JOHN 10 (1)
JOHN 10 (1)
FER I think it is important to see that what comes out in this chapter, as we were noticing last time, is that the course which the Lord takes is not new, but that He came here definitely to the fold, to lead the sheep out of it. As we get elsewhere, “God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship”. There was a definite purpose in the sending out of God’s Son. He came into the fold in the legitimate way, but it was to lead the sheep out.
Ques I suppose you would say there were other things connected with His coming into the world?
FER Yes. But all else was secondary, and it is of all importance to see what the divine purpose of His coming into the fold was. All else that came out — the testing and exposure of the Jew — was incidental, and the result of that testing only proved the divine purpose for which Christ came. Exactly the same principle is seen in the parable of the sower to which we referred last time. He was the Sower from the outset. Here we see the divine purpose in His coming into the fold, and every other thought is subordinated to that.
Ques The great point in the Supper is His love in death?
FER Yes. It is essential to get the divine sense of what He came here for.
Ques The sheep who hear His voice were Jews, were [p. 162] they not?
FER Yes; that is plain, because the Lord says afterwards, “Other sheep I have”. I think the thought in many people’s minds is that He came here, and the Jews rejected Him, and that, when His own people would not have Him, then He took up another character.
Rem I have had that kind of thought.
FER Yes; that when everything failed as to His presentation to the people, then He takes up another character as the Shepherd, and leads His own sheep out. But it is not so; He just reveals to them the true character in which He came; He had that character from the outset.
Rem He knew all things from the beginning, but you have to wait until the testimony is rejected openly for the truth to come out.
FER Exactly. It is the occasion for bringing out the real purpose for which He came here. We have seen the steps leading up to it in chapters 8 and 9. You get the same thing in principle in the Acts. The testimony at the beginning was to the exaltation of Christ, and that if the Jews repented, God would send Him back to them. That was the testimony of the Holy Spirit then, but, at the same time, the Holy Spirit had really come to conduct the company to Christ in heaven.
Rem It is just the presentation of the two things that has rather puzzled people.
Ques Would you think the idea of the fold was really a restraint placed upon the flesh, that is, Judaism, and that what they were to be brought into is the liberty of love?
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem It is all based upon what exists between the Father and the Son.
FER Yes, exactly.
Ques What is your thought in, “I am the door”
([p. 163] verse 9)? Would you say it is a moral sphere of blessing for them?
FER Yes. You do not come into any blessing except by Him.
Rem Through His death.
FER Yes.
Rem It is the company, the flock, that is in view here.
FER I think the Lord is working up to that.
Rem And there is no inconsistency with other testimonies — the Head and the body, the bride, and so on.
FER No; every one of them is but a figure.
Rem We have had the thought that John is very individual.
FER I do not think a bit more so than Paul. Of course, when it is a question of life, everything must be individual. Quickening, and so on, must be individual, but then it all comes in to pave the way for the flock; and then, when you come to chapter 10, the flock comes into view, and, most undoubtedly, when you come to chapters 13, 14, 15 and 16, it is not individual. And in chapter 17, what the Lord is praying about is unity, “that they all may be one” — that is the burden of His prayer.
Here, in verse 9, it is no longer a question of His entering into the fold, but, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture”. He is not now leading out of the fold, but it is a question of entering in.
Ques What does He refer to in verse 8, “thieves and robbers”?
FER I do not know much about it, but I suppose there had been people who had come with certain pretensions.
Ques They were not the appointed ones. What about David?
FER Oh, but this refers to false Christs, to all [p. 164] those who had come with pretensions that they were Messiah, or something of that kind. You certainly never read of a true prophet setting himself up to be any one.
Rem As the prophet Amos says, “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son”.
FER Quite so; any true prophet would have disclaimed being anything at all, like John the Baptist.
Rem There is some meaning in the expression, “a stranger” (verse 5).
FER I suppose the flock come to know the voice of the Shepherd; they have a kind of instinct, and the voice of a stranger means nothing to them.
Ques Is the Lord referring to His death in verse 4?
