CHAPTERS 19 AND 20
CHAPTERS 19 AND 20
FER The parable at the end of chapter 18 evidently connects itself with what went before in that chapter, it is the close of the subject. This is an important point. It shows that the whole spirit of the chapter is grace. If I fail of grace and get into a spirit of hardness I may come under discipline. “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses”. In the kingdom there is the principle of righteousness, and righteousness is, as I understand it, that I should act as I have been acted to.
Ques It is the same as “Forgive us our debts as we forgive”, [p. 131] is it not?
FER It is rather the other way, it is forgiving because we have been forgiven.
Rem Yes, but if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven, that would be the kingdom character of things.
FER The very thought of the kingdom involves responsibility or at any rate it involves government. It is not a very difficult thing for any one of us to cherish an unforgiving spirit; my conviction is that in me dwells no good thing; and the only chance of good is my soul being under the influence of good; if you are not immediately under the influence of grace you cannot do anything right; you have no spring in yourself, you must find your spring in God. Bear one word as to the run of the chapters. Chapter 14 is really the starting point, the new place Christ takes, evidently when He takes the place of walking on the water He has done with Israel, the water is not a type of Israel; in chapter 15 the light leaves the Jew and goes to the Gentile, the Gentile gets the light which the Jew despises; in chapter 16 we find the disciples the nucleus of a new thing, the testimony is sealed up among them; then we have the church and the kingdom and the kingdom in glory, after that the principles and ordering of the kingdom, and so pretty much in the closing chapters; I think we see in chapter 18 the grace in which fellowship is founded; what comes before us tonight is the sovereignty of our Lord.
Ques Then do all these parables suppose the Lord rejected by Israel and His rejection of Israel?
FER Yes, and they suppose the new place that He has taken, and that is the Lord in glory, exalted. And you get the Spirit down here figuratively in the oil which the virgins had. The spirit of everything until you come to the close of chapter 18 is grace, for example, at the close of chapter 17 the Lord takes that ground, saying, “Lest we offend them”, and then in chapter 18 everything is to win your brother, the [p. 132] whole ground of fellowship is grace; we do not get fellowship, properly speaking, unless we are under the influence of grace.
Rem The transfiguration has an important place.
FER The first intimation of the Lord’s glory is in His walking on the waters, but in the transfiguration it comes out plainly that the One rejected here is accepted of heaven. The exaltation and authority of the Lord can only be entered into by faith.
Rem These four parables in chapters 20, 21, 22 and 25 are the form the kingdom takes while the Lord is away.
Ques Would you say the kingdom in mystery will go on until the Lord comes?
FER The kingdom does not become manifest until He comes. It was to go on in a corrupt way; man has sought to take away the mystery of the kingdom by making a great conspicuous thing of it, when the kingdom is like a mustard tree it is no longer a mystery, not in man’s thought. Men have taken occasion of the name of the Lord to build up a great conspicuous thing in this world. They have falsified the truth of Christ in that way and built up a great system, but that is not mystery.
Rem The pearl and the treasure are as much mystery as ever.
FER It is just as true today as it ever was that a man must be converted and become as a child to enter into the kingdom. The moral abides when the outward has become a great corrupt system.
Ques What about chapter 19?
FER Everything in chapter 19 is individual. The Lord puts the first great relationship upon the basis of creation, not of law.
Rem I think it has a reference to Israel’s divorce, we read, “Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement?” It shows that what was God’s on earth [p. 133] becomes divorced, and a new thing comes in, and Christ becomes the object of the soul.
Rem But here you get the Lord taking exception to divorce.
FER When you get the light of the Lord come in, everything is restored to its original character. I think He brings marriage back to this. There was nothing which had been so obscured as the relation of man and wife; the law took up things as they were, and many a thing was allowed which was not of God originally; there was divine wisdom in this, for God was dealing with a people in the flesh; slavery was allowed, that was not of God. When you come to the light of the Lord you must have everything on a divine footing. There is another thing the Lord speaks of, eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, but adds that everyone cannot receive that saying.
