JOHN 7
FER I think this chapter brings us, in a certain sense, to a new departure in the gospel, The latter part brings us very distinctly into the presence of the glory of Christ, and you have also the gift of the Holy Spirit. All that brings in what I might call a new platform.
Ques What would you say is the difference between the gift of the Spirit, as presented here, and in chapter 4?
FER Well, as a matter of fact, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in chapter 4.
Rem “[p. 126] The water that I shall give him”, etc.
FER Well, no doubt it refers to the Spirit, but He is not mentioned. He is only spoken of in a limited way in chapter 4. What I mean is that He is not a witness of the glory of Christ there, but a well of water springing up to eternal life in the believer.
Rem That is an individual thing, but here it is collective.
FER Yes. Here it is the Spirit “which they that believe on him should receive”, and in chapter 4 it is “the water that I shall give him, shall be in him”, etc. In chapter 4 it is the gift of Christ, in chapter 5 the word of Christ, and in chapter 6 the flesh of Christ.
Ques You take the Spirit here as the witness of the glory of Christ?
FER Yes, do you not think so? It speaks of the Spirit in that way. “The Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified”, and I think it is the bringing in of the glory of Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the witness of it here, that puts everything really on a new platform. It is the character of the time we are in — not now Jesus on earth, but Jesus glorified, and the Holy Spirit given. It has sometimes been spoken of as “the Spirit’s day”, and I think rightly.
Ques You mean the present moment?
FER Yes.
Ques You would say that it is not so much the Spirit as indwelling here, but as witnessing?
FER Yes, it is. When you come to chapter 10 you find the relation in which Christ stands to the saints — it is a new one. He is the “Shepherd of the sheep”, and in chapters 11 and 12 He is glorified. I have been much interested in chapter 4 in thinking of the well of water. You see, the case is exemplified in a woman, and I have a kind of idea that in Scripture the woman always represents humanity. She is representative of humanity. Now what marked the [p. 127] woman in chapter 4 was that she was a woman with affections, but the affections were all out of gear — as you might say, ill-regulated.
Rem She had no proper object for her affections.
FER No, Affections were there, but going out in wrong directions, Now the “well of water”, as I understand it, refers to the Spirit of God forming and regulating in the believer right affections.
Rem Affections having God for their object.
FER Yes; having God for their supreme object. You get the affections regulated. Man, after all, is an extraordinary creature, because he is capable of affections, but where God is concerned, his affections are perverted. But when the man is born again, the Spirit comes, as a well of water within him, to form and to control his affections — affections which, naturally, were all out of gear.
Ques Would you connect that with the love of God?
FER Yes, I think so; and the next thing is that Christ gets His proper place, too. The affections are well regulated — that is the effect of the “well of water”.
Ques When you spoke of “humanity” just now, you meant what God formed, I suppose?
FER Yes; humanity as such. You will often find in the parables of our Lord that humanity is represented by a woman.
As we saw before, in chapter 5 you have the word of Christ, and really that is the revelation of the Father. It is no longer the Almighty, or Jehovah, but the Father. Then in chapter 6 you have Christ Himself as the “Bread” — for complete satisfaction of heart, the affections all brought into regularity — and Christ the satisfaction of the soul, His grace is apprehended, the grace that brought Him into manhood, the soul’s satisfaction, so that you do not hunger. I think it is in that form that eternal life is brought to [p. 128] us in the present day; there is no great outward change, but there is a very great inward change.
Ques I suppose, up to this point, the man’s need has been met?
FER Yes, I think so. The Spirit is brought in here on the last day of the feast to inaugurate another day.
Rem It was the eighth day.
FER Yes; and I think what the Lord was bringing in was foreshadowed in the great day of the feast.
Rem And signified by the feast of tabernacles.
FER Yes. Every feast has been fulfilled except the feast of tabernacles. The passover, and the feast of unleavened bread, and of the firstfruits, and the feast of weeks, the whole of them have been fulfilled, and nothing remains to be fulfilled except the feast of tabernacles, for which we still wait.
Ques But is not the believer brought into touch with that which will presently be fulfilled — I mean by the ministry of heavenly things?
FER Well, he gets something very much greater than a feast; a feast is always connected with earth. The feast in the earlier part of this chapter served to bring out the condition of the Jews — what their spiritual condition was. Even His brethren did not believe on Him. It was not any advantage to have been of Christ’s natural kindred — it is most painful to see it.
Rem And it is the same now as to spiritual things.
FER I think it is. The natural thought would be that it was a great advantage to be connected with the Lord by natural ties, but what we see is that His kindred were just as unbelieving as all the rest.
