GOD COME OUT, MAN GONE IN
[p. 255] GOD COME OUT, MAN GONE IN
Ques It is proposed that we read Hebrews 1 and 2.
FER I think it is evident that in the epistle to the Hebrews we get two great truths set forth in one and the same Person. One is that God has come out; the other that man is gone in. In the one we see the Apostle, in the other the High Priest.
Ques That is chapters 1 and 2.
FER Chapter 1 and the latter part of chapter 2. He is on that road as High Priest, but He is not seen as entered in, as far as I know, till you get to chapter 6.
Ques Made perfect through sufferings. Would not that involve it?
FER “It became him” — God, that the Captain of salvation should be made perfect in that way. It is merely a statement of what was appropriate. As to the actual expression, “entered in”, I do not think you get it till chapter 6. In chapter 4 He is passed through the heavens; in chapter 6 He has entered in.
Ques What is the difference between entered in and passed through?
FER I do not think till He has entered in that He has actually reached the place God purposed He should have as Man. ‘Passed through’ is the road to it, but you do not get Him entered in.
Ques Is chapter 6 a step further on?
FER Yes; and chapter 8 a step further still. He is set down as High Priest.
Ques It is implied, of course, that He is entered in after chapter 2, in His being named a High Priest?
FER In chapter 2 it is that He might be High Priest. It behoved Him. And then you get the qualification (verse 18), but it is more the statement of what was necessary that He might be it.
Ques Is it not seeing “Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour”?
FER That is not the same thought; that is in connection with the world to come. It is as Son of man.
Ques I see; it is as High Priest He enters in?
FER Yes; and afterwards in chapter 6 you get another thought connected with it — He has entered in as Forerunner.
Ques He enters in as Forerunner to make a place for us; that is the point of the Priest.
FER As I understand it, the first who enters in, the first who has run the race, and reached the goal, as it were, is taken up for Priest, saluted as Priest.
Ques How do you look upon the Lord as Apostle?
FER In coming out to make God’s will known.
Ques Apostle is to us-ward, not what He is intrinsically.
FER When you speak of Christ as Apostle, the truth, as I understand it, is that God is come out in the revelation of Himself.
Ques Therefore the first part of the chapter speaks of it. God is speaking in Son. That is the Apostle.
FER Yes; and afterwards the chapter goes into the greatness of His name.
Ques He must be God if He could fully reveal God.
FER He must be divine to reveal God completely. The prophets told you a great deal about God, but God could only reveal Himself completely in a divine Person.
Ques That is the difference between the prophets of old and the One in whom He has now spoken.
FER Exactly.
Ques The One who speaks is God. God speaks “in Son”.
FER The Word become flesh, when in the world, could properly reveal God. “No man hath seen God [p. 257] at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”.
Ques And if He were not man the revelation would not be brought to us in a way in which we could apprehend it?
FER All the fulness was pleased to dwell in Him.
Ques That is not Hebrews?
FER No; but it is the same thing. The fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Him, as I understand it, is that the Godhead has been completely set forth in Him. The revelation comes out in the Son as Apostle, because in Him the fulness was pleased to dwell. Not merely did He say what God told Him, but He was God.
Ques Do you apprehend any difference between the two statements, “In him all the fulness [of the Godhead] was pleased to dwell”, and “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”?
FER The one refers to what had been when He came here to make reconciliation. The other presents Him as at this moment, what He is pleased to be at this moment. There is no substantial difference between the two; the fulness of the Godhead is dwelling in Him now as Man. I think “bodily” is only brought in to counteract gnostic tendency.
Ques The one is abstract, the other concrete.
FER I think the most important point is to see that you get the setting forth of the Apostle and of the High Priest in one and the same Person. In that one Person God has come out, and man has gone in.
Ques Do I understand you, “In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” is true now?
FER Yes, in Him dwelleth.
Ques What was the gnostic idea to be counteracted?
FER I suppose they held that the Lord’s humanity was not actual condition, but a mere form.