Rem Then the point is that there is a new and higher principle introduced.
FER Everything is in the light, it is no longer partial darkness as under the law, when God was legislating for a people in the flesh; that was not full light, now it is.
Rem The Jews must have been astonished to hear the Lord say this.
FER I think He always astonished them; it was just the difference between a man looking at a landscape from the top of the hill and from the bottom. The Lord was at the top and saw everything according to God. I do not think they could understand Him at all.
Ques I suppose the rejection of the Lord coming in shifted the centre of blessing from earth to heaven?
FER I think so, and the point here is that you are walking in the light of heaven not in the light of Mount Sinai. A man may walk in darkness with the [p. 134] help of a lantern, that is a man under law; but that is a very different thing from walking in the light of the sun; and that is what has come to pass for us; you cannot have any lapse now, every institution of God has to be regarded.
Rem No modification because of the hardness of their hearts.
FER You get children in the same way, they have their place in the kingdom they were taken very little account of by the Jew or by the law, there was one commandment which referred to them, but now they are made much of.
Rem So that they become the very pattern.
FER And they have their place in the kingdom as children, not only as converted, but as children. The next case is that of the rich man; as to children it says, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”, but with the young ruler it is, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” It is with difficulty. The truth is that a rich man is severely handicapped, his riches are a hindrance not a help. We have both kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God mentioned here; it means that it is just as difficult for a rich man to come into the state required for the kingdom of God (verse 24) as it is to get direction from the Lord (verse 23). Riches are a very bad education.
Rem From the point of view of the kingdom of heaven.
FER It never was of God for men to be rich, it only came in after sin; you cannot conceive that God intended that some men should be rich and others poor, God allows this, and we have to accept it; I quite admit that. You have to accept what God allows, the radicalism of the present day would set aside what the providence of God allows. I think that God can govern the world better than I could, but at the same time if we look at things morally you must not tell [p. 135] me that God intended that one should be rich and another poor.
Rem Having everything common is the fruit of the Spirit.
FER The effect of riches on the mind and spirit of man, the education it gives, the state it produces, all this is against him. But what is impossible with him is possible with God, and so you may have a rich man in the kingdom.
Ques What is the difference between “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” here?
FER I think this, that where a man has wealth, and consequently ability to command almost everything, he is less likely to know much of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, this is the kingdom of God. I think a poor man knows that better than a rich one. So in regard to the kingdom of heaven, as to his direction and service, the rich man has great difficulty in that sense, from the very fact of the education that wealth has been to him, accustomed to have everything about him of luxury, and to do and to go as he pleases. I know that grace can overcome it, but it is a bad education.
Rem The expression used by men of such is that he is independent.
FER Yes; but only as enabling him to command everything. Look at the ordering of things in such a country as this, everything, is arranged to make men independent of God. I suppose that they could not do without it now; if a drought came they are independent; it is an extremely artificial state of things, and an extremely unreal state of things, and when tested will prove to be so. Riches take a man away from God. Look at the rich man in Luke 12: “So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God”. I am not at all surprised at men being struck with the apparently extreme inequalities,
[p. 136] any thoughtful man must be struck with it, and then he often tries to put things to rights. What I should say would be, You had better leave things alone, you will only make them worse. The effort of man to rectify things down here is futile and ends in nothing.
Rem The disciples would have looked upon this man’s riches as a mark of God’s favour.
FER Yes; but when the Lord puts His proposition before him he does not accept it. You may have to forsake father, mother, lands, etc., but you will get compensation, and that is where the blessings of the kingdom on the other side come in.
Ques The Lord here referred to entering into life, I want to know in what way a man could enter into life under the law?
FER Had it been possible for man to keep the law he would not have died, he would have lived on; but then, as far as man was concerned, death was upon him when the law was given to him; it did say, “This do, and thou shalt live”, but death was upon him. Romans 6 is death on me, and Romans 7 proves death in me.
Rem It is arguing upon supposititious premises.
FER That is what the Lord does sometimes. The law was ordained to life, but found to be to death; and it will be practically the way of life by-and-by, for when the law is written in men’s hearts they will live.
