CHAPTER 18
CHAPTER 18
Ques In chapter 16 we had Peter’s confession, “Son of the living God”; in chapter 17 we have the Father’s voice, “Thou art my beloved Son”. Is the same thought in both?
FER The first passage is the confession of Christ in what He was according to the divine generation, in the second passage it is honour and glory conferred upon Him, that is how Peter interprets it. The latter has to do [p. 121] with the kingdom.
Ques Is it the same thought as chapter 11?
FER No, I do not think it is; in that sense He did not receive honour and glory.
Ques I should like to ask, now that we are on the subject, what is the difference between Nathanael’s confession (John 1) and the confession of Peter (Matthew 16); Nathanael says, “Son of God; ... King of Israel”? Peter says, “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. In Peter’s case it is said to be a revelation from the Father, but nothing of the kind is said in Nathanael’s case?
FER Nathanael simply confessed Him according to a name inherited (see Psalm 2); in Peter’s case it was according to what He is in divine generation. He was taught of the Father that He was of God, according to His divine nature.
Ques Do you mean His Person?
FER Well, not exactly, though it all hung upon the truth of His Person; it was the divine relationship and nature, but as giving character to man that was taught to Peter, and however little he understood it, that was the purport of it; but as to Nathanael it was no more than Christ according to Psalm 2. That is a name inherited, the thought there is of authority over the nations, and you get this subsequently in the Scriptures, in the address to Thyatira and again at the close of Revelation in connection with Son of God.
Ques And the revelation in Matthew 16, what you speak of as divine generation is the foundation of the heavenly order of things?
FER Yes, all hangs upon the divine relationship and nature brought into manhood. It hangs upon His Person, but if He had not taken a place in manhood it could not be available for us. Matthew 11 is not like chapter 16, a foundation upon which He can build. It is essentially as Son He speaks of Himself there, I know only one title that describes Him as to His Person, and that is “the Son”.
Ques Would you not say “the Word”?
FER That is designation, and it says, “we contemplated his glory”; that is, the glory of the Word is the only begotten of the Father, that is the Son.
Ques In John 1 the Lord calls Simon Peter, has that any connection with Matthew 16?
FER You have to consider that in John’s gospel the Jews are looked at as reprobate from the outset, thus you can understand why from the outset the Lord should designate Peter by the name by which he was to be known afterwards, and he gets the confirmation of it in Matthew 16. I do not think that Peter had the revelation in John 1. He was not much up to it then, and yet that was what was in the Lord’s mind. I understand a name to indicate that which is to be set forth in a man.
Rem He gives him the name anticipatively.
FER The force of it did not come out until the beginning of the Acts, when Peter received the Holy Spirit.
Rem So then you may say there are three steps as to Peter, John 1, Matthew 16 and Acts 2.
FER The first in connection with Christ, the second with the church and the third with the Spirit, but you must have all three. What I think we saw last time in the previous chapter (16), was that the Lord had broken with the Jews and that He looked upon the disciples as the loaf; the bread; then subsequently to that He builds the church, He commits the keys of the kingdom to Peter, then unfolds what the path down here is to be, and then goes on to the kingdom in glory. The Lord brings out all the great principles that were to come in, the kingdom now, and the kingdom in glory and the dispossession of Satan down here. What we read tonight brings out in detail the great principles which carry us on to the future, you cannot go further in that direction than chapter 17;
[p. 123] what comes in after is detail, principles for the ordering of conduct and so on down here.
Rem You do not get Satan falling from heaven in Matthew.
FER Because you do not get in Matthew the thought of man having a place in heaven, the thought of Satan being cast out is connected with man having a place there; Luke 10. Here it is a question of the world to come and Satan being cast out of it. The child is in picture the Jew, Christ comes down from the mount to cast Satan out of the child of the Jew. It is rather a large field to be brought out in a few verses. The building of the assembly, the kingdom in mystery, the pathway here in fellowship with His sufferings, the kingdom in glory and the dispossession of Satan are all here. Now at the end of chapter 17 and in chapter 18 we get the entering into and ordering of the kingdom, what you might call the economy of the kingdom, for the public outward thing down here was the kingdom and yet not exactly public because it was in mystery, but the conduct that men could see. In the end of chapter 17 there is One who is conscious of being the greatest, yet He will take the lowest place in order to avoid offence; there is a great contrast between what He reveals Himself to be and the place He takes. The first principle is that you are to avoid offences, but not to be offended yourself. You do not want to stumble anyone else, and you take care that you are not stumbled; it is all individual, the only time that I know of where anything collective comes into the chapter is in verse 17, where the church is just introduced, but that is the only allusion that I know of.