[p. 258] Ques They held it was not real, actual, human condition; it was a phantom.
FER The great thing is, God has revealed Himself completely in a Man; that is the wonderful thing.
Ques The gnostics had a tendency to intrude into spiritual regions, and the Apostle shows that a Man is above all angelic power and He was God. Godhead fulness dwells in a Man; that is what “bodily” is to show. It puts Him above all principality and power.
FER The actual statement is it dwells in that Person bodily.
Ques If He is presenting Christianity to these Hebrew believers He begins by showing the glory and greatness of His Person.
FER Yes; I think the point is the greatness of the Person by whom God has spoken has come out. He has spoken; that is the great thing.
Ques He supersedes Moses and Aaron, would you say?
FER I would say all culminated in Him. They are all verified in Him. The law and the prophets all testify of Christ, but every previous communication is realised in Christ.
Ques But had not everything to give place to Christ?
FER They all have their place in Christ. The law and prophets are not exactly set aside, but all has its place in Christ. I do not quite like the word ‘supersedes’. The Lord expounds to them in Moses and the prophets the things concerning Himself. He was the spirit of it all.
Ques “The Lord is that Spirit”.
Ques It was much more than answered in His Person.
FER They all have their place; we could not do without Moses and the prophets. We should be deficient in our knowledge of Christ if we had not the [p. 259] law and the prophets. He was the great subject and testimony of all Scripture.
Ques I did not mean supersede in that sense, but in the sense of “This is my beloved Son: hear him”.
Ques Was not this epistle the divine title to a Jew to step out of Judaism?
FER The whole epistle is built up on Old Testament scriptures. Two especially: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”, and “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”. It led them out of Judaism as a mere external system, but it led them into the reality of what had been spoken of in the Scriptures.
Ques It leads them out of the earthly shadow into the heavenly reality which had been figuratively presented in the Old Testament.
FER You have in Hebrews brought to light that which in the Old Testament was merely seen in type and shadow.
The very fact of God speaking in His Son must set aside the idea of any further revelation. I remember once having a battle with a Mormonite. I met him with Colossians 1 that it was given to Paul to fill up the word of God. I might better have met him with the fact of God having spoken in His Son. Who is going to speak after the Son?
Ques Did not the Lord say, “I am not come to destroy” the law and the prophets? Is that the sense in which you mean?
FER Yes; they all have their place in Christ.
Ques Does not the Melchisedec priesthood set aside that of Aaron?
FER It does as to order, but not in character. Christ’s priesthood is exercised now after the character and pattern of Aaron’s. I think the Melchisedec priesthood is properly millennial. It is for the man who has the promises, and is victorious over the enemies.
[p. 260] Ques Does not the royal priesthood of 2 Peter touch it even now?
FER It is scarcely like it. Melchisedec was the priest of the Most High God. His priesthood had its character in blessing the man who had the promises. We are a royal priesthood to show forth the praises of him who has called us into His marvellous light.
Ques The Person who came out is the Person who went in; that is the great thing.
FER It is a wonderful idea that no one can grasp; I can well understand Scripture saying, “No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father”. It is impossible for any human mind to take in the two ideas at one and the same moment. The position which He has taken has all its virtue and character from His Person. Manhood did not add anything to Christ morally.
Ques What do you mean by that?
FER It could not possibly add anything.
Ques That is the point that has been raised.
FER It is impossible to change the Person. Manhood in His case derived its character from what He Himself was. John 6 brings it out; Christ incarnate is living bread come down from heaven. Everything which came out in Him morally was of His own Person, Himself, a divine Person in the condition of human life down here.
Ques Would you say you have the life and nature of God displayed in a man?
FER I think you have the nature. I am not quite certain as to the life of God; in a moral sense you have.
Ques The Father was displayed?
FER The Father was revealed; you could hardly say displayed. The Son revealed the Father, and the Father bore witness to the Son.
Ques In using the words ‘human condition’ do you mean [p. 261] it in contrast to angelic condition?