Rem But then death has been removed when you come to that.
FER Yes, and not by their doing the law, but by the power of the Lord.
Ques Was it possible for a man to keep the law?
FER The law came to a man and said, “Thou shalt not covet”, but man does covet. Nine commandments have to do with conduct, the tenth with state,
[p. 137] and the law prohibited what was man’s state. The sting of the law is in the tail.
Rem Man thought that he could keep the law, and that had to be exposed.
FER With the apostle Paul it was the external obligations he went upon, and therefore he could say, “Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless”; but in another place he says, “I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”. This has to do with the last commandment.
Rem The rich young man says, “All these things have I kept from my youth up”.
FER And I dare say it was true, but when the Lord proposed that he should sell all and follow Him, it brought out what was there, the man coveted, he loved proprietary possession; you may say it is a hard judgment, but if a man loves proprietary possession he covets. I believe it is a root which God has to deal with in us each, it is not only in the rich, coveting is to be found in the poor. Coveting is not only in desiring what is not yours but in cleaving to what is yours. Proprietary possession is in man having possession of something that he can call his own; but the fact is, with regard to the Gentile the only title he has is providential, the Jew had a divine title to his possessions.
Rem At the first there was a company who called none of the things which they possessed their own.
FER Yes, it was a state of things that did not last, that is, having all things common; we can still act in the spirit of it. There is many a good Christian who tithes his income like a Jew, that means one-tenth is the Lord’s, and nine-tenths is yours, that will not do. What I feel is, that what I have is all the Lord’s, but I and my family are the first charge upon it; it says, if a man care not for his own he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel; therefore I say my [p. 138] own are the first charge upon what I have, but I administer it as belonging to the Lord; your wealth is another’s; yours is what you are going to get, the true riches, it is not anything you possess here.
Ques What about laying up?
FER Who could justify laying up? I do not mean that a man is to spend carelessly, it seems a want of moral sensibility; I do not think that a man can be with God to lay up, for a man to make up his mind and to set himself to lay up, I cannot understand that that man is walking with God. But we had better turn to our chapter. In the parable presenting the sovereignty of the Lord in His own things you will find that the first in nature is the last in grace; if a man thinks that because he has made some sacrifice he is therefore entitled to something, the Lord in dispensing His things does not recognise it; in spiritual things the Lord is perfectly sovereign, and will not take into account any claim a man might make; a man might make a sacrifice, very likely, and he will get compensation; but it is as regards this scene, he will get it in the fellowship into which he is brought. The parable is in answer to Peter’s question. The Lord shows the disciples what they have, even a hundred-fold more, for what they have forsaken; but then He brings in the parable as a corrective, to show that that will not be taken into account in ministering spiritual things.
Ques What is the meaning of “many be called, but few chosen”?
FER It contemplates the state of things that would come in in connection with the kingdom, like the net cast into the sea brings of every kind. I think we have to stand still and let the Lord be entirely sovereign; the thought has entered minds that because they have given up temporal things they are going to be greatly endowed in spiritual things. A man may have made a sacrifice, given up his commission in the [p. 139] army, he will get compensation for it; but the Lord will be sovereign in His own things. The spirit which dictated Peter’s question was that of getting a quid pro quo, but the Lord will not confer spiritual things for natural ones. The Lord will be sovereign in His own things, He says, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”
Ques Was not their compensation the company of Christ?
FER Yes, but this refers to the time when He would no longer be present with them, He tells them they would in the future sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; but also that they should receive a hundred-fold now for whatever they had given up; they get compensation governmentally, but not in the way of spiritual endowment.
Rem No one has given up anything but he has found this out.
Ques But are we not told to covet earnestly the best gifts?
FER Yes, still the Lord will be sovereign.
Ques Does the penny a day refer to present endowment?
FER I have thought so.
Ques. Not the future?
FER Well, it is a parable and therefore you must not construe it too strictly. It is a corrective to the thought in Peter’s question: “What shall we have therefore?”