Rem It is remarkable, too, that He did not commit His mother to His brethren after the flesh.
FER No. Here their only idea was that He should show Himself to the world. And you will find [p. 129] the same idea abroad in the present day. The great thought is that if a man does anything at all extraordinary he should show himself to the world.
Rem To be known openly.
Rem And to have the world’s approbation.
FER It is as certain as possible that, if men are not conscious of God’s approval, they will turn to the world for it. I think it accounts for defection, and all that, very often.
Rem But there is no support of the Spirit in that kind of thing.
FER No. In regard to the Lord Himself, He was entirely outside of it all. He does go up to the feast, but He goes, as it were, secretly.
Rem If the world approves, it is too often because something is ministered which the world can appreciate.
FER Yes. There is some recognition of the flesh. You see here there was a sort of moral power about the Lord which they could not resist; and what a wonderful thing it was to see the Lord here in that state of things. He goes up to the temple and teaches. The Jews sought to kill Him, and His brethren did not believe in Him, but yet the Lord just goes on — “He went up into the temple and taught”.
Rem It was the Jewish system here spoken of as “the world”.
FER Yes. It is always so in the gospel of John. “Me it hateth, because I testify of it” — that is manifestly the Jew.
It is interesting to see that nothing is recognised by John as for God except what is of Christ. The feasts are called “feasts of the Jews”. It is all new here — nothing is of God but Christ — the old is done with. It is a great help in the understanding of the gospel of John to see that there is no acknowledgment of anything that went before; it is in that sense that I understand the expression in the epistle, “Ye have [p. 130] known him that is from the beginning [or outset]”. That, of course, refers to Christ.
Rem And the introduction of the Son of God was specially new.
FER In the ways of God, one can very well understand that there is a kind of overlapping. God saw fit to take up what existed; but then, as to any kind of outward dealings with the people, it all came to an end, and all that remained, all that stood, was what began in Christ — nothing stood but that; all else came to an end. I think it is a great point for us to apprehend that there is a completely new point of departure, a starting-point, and that point is Christ. Whatever God might see fit to work down here, either in regard to the Jew or the Gentile, Christ is the starting-point for God.
Rem It began when the Word became flesh.
FER Yes; that is the starting-point.
Rem And made available to man in death.
FER Yes. But then death was not the starting-point of life. Life comes into death on our account, but death is not the starting-point of life. This starting-point is Christ. “In him was life”. We find life in death because Christ has come into death, but, looked at in the ways of God, the starting-point of life is Christ, not death.
I think we get here the extraordinary patience of the Lord coming out. He went up to the feast, not openly but secretly (verses 10 - 16); then, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself”.
Ques What does He refer to when He says, “my doctrine”?
FER Well, I suppose to the subject of His teaching — what He taught. The Lord was always true to the position He had taken up as the “sent One”. He did not take up a position down here of being a source of doctrine, but He says, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me”.
Rem He did not link it with what went before; it was what was distinctly His own.
FER Well, quite so; it was not contrary to what went before, but yet it was quite distinct from it.
Rem Everything that we have had in the preceding chapters.
FER Yes. But then all that was new. You could not find in the Old Testament the well of water, or the revelation of the Father, or Christ as the satisfaction of the soul — the living Bread. He was solving, in a totally unexpected way, the great question of eternal life. It was spoken of in the Old Testament, and Christ presents the solution of it. The Old Testament predicted it, but Christ presents its solution — how it is come to pass.
Ques Why is God’s will put in connection with knowing the doctrine?
FER Well, the Lord takes up a position in contrast to Antichrist. Antichrist takes the position of being a source — but Christ will not take that ground. He is in accordance with God’s will, and He says, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine”. The great point to my mind is His having left the truth of God where it was.
Ques. How do you mean?
FER Well, God was God, and man was man. He does not, as it were, enter into that, and so He says to the young man, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one; that is, God”. And I think I can see the great wisdom of the way in which Christ came, leaving things just where they were, and so He says here, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself”. God, as such, was God still.
Ques Was it not the great point in the Fall that man assumed to be [p. 132] as God?
FER Yes, quite so; and you see the thing developed in Antichrist. Even in the heavenly city you have God and the Lamb — it is God objectively. The truth is in its proper place now, and I regard it as a point of the greatest moment that the truth of God was left just where it was — God was God. The truth — the revelation of God — came out in such a way as not to bring in confusion between God and man.
Rem But, at the same time, it brings in the most blessed relation between God and man.
FER Yes, quite so; but God remains God, and man man. Christ here gives up everything to God, “If any man will do his will”.
Rem And yet elsewhere it says, “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes”.
FER Yes. But the word there is really conferred authority. He had everything at His disposal — all the wealth and power of God — but He would not take the place of God here.
