(4) RESPONSIBILITY CONNECTED WITH THE HOUSE
(4) RESPONSIBILITY CONNECTED WITH THE HOUSE
FER We have had the Apostle and High Priest before us in chapters 1 and 2 so that the writer can ask for consideration of Him in those two characters.
Ques What does the term profession take in?
FER There was the Jewish profession, and now there is the christian profession. Christianity is a certain kind of profession — we profess certain things. So judaism in the same way was a certain profession of which Moses and Aaron were the apostle and the high priest. In christianity you come to finality — Christ. I do not think there will be any profession when the Lord comes, but while He is absent there is a profession.
Ques Have not some told us it should be confession?
FER I do not mind if it is profession or confession.
Ques What we confess as christians?
FER Yes.
Ques Is it not something like ‘the faith’?
FER There is confession of certain things which we esteem to be the truth or the faith, if you will, because the faith and the truth are pretty much equivalent.
Ques Does that involve the house?
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques What is the difference between the house here and in 1 Timothy?
FER I do not know any.
Ques. Not as to aspect?
FER No; I think the thought of the house is brought into this chapter to lay a proper basis of [p. 216] responsibility. I doubt if you get an adequate idea of responsibility if the thought of the house is not brought in.
Rem It is a little more structural in Timothy; here the thought is taken up from Israel.
Ques Is the thought God’s house all through, or does it bring in the thought of Christ’s house?
FER Oh no, it is God’s house all through; Mr. Darby pointed that out long ago. Moses was faithful in all God’s house. I take it that God’s house was Israel; you could not make that Aaron’s house. Moses was faithful in contrast to Aaron’s unfaithfulness. Israel was God’s house — God dwelt in Israel. The object of making the tabernacle was that God might dwell among them, and Israel had the place provisionally, at all events, of being God’s house.
Rem Aaron’s house brings in the idea of kindred.
FER Yes, the great thought in connection with the house of God is that God dwells there. I think it is all to bring in what it says after verse 7. God’s house is brought in really to lay a proper foundation of responsibility. Christendom has lost sight entirely of the presence of the Spirit, but the Spirit of God has a voice here — He could not possibly be dwelling here without having a voice. I think that involves the responsibility of those who compose the house. The moment the house is brought in it says, “Wherefore, even as says the Holy Spirit, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts”.
Ques Have you responsibility in respect to the Son?
FER I think so, because He is over the house. I think the Spirit always maintains responsibility to Christ.
Ques Would you say that the house comprises all who make a profession [p. 217] of christianity?
FER No, there is an ‘if’. People may have a certain place in christianity professedly, but they must reckon with the ‘if’. There are hosts of people in the profession of christianity, but I would not say they were in the house of God.
Ques Do not they belong to the responsible body?
FER I think they belong to the church looked at as a responsible body, but I would not say they belong to the house. They have to reckon with the ‘if’.
Ques. Is that apostasy?
FER I think so, in the real force of it. The Spirit of God dwells in what Christ has built.
Rem But you cannot separate the fact that we are all on one common platform.
FER That is what I should call external christianity; we are all on one common platform there, but the Spirit of God dwells in the house which Christ built, not which man builds. Christ built a spiritual house, and the Spirit of God dwells there; only being composed of people down here, you may get a lot of people added professedly who have not any part in it at all.
Rem Scripture always treats people as christians until they prove themselves otherwise.
FER I think so; but I think it keeps clear the idea of what is really of God, and what Christ has built.
Ques When a person is baptised do they come into the place where the Holy Spirit dwells?
FER No, they come into the precincts of the house.
Ques How do we gain entrance into the house?
FER By the Spirit.
Ques What force do you give to the words, “And it filled all the house where they were sitting”? Acts 2.
FER I think that is the actual house.
[p. 218] Ques You will admit that the idea of the Spirit dwelling in the individual is different to the Spirit abiding in the house?
FER Oh yes, it is a different idea altogether. For instance, the Lord was the temple, but at the same time He was the anointed Man to preach the gospel. He was the temple, God was there, the oracles were there, but I think you get quite a distinct thought in Luke, where He is presented as the anointed Man to diffuse the light — to preach the gospel. The Spirit of God dwells in you, the temple; but then the church as the body is quite a distinct thought; there you get the diffusion of light.
Ques But do you not think of the union of the members?
