteousness.
PAES Then it goes on to speak of love in the third chapter of John.
GWH I think you said affection is consequent on attachment.
FER Yes, a husband and wife do not love each other as such till they are actually attached. Till the marriage they do not love each other as husband and wife. There is the attraction previously, but the real love of husband [p. 119] and wife is when the tie is formed. You get that in Isaac and Rebecca. When Rebecca was brought to Isaac she was a comfort to Isaac. So it is usually, there is first the drawing together and when the tie is formed you get the real affection between the husband and wife. So it is in regard to us and Christ. When we are attached to Christ by the Spirit you get affection for Christ.
WM So the order is attraction, attachment, affection.
FER There are three steps. “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”. There is the power of attraction in Christ. Then He attaches us to Himself by the Spirit, and then it is you get affection in the Spirit. “Love in the Spirit”.
JT I think these things have a universal bearing as well as righteousness.
FER Everything has. That is why I proposed to take up this chapter, it looks back to the past and on to the future as to what Christ will bring into the universe. That is these principles of righteousness and salvation; salvation follows on righteousness, Christ is both.
PAES Could you read verse 24 in Romans 3, ‘Being justified freely by His righteousness’?
FER You see in the previous verse 22 that you can do so; it is His righteousness which is upon you, but you are justified freely in His grace.
FF It is by faith we take hold of these things.
FER We cannot understand anything whatever except by faith. It is the apprehension of things unseen. You must apprehend what Christ is as the Head and centre of the moral universe. You get Christ in view in that way, and everything becomes extremely simple. The defect with people is that they have not got Christ into view officially as the centre and Sun of God’s universe. It is simple to understand that He attracts us to Himself in that way. He is the great luminary to rule the day as God appointed the sun at the outset, so Christ has become the great luminary in heaven to rule the day, and faith apprehends that; and the Spirit is given to the [p. 120] believer to bring us into attachment to Him, as the earth is attached to the sun, so that we might come under His influence and in that way escape lawlessness.
JT These things are hidden for the present, but the gospel brings them into view for faith.
FER Yes, the glad tidings are the glad tidings of the Christ.
JSA I think what you have referred to now is important, the difference between Christ personally and Christ officially.
FER Yes. The last Adam is what Christ is officially and the Sun of righteousness the same. It is intimately connected with what Christ is morally. You could not separate the two, but you must distinguish between what He is personally and officially.
WM When you speak of Christ officially do you mean that which He is in relation to everybody?
FER Yes; what He is by divine appointment in relation to all. God made two great lights. They did not make themselves. So God has made a great light, a divinely appointed light to rule the day. In the New Testament the Sun of righteousness is there, but not yet risen above the horizon of man’s vision. Scripture says in regard to us that “the darkness is passing and the true light already shines”. That is true of Christ and christians.
PAES Would you say that in apprehending Christ as the centre there is no limit to your circle?
FER Yes.
WM Christ was set in that official position apart from whether men receive blessing or not.
FER But it was in connection with God’s purpose of grace that Christ has been set in that position; whether people like it or not, God did not consult man about it.
WM But He was set in that position before the gospel went out, that is what I mean.
FER Yes, or there could not have been the preaching. Salvation was found in Christ. What salvation in those days meant, salvation means in these days. That is,
[p. 121] escape from the world, and escape from the world can only be found in Christ. No one could find salvation in the present day except in Christ. There is no other outlet. A man may put himself into a monastery or shut himself up, but there is no escape from the world except in Christ, and therefore Christ is salvation.
PAES And you can say no wonder the apostle Paul was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
FER It was the power of God unto salvation, because righteousness was revealed, that is, the rights of God in mercy; and it is available for man because evidently man can come on that ground; but then it is the power of God unto salvation.
JSA And though faith apprehends it, yet it is really only by the Spirit that you enter into the appreciation of it.
FER It is by the Spirit you are brought into attachment, Faith brings light in, but it does not form the bond. The bond is formed by the Spirit, and then you find Christ to be salvation. I know for myself I have found an outlet from the power of things down here, where the god of this world works, by coming to Christ. Christ is salvation to me. I have salvation in Him, and it is no good saying I have not. Salvation will mean virtually the same thing when Christ comes into the world, the difference being that Christ will set aside the world system and bind the prince of it.
PAES “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness”.