FER I should use it in contrast to divine condition. He became a man. It is amazing to think that One who subsisted in the form of God could come into the world and present Himself in human condition, to act and live in the presence of men as a man.
Ques It brings out the grace.
FER It is amazing. There is nothing like the truth of incarnation.
Ques. But always God?
FER Of course He was; you cannot touch His Person.
Ques Would you explain a little more fully what the form of a servant and the form of God mean?
Ques I do not think you can explain.
FER It would be a very presumptuous man that would attempt to explain the form of God. It is to show to you the great fact that He made Himself of no account or reputation and took the form of a servant. No living being can explain what the form of God is. I know what man’s form is because I am a man, but to attempt to say what the form of God is would be to make out you were divine.
Ques There is a great deal revealed for our souls to adore and enjoy that we cannot grasp.
FER No living being can tell what the conditions of divine life are as such.
Ques In that sense God dwells in the light that no one can approach unto.
Ques It is important to see He had human life?
FER Yes; how could He have died if He had not human life? The whole fabric of Scripture would fall if He had not human life.
The point we get at the close of chapter 2 is that as the children were partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise took part of the same. The Lord entered into all the conditions of human life, its sensibilities, feelings and affections: everything dependent on man’s condition and organisation apart from sin.
[p. 262] Ques. It was all real?
FER Yes; if Scripture is real it was so. You cannot suppose anything unreal of Him.
Ques Do you find the word ‘human’ in Scripture in relation to Christ?
FER I do not know.
Ques I ask because many pious souls shrink from the word as applied to the Lord; it is taken from humos, earth. I do not myself see why one need shrink from it.
Ques The very word ‘man’, ‘Adam’, means red earth, the one is Hebrew, the other Latin.
FER If the meaning of a word is pretty well understood amongst us there is no fear of using it if you have the right thought. We have to use words that express what we mean. You cannot always find a word in Scripture to express what you mean.
Ques Will you explain a little why you object to the expression ‘Unity of the Person’?
FER Unity is not incarnation; that is the main objection in my mind in regard to the idea. The great thought in Scripture is incarnation. It is true that in one and the same Person you get the setting forth of God and man. That is the true idea of union, but ‘unity of the Person’ has been used in a different sense entirely.
Ques Mr. Darby says in the Synopsis on Colossians 1, Christ is God and Christ is Man; one Christ.
FER Yes; but you must be careful how you take up an expression like that. In Person He is God; in condition He is man.
Ques Why is He not personally man?
FER He is personally the Son. You cannot have two personalities in one. If He is the Son He cannot be any other Person. He always was the Son and will always be the Son. He was the Son here as man and He will be no less the Son through all eternity. He was that divine Person and He was [p. 263] exactly that same divine Person when He became man. The proof of this is John 5, “The Son can do nothing of himself”. He is the Son, but in the condition of a man. People are getting to the idea of two personalities.
Unity is not a happy word, as applied to the Lord. The teaching of Scripture is incarnation. The scriptural thought is: The Son became man; the Word became flesh.
Ques “A body hast thou prepared me”. Who is “Me”? Who was it who became man? Did He, the Son, become as to Person anything different from what He was before?
FER He did not cease to be what He was before, and as to His Person, He was nothing different from what He was before, except that He took a position relatively that He had not before. He took a place in subjection to the Father.
Ques In this chapter: “As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same”. “He” — who was “He”?
Ques But He became what He was not before.
Ques Yes; but who became it? Let anyone ask that question: Who was He? Who humbled Himself?
FER The teaching of Scripture is that He is a divine Person who came into human form and condition. That divine Person might have an existence, as to His Person, apart from that condition.
Ques We are in human condition in contrast to angelic condition.
FER But your person exists when you are not in human condition in flesh and blood.
Do you remember what the Lord says to the thief: “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”?
A person is an intelligent moral being; he may be in the condition of flesh and blood or out of it. When God created Adam He made him out of the dust of the earth. What made him a person was that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he [p. 264] became a living soul. You do not call a beast a person. It was the breath of God that made Adam a person. The Lord brought into manhood all that He was morally. With us it is a creation of God in every case. You may say you get life from your parents, but you get it from God in creation. We are His offspring.
