THE SPIRITUAL HOUSE
THE SPIRITUAL HOUSE
HAD Does what we get here refer to what we get in Matthew 16?
FER It is generally said that the first epistle connects itself with Matthew 16 whereas the second epistle connects itself with Matthew 17, the first the church, and the second the kingdom. This epistle does not go properly beyond what was true for Israel, it does not go beyond what is connected with an earthly people, it does not touch the heavenly side of the truth.
Ques Are spiritual sacrifices what God will get from Israel by and by?
FER Yes. You do not get sacrifices in heaven, and a royal priesthood, and a peculiar people do not properly connect you with heaven. It is extremely important to distinguish these thoughts which are taken up in the church, and those which properly belong to the church. There are some things which exclusively belong to the church.
WHH The offering up spiritual sacrifices does not really give you the idea of association with Christ?
FER Not at all; it does not touch the idea of the church, or the bride, or the heavenly city. There are a great many thoughts which are taken up in the church, and which form part of our education, but they are not what is distinctively for the church. This epistle gives you the idea of a house, and of a priesthood, and of spiritual sacrifices, but these are ‘old’ thoughts, there is nothing new about them, and they will be given to Israel again in the future.
WM Would you say that spiritual sacrifices could be applied to Israel?
FER Yes, sacrifices which have not a spiritual significance would be of no value to God; you must [p. 88] bring in the spiritual element, or they will be of no value to God at all.
THB Is the spiritual house the house of God?
FER It is the church looked at in that light. The house today is really the place of the temple, and the thought of God in the house is fulfilled in the church; but then it is in a spiritual way, and therefore in a way a contrast to what was true before, and yet it is a continuation of a privilege accorded to Israel.
WM When would you say you come to the living stone?
FER When you come to Christ not simply as the termination of the old order of things, but as the beginning of a new order entirely. You see that He has not come simply to remedy the old things, but to bring in something entirely new. When Peter said “Thou art ... the Son of the living God”, he apprehended Christ as the new point of departure, that God had begun again in Christ. Now every previous thought of God is maintained in Christ and the companions of Christ, everything is maintained there, but nothing is yet displayed.
EMcB If it was not maintained it could not be displayed.
FER No. The peculiarity of the present is that we have come to the fulness of the times. The dispensation of the fulness of the times has come for us because we have come to Christ. We have put it too much into the future, but the truth is the fulness of the times has come, or as we get it in Ephesians 1, “the administration of the fulness of times”. It has come simply because Christ has come, it is the lack of the apprehension of that which is such a defect with us today.
Ques When you speak of Christ as the new point of departure, what do you refer to?
FER Christ is the beginning of the whole vast system and scheme of blessing in which God will be glorified, the breadth, and length and depth and height.
[p. 89] All that system of things which is gathered up and centred in Christ, nothing is displayed yet, but all is gathered up in Christ.
Ques Will Israel come to Christ as the Living Stone?
FER I do not know that the expression will apply to them, because coming to Him as the Living Stone, we as living stones are built up a spiritual house, but in that day, the temple will be restored. I was thinking of the house as the continuous idea.
JMcK The disallowance of men must apply to the present?
FER Yes; and on the other hand He is chosen of God and precious, and then it goes on to say, “To you therefore who believe is the preciousness”. It was to those who had believed in Christ, not to the nation publicly, but to those who had believed in Christ. Israel was tested by Christ, but He gathered up whatever was for God in Israel.
Rem “Behold I, and the children which God hath given me”. Christ was a point of attraction in the midst of Israel, like He was to Peter. And now all those who come to Him come to Him in His rejection.
FER Yes, He becomes a test on the one hand, but on the other everything which was for God was attracted to Him. It is in the same way that the gentiles are attracted to Him now.
Rem And what He introduces is a new and living order, in contrast to a carnal and dead one.
FER Yes, all those who are for God among the gentiles are being attracted to Christ; it is something to Him in the soul’s apprehension of Him as a Living Stone.
WM Is that appropriation?
FER Yes, it is one thing to see Christ as Saviour, meeting all our responsibility, and quite another to see Him as the new point of departure for God. You have to share in His disallowances, you have to leave all the present order of things, and come to Him on the water. It involves leaving the world order of things, if there is [p. 90] to be the apprehension of Christ as the Living Stone.
I think the thought of two heads, and two races, has very greatly bewildered people, but it is not true at all. Adam never was the real starting point for God, he was but a figure of Him who was to come, the real point of departure for God is Christ.
HC That is a real living Person who attracts you out of the world to Himself.
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem Christ gave Himself that He might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.
FER Yes, the will of God and our Father was the first thing; sin and death and the curse came in by Adam, but Christ has accomplished redemption that He might deliver us from this present evil world. But then after all Christ is the Man, He is the beginning of another world, and hence you get the fulness of times, because Christ has come. You see everything comes out of Christ, the church comes out of Christ, it is His body; then you get Israel too, and the nations, they will all come out of Him.
GJS And is that the true force of “Why dost thou persecute me?”
FER I think so.