Ques What is the difference between this and John 3?
FER There it is that a man must be born again, here it is the spirit and character in which a man is to enter the kingdom. It is in a certain sense the effect [p. 124] of being born again. John looks at the work of God which is underneath. Matthew, like Mark and Luke, looks at things more outwardly, that is, what comes to pass in the experience of people.
Rem I suppose you might say that the kingdom of God is moral and the kingdom of heaven administration.
FER Yes, to a certain extent; what the Lord brought out here was the kingdom of heaven, and yet it is moral; for though we get the parables of the leaven and of the mustard seed, yet what you find is that a man has to be converted and become as a little child to enter into it; evidently it is looking at the kingdom in a moral aspect; no doubt in the aspect of a mustard tree there is a vast number of people in it who are not morally in the kingdom. It is the reality here. As a matter of fact a man does not enter into it unless he is converted, it is the condition under which he goes in, you must become as a little child.
Rem You are not fit as you are, you must go back to the beginning.
FER It was the more striking to a Jew because a Jew made so much of the man. You have to let go all that you have gained in this world; it is what a man has acquired in this world that makes him a man, but it has to go, it is no good. Man makes use of the faculties God has given him to acquire prominence here, but it all has to go, all the greatness and pretension a man has in this world, religious or in whatever form it might be. A child does not set up for strength or knowledge. What can you take to the Lord?
Rem You can take a great deal from Him.
FER But then you must give up all you have, I think it is a most wonderful thing to be governed and ordered here by the Lord, no one can describe the manner of it, because it is peculiar to each, no one can define it to another. There are people in the world [p. 125] who think that they can carry on the Lord’s work as they carry on man’s work by organisation and combination and natural means; but as far as I understand it, everything which tends to give greatness and importance to man has to be dropped, I do not think you ever cease to be a little child in that sense. I think that the Lord in this chapter takes up one point after another. We have the very important principle, that even the infants have their place in the kingdom, they were despised among the Jews, but it shows the character of the kingdom, it is not law but grace. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”. The Lord attaches great importance to it, “In heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father”. “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. The meanest and smallest thing upon earth has its place; this is a beautiful feature of the kingdom. Law recognised the man, there is very little about the children under the law, but here there is. I think the gospels show how the children stand in relation to the Lord, and the epistles how they stand in relation to the Spirit.
Rem They are to obey the Lord in the epistles.
FER Oh, yes, it is all in that sphere where His rights are maintained. In Corinthians they are holy, in the gospels, where it is more a question of the Lord, they are to be suffered to come to Him. After the children you have the question of difficulties between brethren, how they are to be met. You first get the way in which offences are to be avoided, then the place of children, then the dealing with possible offences between brothers, and in that connection the church comes in.
Ques Why does the parable of the ninety-nine come in?
FER Because law would make everything of the ninety-nine, but grace makes everything of the one. It shows the complete reversal of all that existed before. “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. Seeking is left out, it has more applicability to those grown up. Children are viewed as “lost”, but it is not the Father’s will that one of them should “perish”. Angels are here, as very frequently, representative. With regard to the matter between brethren, the Lord lays down a way of which we must all admit the wisdom. The great object is to gain the brother.
Ques The thought is that there is something between two parties, and the one offended goes to the other, is it not?
FER And evidently that is the very best thing that could be done, it is difficult to do sometimes, but the one offended is to be superior in grace, and this is a great test for us.
Rem Writing would not fulfil this.
FER No, it would only increase the mischief; letters do not bring the persons in contact, and there is not much opportunity in them for showing grace; a difficulty might be solved by the spirit of grace in the parties.
Rem One often notices that there is a great deal in the manner in which a thing is said, and you cannot impart that in a letter.
FER The Lord’s way is not public exposure, He will expose you to yourself, but to no one else except when nothing else avails.
Ques When the Lord uttered these things who constituted the church?
FER The Lord had not taken the new place, except typically, at this time; the teaching hangs upon that; He had brought it before His disciples, and His rejection in chapter 16. In chapter 14 the Lord typically takes the new place, but He was not yet actually walking upon the waters. All the latter part of Matthew hangs upon the thought of the Lord being in glory.
[p. 127] Rem In applying this teaching you have to treat it from the standpoint of the Lord’s rejection and that He is no longer here.