Ques You could not say that the Lord God breathed into Him?
FER It would be dreadful to say so. There was no creation of a moral being in the case of the Lord. He became flesh.
Ques We say of man he is a tripartite creature, body, soul and spirit. The Lord was ... you do not contend against His manhood?
FER No; but you might be near error there. You get on dangerous ground in applying such things to the Lord. He is a divine Person in manhood. In the thought of spirit I believe you get the idea of personality. “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”. It was the spirit of a man, but that man was Son of God. He committed to the Father that which was immaterial, what referred to the Father, beneath flesh and blood.
Ques But the Lord is identified with His body the moment He became man, and so is man.
FER “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption”.
Ques “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”.
FER That is true, but the Person who is gone in first came out, though now He has gone in in human form. The real point in question is the truth of Christ as on our side, that is, looked at as man God-ward, the firstborn among many brethren. He has His character thus from what He is as divine. He is as much Son on our side when He goes in to God as when He reveals God to man. If He is priest He is Son. The word of the oath makes the Son a priest. And in fact [p. 265] He could not be the forerunner for us if He were not that, for God is bringing many sons to glory, therefore the Leader must be the Son.
Ques He gives character to manhood. In Him manhood gets all its character morally, from what He is as divine.
FER God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. He was the Son revealing the Father; He was equally Son in going in. See how Scripture puts it (Galatians 4): “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son ... that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son”, etc. He comes forth that we might receive sonship. We having received sonship, He is the firstborn among many brethren.
Ques In what way does Scripture speak of Son?
FER I think on the divine side and on our side. We have on our side the Spirit of God’s Son; Christ reveals the Father on the divine side.
Ques What would you say of verse 5 of Hebrews 1?
FER I think that is the truth of His incarnation.
Ques. Not resurrection?
FER Resurrection declares Him to be the Son of God, but He was Son of God in incarnation. It is God’s Son sent forth.
Ques The Father loveth the Son?
FER It is that Person. He is always the eternal Son. He could not be anything else.
The question is whether you look at Him on God’s side or on ours. On God’s side He is the eternal Son, a divine Person of the Godhead; as such we have no part in Him. On our side He is Son as man, to bring us into sonship. The point in John 5 is, the Son quickens; in chapter 6 we appropriate Him. In chapter 5 He is on the divine side; in chapter 6 He is on our side. But it is the same Person. The eternal Son was ever there, and there could be no [p. 266] difference between the eternal Son and the Son born in time except as to His condition. “In the days of his flesh”, Scripture says. He is Son of God in the sense that He is Son come out to reveal the Father, and also Son as the Firstborn among many brethren. It is that Person takes that place.
Ques Would you speak of Him as Son of Adam? Take Luke 3, where He is shown to be the Son of God as coming through Adam.
FER It is only the genealogy given, to bring out the fact that He is come out in that line. You must not look at Christ in a mere human way. The birth of Christ was miraculous. He was truly the seed of the woman, but He was “that holy thing”; God claims Him at once, He is to be called the Son of God.
Ques The truth is involved in that statement but not exactly taught.
FER That is the whole thing.
Ques How would you explain that verse, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man ... neither the Son, but the Father”?
FER I cannot explain it; I am very much afraid of getting out of my depth. “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father”. We cannot grasp all; we look at Him in one light and in another light, but who can take in all the lights but the Father?
Many things are revealed in Scripture, and I accept them; but I could not undertake to say I understand all that is in Scripture. He would be a very bold man who would not say, “I do not know”.
Ques Emmanuel, God with us, did not add to Him?
FER No; it is not exactly a title of His Person; it is what is set forth in Him. You could not exclude the thought of the Father and of the Holy Spirit from “God with us”. Christ set forth God completely in what God was toward man and Israel. In divine operation all must be there — Father, Son and Spirit.