Ques What is the force of the expression “a living stone”?
FER It is the foundation of the building, of the house. It conveys this thought of a house built upon Christ; He is a Living Stone, and you come to Him, and you are built upon Christ; He is a Living Stone, and you come to Him, and you are built up as living stones a spiritual house. All christianity is living, and all has to do with a living God, the church is the church of the living God, and there is the house of the living God and many other thoughts. God will ensure that the building is complete, but today, and here it is a question of movement towards Him, you come to Him;
[p. 91] it is a question of a movement in the soul of the believer towards Him.
Ques What is the difference between the thought of the foundation and the chief corner stone?
FER The chief corner stone is the most conspicuous stone, the crown.
DLH Is not the man in John 9 a very good illustration of this point: he is first relieved by Christ, and then he finds Him again, but it is as disallowed of man; and then Christ says to him, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God”, and he says, “I believe, Lord” and he worships Him.
FER Yes, quite so; and then immediately after you get the one flock and the one shepherd; and though both those thoughts belong previously to Israel they are now applied to the church, and hence they get a more spiritual character.
Ques What is the difference between this scripture, and what Paul says, “Other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid”?
FER Their faith was built up on Jesus Christ, it is not a question at all of the foundation of a house, but of their faith. He had laid the foundation in Corinth, and they were built upon it. The house comes in for God; God saw fit to dwell among men, He would have a response from man. He expected to find a response in service; He would so make man conscious of goodness and blessing, that He might gain a response to Himself. He dwells among men in order that He might make man alive to His goodness, and in that way secure a response to Himself on their part.
Ques What is the idea of a sacrifice?
FER It is that which costs you something, something devoted which cannot be recalled. The offering was connected with the house and the priesthood. If God dwells among men it is for His own pleasure. What we have here is not exactly a collective idea, it is more individual. I should connect it rather with [p. 92] Hebrews 13. The thought of the sacrifice is connected with the house.
Ques Has a man the character of offering priest in his own house?
FER Yes, quite so; but he is a priest always; it is not just now and then, but he has that character continually; all our conduct ought to be governed by that. The house of God is where we come under the discipline of God. All of us ought to be careful not to take up things which are inconsistent with our priesthood. People pursuing great ends in the world are not consistent with their priesthood. This takes in the life of faith, it is a life of spiritual sacrifice; we are to offer the sacrifice of praise continually; then too we have to do good and to communicate. There are sacrifices which are man-ward as well as God-ward.
DLH There is a remarkable passage in Malachi 2: 4 - 7 with regard to the priest, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts”.
FER Quite so; that ought to be true of every one of us. We ought to be intelligent, divinely intelligent. I think the holy priesthood is connected with the service of God, whereas the royal priesthood is more connected with their position in the world. It is not quite the same idea as Melchisedec; he was priest and king, but that is not quite the idea here. Israel was a royal priesthood, but it requires a sort of moral elevation to maintain that. No one can form part of that royal priesthood unless they are completely superior to the influences of the world. Israel was set in that place, but they did not maintain their dignity, they came down to the level of the world, and wanted a king. To be completely superior to the influence of the world, that is the idea to me of a royal priesthood. I would not care about art, taste, or any kind of influence of that sort, but I would seek to be superior to every worldly influence.
[p. 93] H Would not the type of that thought come out in those who were prevented from going in to minister on account of personal infirmity, or the crooked-backed?
FER That is more the inside line, the holy priesthood; you cannot approach God freely unless you are in accord with His nature, you must be holy. I do not want to come under any influence of the world.
THB Would that be like the crown of anointing of Aaron.
FER I do not know; but it was not simply a question of Aaron, the whole nation was to be a royal priesthood.
EMcB Do you not see this superiority coming out in such men as Elijah and Daniel?
FER Yes, you do; and look at the moral dignity of Paul! He had sought no man’s gold or silver or apparel. With Abraham too.
Rem “To do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”. Hebrews 13: 16.
FER That is more the holy priesthood; it refers to what will come to pass when Christ comes out when it speaks of our blessing man. Moses and Aaron came out and blessed the people.
Ques But do we not bless today?
FER Perhaps, but it is more a question of going in today, than of coming out. Israel ought to have shown forth the praises of Jehovah who had brought them out of Egypt; and so too I think we ought to show forth the praises of God who has called us out of darkness into His marvellous light; we ought to be so in the consciousness of God’s goodness, that we must show forth His praises. You see everything that tends to give a man place or standing in this world is really an incubus to them. There may be spiritual energy to throw off the incubus, but for all that looked at in itself, it is an incubus. People cling to many things which are an incubus to them. You do not get the royal priesthood [p. 94] first, but the holy priesthood, you have what is for God first.
Ques Why do you exclude the thought of the Lord’s day morning meeting from the holy priesthood: is it not the fact that we are a holy priesthood, that gives us boldness of entrance?
FER But boldness to enter the holiest is not the assembly, it refers to the privilege which attaches to the believer. The only epistle which speaks of the assembly come together, is 1 Corinthians. I regard entering into the holiest entirely as an individual matter; both the boldness to enter and the going in is our privilege. What we come to when we enter is more holy things, not so much the idea of holy places.