FER When the thought of the body is brought in, the thought of the gifts is brought in too, for the diffusion of the light. In John’s gospel Christ is the temple. In Luke’s gospel He is the anointed Man to preach. Both things are true, but they are two distinct thoughts. The Spirit of God to instruct us has drawn figures from human things.
Rem The idea of the temple is more connected with oracles.
FER Yes, I think so. The house I think is brought in in connection with behaviour — that a man may know how to behave himself.
Rem Take Ananias and Sapphira for a moment — apart from the question whether they were converted or not; Peter charges them with not lying unto man, but to the Holy Spirit. It is not difficult to see that they were in the house.
FER I would not say they were there or not there; they were responsible to the Holy Spirit. God takes up people on the ground they take up. If you ask me what is really the house of God, I should say it is composed of those who are baptised by the Holy Spirit. It is a curious thing that the house of [p. 219] God is never brought in in connection with any particular epistle. It is only brought in in the catholic epistles. It is a general idea and is not brought in an epistle to any particular church.
Rem You get it in Ephesians: Jew and gentile builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.
FER But I think that is more the thought of Jew and gentile. Christ had to gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad. The spiritual house is evidently a general idea, and Peter writes to the saints scattered abroad.
Ques Did not the Lord take up the temple as God’s house?
FER He did; He owned it as long as God owned it, but at the same time, morally, the house was superseded by Himself.
Ques Is it not possible to do something analogous to that recorded in John 2, and make the house of God into a house of merchandise today?
FER I think that is what man has done in regard to the temple, at all events in regard to what has been entrusted in his hands. God allows things to work so that people become apostate. They will ruin themselves. I think that one of the most remarkable things in Scripture is the harlot riding the beast.
Ques That is before the apostasy?
FER No, I should think it is after the apostasy. The harlot is a harlot and shews that she is Babylonish; and I have not the shadow of a doubt that popery is Babylonish, which means man’s glory, idolatry too, It is a remarkable thing in the present day that people are losing their horror of popery. In this country it does not come out in its true character, it adapts itself to the state of things, but I am sure people are losing their horror of it although it is perfectly [p. 220] devilish I have thought it one of the most striking things of late that statesmen are awfully ignorant of what they are trifling with.
Ques Is discipline connected with the house?
FER It is connected with the local assembly. The local assembly has its responsibility.
Ques In 1 Corinthians 5 where it says, “Purge out the old leaven”, do you get the idea of the body there?
FER No.
Rem It has been said, ‘Keep the house of God clean’.
FER I will tell you what I should try and keep clean — keep your fellowship clean. If we have come into the place of christian fellowship we are responsible that our fellowship is according to God.
Rem Then it does say, “Remove ... from amongst yourselves”, it does bring that element in.
FER “Amongst yourselves”; people come into christian fellowship and they have their responsibility in connection with the fellowship.
Ques Is it like the unleavened bread — the feast of unleavened bread was to be throughout the dispensation?
FER Yes, I think they had to prove the unleavened by purging out the leavened.
Ques Would it be right to say that the house of God is commensurate with the body?
FER I do not think there is anything outside the house of God that is not outside the Spirit of God. I think we want to maintain thoughts of that kind in their own proper character.
Rem It is a great thing to get the divine idea before the mind.
FER I think so.
Rem Only I think a good deal has come from the type used in 2 Timothy, “A great house”.
FER Christendom is the great house, but at the same time I do not see that Paul ever said a word about the house of God in the second epistle. He does speak about the house of God in the first epistle.
Ques When the Lord says, “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of robbers” (Matthew 21: 13) does He not shew that He speaks of the temple as to what was according to God?
FER Yes, it is in the power of man to corrupt christianity, but I do not think it is in the power of man to corrupt what is of the Holy Spirit.
Rem But you have in 1 Corinthians 3, “If any one corrupt the temple of God, him shall God destroy”.
FER I think they were corrupting real christians. That is what popery has done — attempted to corrupt real christians. I look upon corrupters as being unconverted men, but their wickedness is in corrupting what is of God.
Ques When it says, “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died”, would that be corrupting?
FER I think the point is that he would destroy by apostasy. The person was not exactly a corrupter; Corinthians is much beyond that — the corrupter is a wicked person who brings in defiling principles by which real christians might be affected.
Ques What do you mean by apostasy?
FER A man who has given up the name of Christ. I think there are many steps on the way to it, but in result they mean giving up all. When the thing is in its early stage it is difficult to detect, but I think sometimes you can see the cloven hoof; that is why it is judgment begins at the house of God. It is discipline — judgment in the sense of chastening.
