CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1
DLH A suggestion has been made that we should read one of the gospels.
FER If we take a gospel, I would suggest that we take Matthew.
Ques I suppose chapter 1 shows us Joseph’s Son legally, though not actually?
Ques Why do you suppose Matthew stands first in order? Luke begins earlier in one way, though not in another. I mean, Luke begins with a pious remnant. Matthew in the genealogy goes back to before that, and therefore in that sense earlier.
Rem I think it was necessary in the first place to establish Christ’s rights as Messiah — heir to the throne.
Ques Is it not the promised seed, and therefore he begins with Abraham?
Rem A brother suggests an answer to the question of order: the Jew first, the Gentile afterwards.
FER I think the first great point is the connection with the past — with the line of promise, in connection with the Old Testament. It was necessary that the line should be maintained.
Ques Something after the manner in which in the epistle to the Hebrews the Spirit of God takes up what already existed?
FER Yes. After the presentation to the people of the vessel of promise, other things may come out, but that is the first thing. It is the fulfilment of prophecy. He was the One in whom the promises must be accomplished.
Ques Do not we find that the title, Son of man, comes in with His rejection, so that we can hardly [p. 26] begin with the gospel that sets forth the Lord under that title?
FER As to the order in which the gospels stand, it is only man’s arrangement; at the same time I think it is right that the connection with what went before should come first. It does not matter in one way which comes first. I suppose it was felt to be well that this gospel should come first, but there is no significance beyond that. Really John stands at the head of all the gospels. There you get the truth of the Person, and everything must be subordinate to that.
Ques. Is it as man here?
FER Well, but in John He is as much man as in any other. Who He was must be before what He became, if Christ is to be presented to Israel, He must be presented according to the way in which God had spoken. The word had spoken of the coming of Christ. Otherwise it would have been outside of their responsibility — Son of David, Son of Abraham.
Ques Why do we get these three cycles of fourteen generations?
FER In the account of God there are certain generations in each period.
Rem That is important, because as a matter of fact some generations are omitted.
FER One thing is very important, the birthright belongs to Joseph, but the genealogy is maintained in Judah. It is of the greatest moment for the future.
Ques From thence is the Shepherd the Stone of Israel?
FER The blessing belongs to Israel, but the genealogy is in Judah. God has maintained a link with Abraham, etc.; that is in Christ. Israel in the future comes into blessing in Christ. If the birthright had been in Judah, Israel might have been shut out.
Ques Do you mean that other tribes cannot maintain their genealogy in the future?
[p. 27] FER I mean, God has maintained it for them.
Ques Is it from the God of Jacob or from Joseph the stone comes?
FER From the God of Jacob. I do not know why it is in connection with Joseph it comes in.
Rem Joseph is peculiarly typical of Christ.
FER Yes; but you could scarcely say, “from thence”, etc., on account of that.
Rem No, I did not mean that, but that is why it is associated with him.
FER It is important that in Judah is the line of genealogy. I remember it being spoken of years ago in regard to 1 Chronicles 5: 1, 2; I do not know that I took it in then, but I have thought about it since. Christ was Joseph’s Son legally, and I suppose, too, in the account of God — as regards earthly title — “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. That title is taken up.
Rem Christ really means the anointed Man. The actual anointing took place when the Holy Spirit came upon Him.
FER The Lord speaks of it in that way. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”, etc.
Ques What is the significance of bringing in Rahab and Tamar?
FER It has been said, to cast a slur upon the house of David. It was that they should not boast in the flesh. The omissions are remarkable. It is a wonderful thing to get things as they are seen in the eye of God. If men had had the writing of this they would have left out all that tended to cast a slur upon the genealogy. The very way the Scriptures are written is a testimony to their being of God. In them you get things as God viewed them, not as man did.
Rem That is why these things are spoken of as spiritually discerned.
Ques Spiritually discerned. Would that be a [p. 28] reflection upon any action of the mind in attempting to discern?
FER The passage is intended to show you how to discern. There is no other way. I can understand a man taking up divine things, but it is the spiritual man who discerns.
Ques Spiritual discernment would be linked with the Holy Spirit?