FER The Lord gives the keys to Peter, but Peter had not begun to unlock. I do not think Peter used the keys until he had the Spirit.
Ques. Why is it “keys”?
FER Because it is administration, keys are so used figuratively in Scripture. “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder”. Here the Lord gives instruction concerning what should take place when He was away; you could have no kingdom without the Lord in glory, you have got no kingdom light in heaven until He is there. What has God set in heaven? Nothing except Christ at present. I think when the church is set there it will share His authority.
Ques The question in 1 Corinthians 6 is of a different character from what we have here?
FER I do not think, however, that business matters should be brought into the assembly; why cannot people go on quietly in spiritual things, and not trouble us with their business difficulties. Verse 20 is to my mind the greatest verse in the chapter. It is connected with asking of the Father. I think it is that you are here for Christ’s name and interests. You are not asking for yourself, you are, I understand, entirely taken up with His interests, and you can ask anything then.
Rem Philippians 4 is not the same thing.
FER No; you are free as to your own things in that. I think a person has to find out the things in which the Lord administers. What people have to get clear about is the sphere and order which the Lord administers, I think you are free enough to ask then.
Rem One said, “Speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance”.
FER But the Lord would not have to do with it at all. This chapter contemplates a normal state of things, it does not contemplate anything sectarian, it says, “If two of you”, that is, any two of the assembly.
Rem And yet it is wonderful provision for a day of ruin, because everything remains true.
Ques What does “there am I in the midst” mean? Does it refer to such a meeting as on Lord’s Day morning?
FER I should connect this very much more with the prayer meeting. I think the Lord’s Day morning stands on different ground. “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”. Here it is a question of asking. You would not connect the gathering of the assembly with this verse; it is good for the assembly, but it is on other ground.
Rem I think this verse has been connected with discipline in people’s minds.
FER But that is not the normal meaning of the verse.
Rem It is a question of asking in the interests of Christ.
Ques Does this apply to two or three come together in a private room for prayer?
FER Not in independency; I should very much object to the verse being used as a warrant for independency; but where there is the smallest interest in His things the Lord is there, though you may have only two or three come together.
Ques What is the force of “there am I”?
FER I could not say; I know what realises His presence, that is love.
Ques Would you not say “holiness” as well as “love”?
FER Holiness is indispensable; you cannot separate the [p. 129] two.
Rem But then first of all you have to be gathered.
FER Yes; but being gathered and realising His presence are two different things.
Rem I should have thought it was by the Spirit.
FER That is not the way it is put; I have been greatly instructed by 1 Corinthians 13.
Rem No doubt the Spirit would produce love.
FER I do not think that you can touch Christ in the assembly except by love; one must have faith as to it, but that alone does not put you in touch with Christ.
Rem But faith works by love.
FER Yes; but it is well to observe the order in 1 Corinthians: in chapter 11 you have the Lord’s supper, in chapter 12 the manifestations of the Spirit, in chapter 14 detail; chapter 13 comes in between to show us the vitality of the assembly, that is love; if a man have not love, he is nothing; he might have gifts and self-abnegation, but if he have not love he is nothing.
Ques What is the force of “to his name”?
FER It is the recognition of Himself, of what is set forth in Him; you want to know this to understand what it is to be gathered to His name.
Rem It supposes that you have gone over to His interests, you are not occupied about your own concerns.
FER I would not go to the Lord about my own circumstances, I would go to God.
Rem Whatsoever ye do, do it to the Lord?
FER Yes; that verse is a test as to your whole life here.
Ques Marriage is to be in the Lord?
FER Yes, that the head may not be disqualified; the household too is to be ordered in the Lord. A person goes into business or changes his business or [p. 130] takes a partner, well, I say, why do you do this? He replies, I feel the necessity of increasing my means for the support of my family. Then I say, Go to God about it; but if you think the change will conduce to the Lord’s testimony, go to the Lord.
Ques You would be more free to address the Lord in an ordinary prayer-meeting?
FER Yes; I should be perfectly free there.
Ques What is the name we are gathered to, the Lord Jesus Christ?
FER Yes; I do not want Him according to what He was upon earth, I want to apprehend Him according to what is set forth in Him in heaven, His new name.
Ques The Lord is there by the Spirit, what do you say to that?
FER I do not think that is right, we apprehend Him by the Spirit.
Rem He is there in spirit in contrast with being there in flesh. He is there Himself.