[p. 222] Corrupting principles come in and discipline comes in to check it. The house of God here in Hebrews 3 is a very large thought — it is the church, provisionally, but I have no doubt it is the universe. “He who has built all things is God”. God intends to make the universe His dwelling-place.
Rem The tabernacle was a picture of that undoubtedly.
FER I think it is one of the most wonderful things you can imagine that when God took up a nation on the ground of redemption He set forth His purpose in regard to the universe in figurative representations.
Ques How does that come out in detail?
FER You get the holiest of all; then all that is connected with Israel, then all that is outside the precincts. Heaven is the holiest of all. You get all things in connection with Israel in the holy place; then there is the court of the tabernacle which brings in all that is outside.
Ques. In the millennium?
FER Yes, I think the wonderful thing about the tabernacle is that for the moment everything was covered by Christ. If you come to think what Christ was under the eye of God down here — He comprehended a universe.
Ques I suppose “Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” would be in contrast to Israel?
FER I think so. It brings in the heavenly calling. The High Priest has gone in — the approach is as great as the revelation — it is perfection. Aaron was not equal to Moses, and after all Moses was not the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy-Seat: Christ is that; then the High Priest is Christ, so you have got perfection, and you can go on to perfection. My impression is that we are not sufficiently in the good of the revelation; if we were we should have access according to Christ. “Through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”.
Ques What value do we get in the expression “Who is faithful to him that has constituted him”?
FER Christ is the house of God and He will maintain it according to God. It is no good our thinking that Christ will accommodate Himself to us, we have to accommodate ourselves to Him.
Ques I suppose that is what is meant by behaving ourselves in the house of God?
FER Yes.
Ques All the rest of the chapter is really in connection with the ‘if’ in verse 6?
FER Yes, you have the Holy Spirit now: “Wherefore as the Holy Spirit saith”.
Ques When you have the thought of God’s house does it imply God’s household?
FER Yes; the Spirit of God is there, and I think you are responsible to listen to Him. I think you get the steps of departure marked here at the end of this chapter. The first thing is “provoked”, then the next step is “sinned”, and finally “unbelief”, verses 16 - 19. The deadly thing is unbelief — that is the real meaning of apostasy. We have provoked God many a time, but the deadly thing is unbelief. “See ... lest there be in any one of you a wicked heart of unbelief, in turning away from the living God”.
Ques I suppose that no one who has the Spirit could apostatise?
FER Oh no. I think young christians have got to look to it tremendously how far they countenance lawlessness. Lawlessness is exactly the opposite of abiding in Christ. I am sure young people to a very large extent are lawless in a great many things they do — in what they read and where they go; if they are not abiding in Christ they are lawless, and I am sure lawlessness is very deadly [p. 224] to our walk.
Ques Is that why we are to exhort one another?
FER Yes, “Lest any ... be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin”. Sin is lawlessness. You have a continual living voice of warning: “The Spirit speaks expressly”. He warns of things which may come in, not only of the things which have come in. When people cultivate lawlessness, do you think they will be very sensitive to the voice of the Spirit? I know they will not. Nothing will deaden people to the voice of the Spirit more than the occupation of the mind with what I call triviality.
Ques In the end, I suppose, falling in the wilderness?
FER Very likely. I know when we came into fellowship it was a pretty settled thing that we abandoned what we went on with before — athletics, light reading, and all that kind of thing.
Rem Not as being under any obligation, but because you had something better.
FER Well, I think so. The Spirit is a still small voice, and the Spirit is excessively sensitive.
Rem I felt one could not go on with those things and Christ too.
FER Now there is a great effort to go on with those things and Christ, and I am sure it is a dead failure.
Rem The thing ought to be a good deal laid upon our hearts; they are the rising generation.
FER Yes, I think so. I always look upon my children in two ways, as a father and as a brother. As a father I should like to see them all in fellowship, but as a brother I am not quite so sure.
Rem I have heard it said that there is so little for young people among us. I think it is well to mention it; the expression, though I thought I understood it, grated on my ears a good deal, because, if there is Christ, Christ is good enough for young people just as much as old people.
[p. 225] Rem Still there is a certain way of ministering Christ to the state and measure of souls. I have heard a similar remark many a time.
FER You will never make Christ pleasing to the natural man.
Rem That is really the secret — that is true.