FER It is a question of state; you could not speak of the Corinthians as being spiritual, although they had the Spirit. There is great danger with an active-minded person of trying to take in divine things, and this passage is a check. A spiritual man is a self-judged man, that is one thing. It is put in contrast with a natural man. The Spirit is the real living power in the believer, and you cannot separate the Spirit, who is the source of the state, from the state; but we are not, I think, on 1 Corinthians 2. There is no communication with Mary here, it is with Joseph. I think the Son of David is in view. “Joseph, thou son of David”. It is not the seed of the woman but the seed of David that is in view.
Ques. Emmanuel!
FER Christ is Emmanuel, the vessel in whom God was set forth. Name means renown. God was with them. You get in Colossians, “In him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”.
Rem The whole Godhead found its expression in the blessed Lord.
Ques And that is maintained in this chapter?
FER Yes. He became the vessel in which God was to be set forth. Emmanuel is not exactly personal to Jesus, only there is one thing to remember, that though the vessel, yet He Himself was divine. What comes out in later chapters is the setting forth of God in the midst of His people.
Ques You connect the name Emmanuel with the divine fulness dwelling [p. 29] in Him?
FER I think the Son became the vessel in order that God might be brought close to man in the midst of His people. It was not possible in the Old Testament.
Rem So you get Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
FER Yes; all come out. You get two things: He is Christ, the vessel of promise, but at the same time He is the vessel in which God is perfectly set forth. You get the same now. He is the expression of the glory of God, all the divine pleasure, in a man; but all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him. If you would learn the pleasure of God in a man, you must learn it in Jesus, but it is the same Person in whom all the fulness of the Godhead dwells. I do not think the Jew entered into it, that is, that they identified the two. They had the two thoughts in Scripture.
Ques Do you take that from the questions and answers of the disciples?
FER Yes, and from the Lord’s question, “What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?”
Rem There you get the truth of His Person lying at the root of it.
FER Yes, I cannot conceive any other way possible for God to dwell among men except in a divine Person come down among them. No other would be adequate even as a vessel.
Ques How far does “save his people from their sins” go? Beyond breaking off the Roman yoke?
FER Yes; they were under Gentile oppression; but the great purpose of the coming of the Lord was to save them from their sins: everything is looked at from the eye of God, it was easy enough to save them from the bondage of the Romans.
Rem You get the idea of that in the case of the man with the palsy.
FER They must get rid of their sins before they can rise up and walk.
Ques Do you distinguish between saving from [p. 30] their sins and saving from the consequences of them? Saving from the Roman yoke would be the consequences?
FER I suppose it practically comes to that, saving them from their sins would lead to saving them from the consequences.
Ques Does it not go on to the future?
FER Yes, that is the covenant when God takes away their sins; but in some way the governmental wrath of God will come upon them.
Rem In Isaiah 40 they receive double for their sins.
FER Yet ultimately God will save them from their sins, and I think the proof of it will be they will be relieved from the pressure of death. It carries you on to the quotation in 1 Corinthians 15, “death is swallowed up in victory”.
Rem “Thou shalt call his name Jesus”. Was that in connection with Joseph personally? Lower down we get, “they shall call his name Emmanuel”.
FER That is what the Jewish mind did not take in, not even the believing ones; the disciples were very slow to apprehend who Jesus was. They had the two thoughts, but I question whether they put them together.
Ques Did not Peter receive it in chapter 16?
FER What you get coming in there is what you may call relative terms. I think Peter took very little of it in, for soon after he rebukes the Lord for thinking of death. It was a revelation beyond his state. It was a moment for a Jew to learn that something new was coming in. It was a direct revelation from the Father to Peter, not what Peter saw in the Lord. Well, it is a great thing to see His title to Israel. In spite of all the persecution of the prophets, the Lord came, the vessel of promise. It is striking, because they had broken the law and persecuted the prophets; but in the Person of Christ the promises are presented to them, but the One in whom the promises are presented was Emmanuel, and “God with us” in that way was God with them in grace in chapter 8, according to Isaiah 53, and in chapter 9, according to Psalm 103.