Rem Although this gospel makes it perfectly clear that He is God.
FER Yes, exactly; but all the fulness of God was brought close to man in a vessel. It was all in a vessel.
Rem “Before Abraham was, I am”.
FER But that was true of Him personally. Here He was the vessel in whom God was set forth to man, in whom the fulness of God dwelt; but my point is that God remains God, and man man, so that you get no confusion between God and man.
Rem Although all the fulness of God dwelt in a man.
FER Yes. He was the temple of God, and the consequence is that, the Son having become a man, through all eternity He will be subject. The abstract, essential truth of God is presented to us in the Father: “To us there is one God, the Father”.
The fact is, that even in regard to Scripture, if [p. 133] people want to know what it means, and to be certain about the word of God, they must have preparedness of heart to do the will of God. You find people with all sorts of questionings about the word of God, but what they really want is not to be satisfied about their questionings, but “if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine”.
Rem Otherwise there is the “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”.
FER Yes, I think so. To be carping at the word of God is just the state of the human mind and will at work, and not man in lowliness. I can quite understand a man having questions through weakness, but if he wills to do the will of God, he will have all his questions solved.
“He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory”. That is a hidden reference to Antichrist, but the principle is true of any man who speaks from himself — he himself is the source of what he says. “He that seeketh his glory that sent him [that is Christ] the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him”
Rem He does not say that He was that, but He could not hide really what was there.
FER Yes. It is most wonderful the place the Lord takes here, a most wonderful place for a divine Person to take, to accept the place of being sent, and when sent He seeks not His own glory, but His who sent Him, and so He proves Himself to be true, “and no unrighteousness is in him”.
Rem Except for the Fall, in one way you cannot see how God could have been revealed.
FER No. Man would have known Him as a beneficent Creator, but he would never have known the love of God — there would have been no occasion for it. The revelation of the love of God is consequent upon the Fall having come in, and redemption having been accomplished. Then again, I doubt how far [p. 134] there could be the acquaintance with God of an innocent creature like Adam. God was not at all known by him from contrast; we know Him to a very large extent by contrast, through the fact of knowing good and evil. He did not make Himself known to angels, but our capability of knowing God is, to a very large extent, by our knowing good and evil. We learn goodness in contrast with evil, and we know evil in contrast with goodness. I doubt very much if a man could know God thoroughly if he did not know evil — but he knows it.
Rem Yes, and he is delivered from it.
FER I do not, of course, mean knowing evil in the sense of delighting in it. A holy person knows evil, but, by the very fact that he is holy, he abhors it.
Rem He is made a partaker of the divine nature.
FER Yes, quite so; and He chastens us that we may be partakers of His holiness.
Rem You have not far to go to know evil.
FER No, quite so. You find so much of it in yourselves. The apostle says, “I would have you ... simple concerning evil”, which does not involve our ignorance of what it is, but our avoidance of it in a practical sense. “Be ye holy, for I am holy”.
Ques What did He mean by saying, “Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am” (verse 28)?
FER He answers them according to their own state. They thought they knew Him, and He reveals their thought. You see, they could not possibly enter into the thought of a man here without a will, and that was the very position the Lord took up. “If any man will do his will”. The fact is, the only Man who was ever in the world with a title to a will was here without a will.
Rem Because His will would have been entirely according to God.
FER Yes, quite so. The Lord takes the ground of doing all from the Father — everything He did, and [p. 135] every word that He spoke. The Father was the source of everything He said or did. We see it even in Gethsemane — “Not my will, but thine be done”.
On the other hand, the one that speaks from himself seeks his own glory. You get this thought embodied in the Antichrist. He sits in the temple of God, and shows himself that he is God — it is his own will.
Ques There are other antichrists, are there not?
FER There are others, but they are all of the same spirit. There are plenty of antichrists in Christianity. I think I am justified in saying that the Pope is the greatest example of it. You see, he speaks from himself, and if a man does that, any man, you may say what you like, he is seeking his own glory. You could not conceive a greater contrast than between Christ and the Pope. I often wonder that the great dignitaries of the church do not see the difference between Christ and themselves. But I suppose they think that Christ was rejected when He was here, but that now He is in honour, and so they share in His honour! I came across an address by one of them, in which he said that now that Christ had become a Man, He had put honour upon humanity, and that therefore the injunction could be given us “to honour all men”! That was the gist of what he said — a most extraordinary thing to say!
Rem “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch”.
FER I only mentioned it because it shows what is in the minds of people as to the fact of Christ’s having become a Man. They do not see what we get in this chapter, that Christ was rejected, even by His brethren.