FER Quite so, ‘in view of righteousness’. There ought not to be much difficulty in regard to salvation. What was salvation in the case of Israel? God had intervened as their Saviour. That is, His rights had been set forth in the blood typically, the people were delivered from the fear of death and brought to God and the power of the enemy was virtually broken. The Egyptian was dead on the seashore, and thus God saved Israel from [p. 122] the hand of Pharaoh and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.
RJR In the incident at Philippi what was in the jailer’s mind when he asked, “what must I do to be saved?”
FER I am sure I cannot tell, because the jailer had no knowledge of divine things at all. I have no doubt his conscience witnessed. His mind was filled with terror, and I do not suppose he could have told you himself; but he knew he was wrong anyway. The apostle says at once, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”. “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord”.
Ques Would you say we are not saved till we are delivered from this world?
FER I think we are saved in the apprehension of Christ, because Christ is salvation. Therefore the apostle says, “I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory”. When you get to Christ Jesus you are delivered from the world. You are in salvation. You must find Christ down here for salvation. Salvation has no reference to heaven, but to the scene down here. You will find Christ where the early christians found Him. They found Christ in the christian circle. That is where they came into salvation.
RJR Your thought would be that when the jailer was pointed to Christ it would be in order that he would get the Spirit.
FER He would get the Spirit, and by the Spirit and through baptism he would be brought into the christian circle, and that is salvation. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us”; hence the value of baptism was that through it they came into the christian circle, and in the christian circle they found Christ and had salvation.
Rem And it was really the lordship of Christ put [p. 123] before him.
FER As an object for faith.
Rem But they spoke unto him the word of the Lord.
FER Yes, no doubt. They put the testimony before him, the testimony of our Lord.
GT Would you be free to say that people are saved now?
FER Salvation is in Christ, and Christ is in the christian circle, and if people find the reality of the christian circle they will find salvation.
GT Would you be free to say of yourself you were saved?
FER It is difficult today to find the christian circle. If we could find the christian circle then I could say we were in salvation.
JT That raises the question about the individual you were talking about yesterday.
FER Yes. God has abounded toward us in grace in giving us a little idea of the christian circle; and in the christian circle salvation is found, because there Christ is, and where Christ is there is salvation, and there is no salvation where Christ is not.
WLP If you have the Spirit consequent on believing, you are secure.
FER Security all lies in righteousness. If you are in attachment that is security enough. The judgement of God only falls on lawlessness, and when lawlessness is rampant and defined, but if you are in attachment there is nothing to come upon you. How can anything wrong come on those in attachment? The earth stands in relation to the sun and gets all the benefit of the sun. Nothing comes under judgement but that which is lawless.
WLP I would rather be in that position in my soul than to merely say I am saved.
FER But then salvation comes in, and in the christian circle where Christ is; you come out of Egypt, out of the world, and you come into what is of God, and that is where [p. 124] salvation is.
Rem Salvation is not the same as forgiveness of sins.
FER That is righteousness; forgiveness of sins is not all. Forgiveness of sins is not attachment. There is no righteousness without attachment. You could not be in attachment without having forgiveness, when you are in attachment there is righteousness; but there is another point, that you may be brought into the christian circle where the love of Christ abides, and salvation is there and there only.
GT Is that being delivered from this present evil world?
FER Exactly.
HF Do you not think there is some misapprehension about it, because of the wrong idea of what salvation is? Take the children of Israel as a type, there were different stages in their salvation until they were quite clear. We have often spoken of a person being saved. It meant simply that they were saved so far as the soul’s salvation was concerned. Now the salvation of which you were speaking and with which I entirely agree, is far beyond that and perhaps a good many have difficulty about it.
FER But I think they mix up salvation and righteousness. Righteousness is what people want and then they will soon come into salvation. What people call salvation is only righteousness.
JAC Do you think the nine lepers of the ten were an example of attachment.
FER There was no attachment in the nine. The tenth was attracted and I have no doubt he became attached. The others got the benefit and went their way, but the tenth was attracted. I look upon the tenth leper as being God’s tithe. He would have His tithe.
JG Would you say a man not walking under the influence of Christ would know little if anything about salvation?
FER He knows nothing about it. It is no good a man [p. 125] telling me be is abiding in the Lord when he is independent of the christian circle. I judge of people by what they are doing, not by what they say. You cannot trust appearances. Very often people talk to keep up appearances. It is people’s conduct and associations that show what they are.