“[p. 267] The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works”.
Ques When the Lord came forth you get the Father and the Holy Spirit at once; Matthew 3.
Ques What is the meaning of “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”?
FER He was begotten in time. The Person down here, the Christ, the Anointed, was actually God’s Son. God claims Him in that way, “Thou art my Son”.
Ques Some make a distinction between Son, Son of God, and only-begotten.
FER What I understand by “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”, is the divine generation. He was Son by divine generation. It refers to the place He took down here. There is a shade of distinction between the Son and the Son of God.
Ques The only-begotten Son?
FER The only-begotten Son is a peculiar expression, which has its application to that one Person. He stands alone. As “Firstborn” we are with Him.
Ques The Greek word for ‘only-begotten’ is the Septuagint translation of ‘only one’ in the Hebrew, sometimes ‘beloved’, sometimes ‘only-begotten’ is used in the LXX for the same Hebrew word signifying ‘only one’. In English it is translated “only”. Genesis 22, “Thine only son ... whom thou lovest”. In Psalm 22 it is the same word, “my darling” the margin puts it, “mine only one”, that is really the meaning of it. “Only-begotten” has nothing to do with being born at all. It is simply the fact, He is God’s only beloved Son.
FER It is a title.
Ques That is important. As we speak, it has a tendency to a thought of priority. What you have said guards that so thoroughly, and is in keeping with John 1.
Ques We get our idea from the Creed: ‘Begotten before all worlds’, which is simply nonsense.
[p. 268] FER We have got a great deal from creeds, and these creeds were constructed by men of less intelligence than many Christians in this day.
Rem There are certain things true of Christ as man that cannot be touched by us.
FER Yes; if you look at Him on the divine side, of course, as Apostle we cannot touch Him.
Ques He was sui generis in some sense.
FER As Firstborn we touch Him. The wonderful thing is, we have both sides in one Person.
God reveals Himself in a man, but that does not alter the relative positions of God and man. In eternity the Son takes a place as subject, which He never had in the past eternity. That proves there is no confusion between God and man. If you look at Him as to what He was with the Father before He came forth, there was no subjection; but in 1 Corinthians 15 He gives up the kingdom, that God may be all in all, and the Son Himself becomes subject as being Man. He takes that place as subject, but His Person is unchanged.
Ques No one can explain it.
FER No; but it proves to me that all that has come to pass in Christ does not blot out the relative places of God and man.
Ques There is only one Person who could carry it out. “That God may be all in all”, that is in the eternal state — Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
FER As Man He was dependent here. People have sometimes said, He asserted equality with the Father; but as man here He says, “My Father is greater than I”.
Ques What people have got in their minds has made Christ a kind of independent divine Being down here. I have seen it in writings, a sort of feeling as if Christ, because divine, could act in an independent way when here.
Ques “I and my Father are one”.
FER [p. 269] The unity of the Godhead is the great backbone of Scripture. The revelation brings to light there are three Persons in the Trinity, but all through Scripture it is the unity of the Godhead. They are one. I admit the Persons, but they are one.
Ques Would you say a word about the atonement?
FER Well, in the atonement who died?
Ques Christ died.
FER He is designated in that way as Christ, but Scripture says we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. He took a condition in which He could die. It was that Person who died, and it was the fact of His being that Person that gave all the value to it.
Ques You would say all He was as a divine Person gave its value to the atonement?
FER It is the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son; it gets all its value from that.
Ques He who died was God’s Son.
FER That is the wonderful design of grace. Sin and death came in by the first Adam, but it was in the divine thought that another man should come in, and that Man was God’s Son.
Ques “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again”.
FER In going into death He does not cease to stand in relation to manhood. He takes up life again as man.
Ques But in a different condition.
FER You get the same thought coming out in the beginning of John. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. The body is the vessel. It was that in which God was set forth down here.
“We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”. “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son”, to redeem.
Ques So what He was as a divine Person gave all its efficacy [p. 270] to His work.