Ques Does not boldness belong to all?
FER Yes, and if a man were in the consciousness of his privilege so much the better would he be qualified for the assembly; but then that is true of every individual who takes up his privilege he will be better qualified for taking up the assembly. But really today it is the assembly in the wilderness.
Ques Why do you say in the wilderness?
FER Well, if I take the first of Corinthians; it never goes beyond the wilderness; it never takes you on to what is beyond, to the land, it is simply a question of the wilderness.
Ques What is the idea of the holiest?
FER What was the holiest place to them, is more the holy things to us; it is to me the idea of entering into the whole scheme of divine wisdom in Christ; you come into the whole system of divine blessing in Him.
Ques But do you not want boldness to enter into all that?
FER Yes, but the boldness must be got before the Lord’s day morning else you will never get it at all and you will not enter. In the case of Israel the proper idea connected with the wilderness is movement, but then while that was so, the ark of the covenant went before [p. 95] and sought out a resting place for them, now that is the idea of the assembly to me. The wilderness is a scene of continual movement, that is of continual exercise, but the ark goes before and it is all set up, it has found a resting place, and there you too, come to a moment of rest. At that moment you are withdrawn from the movement of the wilderness, and from all its exercises, and you come to a season of rest. I think it is the appreciation of Christ as the new point of departure; but then I go a step further, and see the whole system of blessing of which He is the Head and centre. The Head of that system is the Son of God.
Ques How does that differ from what we have in connection with the Father and the Son?
FER Well after all the two lines run very closely together.
Ques You do not get the Father in Hebrews. What would be the difference between John and Hebrews?
FER I think the two run very closely together. In Hebrews 10 he is taking up the thing in a way suitable to Jews, but you must read Hebrews in the light of John. He does not state things in the same way to Jews and gentiles, that is all; but the lines run very closely together. Take Colossians, you are risen together with Christ, and He is our life, our “life is hid with Christ in God”, well, that is all very priestly.
Ques What is the force of “to you ... who believe is the preciousness”?
FER The preciousness was to the believer, not to the nation as such; it was to those who believe in Him who got it, they entered into it.
JMcK And in coming to the living stone, you are attracted to the precious One?
FER Yes, I apprehend Christ as the new point of departure, and I am attracted to Him as that. Israel looked on to Christ as some great King coming to confer glory on the nation, but it was a total mistake; you [p. 96] must have the living stone before you can have the house, and you must have the house before you can have the nation. To think of the figure you must have Eve before you can get Israel. They simply thought of Christ as conferring glory on the nation, they never apprehended Him as a new point of departure altogether for God.
Ques What is the sincere milk of the word?
FER I think it is taking up things intelligently; not at all the text-book thought. You see the fact is this, no single thing is revealed in Scripture; Scripture is the inspired record of what is already revealed. Christ Himself is the revelation, and as it says in John’s epistle, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”, it is the anointing teaches you all things, it is the intelligent apprehension of Christ.
Rem In Isaiah 28 where the quotation as to the corner stone is taken from, it is in the sense of a foundation, “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”?
FER I think in general the idea connected with a corner stone is that of the conspicuous stone; but if Scripture calls it a foundation stone, of course it is a foundation stone.
Ques What do you mean by saying nothing is revealed in Scripture?
FER Well, if you trace the way God has seen fit to communicate His mind, it was first through Moses, then through the prophets, then Christ came and now the Spirit is here. But when I think of the Scriptures, I see them to be the inspired record of what is revealed, but the way you get things is from the unction; you have an unction from the Holy One and know all things, that is the way Scripture puts it.
Ques What about the “word of God is quick, and powerful”?
FER It is that it separates in the most subtle way between what is of God and what is not, and between [p. 97] flesh and spirit. The position now is this, we have to do with a living Christ who has attached us to Himself by His Spirit, and He has given us an unction so that we may know all things; but on the other hand, the great point is, that the Scriptures are the test of everything. The promises were made to Abraham, they were given to him by God, and we have them chronicled for us in the Scriptures, but the way we are able to understand them, is just in proportion as we are acquainted with Christ; it is as we have acquaintance with Christ that anything and everything is unfolded to us. You really hear of Christ through the preacher, “how shall they hear without a preacher?” people get an apprehension of Christ through the preacher.
JMcK If you had to deal with an anxious soul, would you refer them to the Scriptures?
FER Certainly, because Scripture is for doctrine, and it has authority and therefore, I should certainly refer an inquiring soul to the Scriptures; but what I should like to do with such a soul is, I would like to tell him what I know myself of God. The fact is this, Scripture is put in the place of the living witness of Christ and the church.
DLH Do not let anyone go away with the idea that there is any thought of underrating the Scriptures.
FER Not at all, but do not let us overlook the living witness of Christ today and the church. The word of Christ to me has two parts, the one is His death, and the other the communication of living water; those are the two ways in which Christ is expressed.