FER What He was gave value to what He did. It pleased God He should taste death for everything.
Ques What of verse 3 of this chapter?
FER There He is looked at entirely on the divine side. God reveals Himself in His Son. It is the glory of His Person. He sat Himself down on the right hand of God.
He is a divine Person undertaking the purgation of our sins, and having done it, He sat Himself down. It is not like chapter 2, where we see Him crowned, as Son of man, with glory and honour.
Ques “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell”.
FER It is one of the parallels of the Old Testament: it simply means, as Man He would not be left in the state of death. “Now is my soul troubled”. Soul is used here in contrast to the actual, physical condition. The abstraction of Himself from the mere physical condition. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful”.
Ques Would you say in Hebrews 1 He is presented as a divine Person, and in chapter 2 that same Person is presented as man?
FER Yes; it is the divine side in chapter 1 very distinctly; He is the Apostle. God has spoken in His Son.
Ques In Daniel you get the Ancient of Days and the Son of man?
FER Yes; you constantly get the same idea. “He liveth unto God” as man; and yet He is God.
Ques In chapter 1 He is worshipped, and in chapter 2 He sings praises.
FER I should be very sorry to see the worship of the Son excluded from our meetings, but if we properly enter into our priestly privilege we know Him as the leader of our praises.
Ques Have you any objection to the expression, Unity of Nature?
FER I do not object. Every Christian is a partaker of the divine nature and of human nature,
[p. 271] but we do not talk about the unity of our persons.
Ques Is not that what is meant?
FER No; that is not what is meant. They will not have that Christ could be viewed distinctly in two lights. They will not have Christ viewed as man Godward, distinct and apart from the rights that belong to Him as God. The whole thing is so absurd I have little patience with it. The Person is the Son. In Him God has come out and man has gone in.
Ques You see the confusion in M. Favez’s French tract that came out recently.
FER The Apostle is entirely on God’s side; the High Priest is entirely on our side. You do not get Christ as High Priest if what they say is true.
Ques J.N.D. says, Christ is God, Christ is Man. He is Christ as both.
FER Yes; but you must think of what was meant by it. He is not man in the sense that He is God. J.N.D. said many times He could not change His Person. In Person He is God, in condition He is Man.
Ques “God was in Christ”, etc.
FER God was set forth in Christ. God came out in Christ.
Ques What is your objection to the old formula ‘God and Man, one Christ’?
FER Because it does not accord with what I find in Scripture. The Person who subsisted in the form of God emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, I read in Philippians 2. ‘God and Man, one Christ’ expresses to me the union of two individualities; those two united in a Person who is Christ. Thus you have either a change of Person or a dual personality. It is perfectly true that God and man are set forth in Christ. I should press that very strongly. That is a question of what is displayed here.
Ques Would that be what is meant by true humanity and Godhead [p. 272] being united?
FER I do not object to that if you speak of what is displayed; but I do to a dual personality. There are certain ideas connected with Him as Man and others connected with Him as God; but as to the Person it is One who was in the form of God, who emptied Himself, and came into man’s likeness. What the Person is is one thing, what the display is is another.
Ques No one can grasp the thought of the two in one Person. We can accept it.
FER If you are going to compass Christ, all that is true of Him, you are a very extraordinary person.
Ques Do they not come very close together at the end of Matthew 17?
FER All that God was, was here in Christ. He was manifestly “God with us”. Continually they come close together, and the one derives from the other, and hence the great importance of maintaining the truth of the Person. Christ is endeared to us by the revelation which He brings to us of God. What a wonderful thing it is that we can then appropriate Him on our side and claim Him as the firstborn among many brethren.
Ques In contemplating Him as Man you do not forget He is Son.
FER Of course you do not.
Ques We must never disconnect His manhood from that which morally gave character to it.
FER It is God who has spoken. When the Son speaks it is God who speaks. But He brings you into all this blessed light of God, all that God has revealed in the Son, and then you find you can actually claim that blessed Person on your side as the One who is going to lead you in the assembly.