FER Yes, I think so. He left the fold by death, and we go the same way.
Ques. His death?
FER Yes, it is really so. The point is this: what Christ came into actually, we have to come to in mind. There is nothing for it but that. What I mean to say is this: He came into actual crucifixion and death, but we have to come into it in mind, and that is a very tedious road oftentimes, and we are not very willing to enter upon it. Every one has to come to it that there is nothing for sin but death, and that there is nothing for the flesh but crucifixion. It is not possible for God to do anything on the side where sin and the flesh are. All blessing is on the other side, the side of resurrection.
Rem Like “through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”.
FER Yes, quite so. If God operated on that ground, and you are set upon being on that ground, then you have to reach death and crucifixion in mind.
Rem That is a very important point to reach.
FER Yes. You will never get on to the truth of resurrection ground if you do not come in mind to [p. 165] crucifixion. A man has to be set free from sin and the flesh, or he will not know at all what it is to be on resurrection ground with Christ.
I think the Lord speaks of Himself here as being the door of the sheep, because in death He would open a way for them: “By me”. A man must enter in individually, but then if he does enter in, he gets to the other side, and finds himself in company. I know that these things are beset with a certain amount of difficulty, because we want to get everything on this side, but it is impossible. God cannot establish anything on this side, everything has to be wrought and effectuated on the other side — the resurrection side. There are two things after all: first, everything must be effectuated where Satan has no power or rights, and, secondly, where there is nothing but the divine nature. That is what you come to on the other side — Satan has no rights there, death cannot come, and everything is formed according to God in the divine nature. “He shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture”.
Ques How far does this go — “he shall be saved”?
FER Well, I have thought that salvation really means that you are free from the judgment of God, and from the power of Satan. You are saved out of the midst of a scene where sin and Satan’s power and death are.
Ques What is the idea of a hireling?
FER What I see in it is that, in the present state of Christendom, there are plenty of thieves and plenty of hirelings. The people who came before Christ were thieves, and those who come after are hirelings. A hireling is one who serves for wages; people take up the position of “shepherds” for wages.
Rem I suppose thieves and robbers and hirelings form one class.
FER Yes. The state of things may be different at different times. At one time there may be thieves,
[p. 166] and at another hirelings, but what marks them both is that they care not for the sheep.
Rem That is practically what the Lord found in the temple. He speaks of it as “a den of thieves”.
FER Yes. People — the mass of clergymen, for instance, if they can get a better “living”, do not hesitate to give up their present flock, they look upon it as a very proper advancement. There may be, and are, bright exceptions (I have known some of them), but still, they will, as a rule, leave a flock without very much compunction for a good “living”. Of course, looking at it from another point of view, I think it is very unwise for any devoted Christian man to limit himself at all to one little flock, for if he has any gift whatever it is for the good of the whole flock. If a man understood the reality and purpose of the gift he would not care to limit himself.
Rem A shepherd must know these things for himself before he can lead others.
FER Yes. And, after all, the essence of Christianity is that it raises the question, not of what you know, but of what you are. And a man’s serviceability does not consist of what he knows, but of what he is — he is not effective beyond that.
Rem With the hireling, when the crucial moment arrives, he flees.
FER Yes. There is the possibility of the wolf coming in to scatter the sheep, and the hireling flees because he is a hireling; but if the shepherd is the leader of the sheep, he is the first one to be exposed to the danger; he is before and not behind, and therefore he is exposed to any assault. That is evident enough. The hireling flees to take care of himself, and leaves the sheep to take care of themselves. That only proves what he is.
Ques What is your thought about the “abundant life”?
FER Well, life has to come in, and they were [p. 167] to have it, not in any stinted measure — there is no limit to life now. The only limit is the Holy Spirit, and you cannot limit Him. He is a “well of water springing up into everlasting life”, and the water is inexhaustible. I think life depends on what God makes known, what the Holy Spirit makes known, in us. What limit could you have to the love of God? And it is the love of God which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts. There is no life except in the Holy Spirit.
Rem And that is eternal.
FER Yes. Because it is the other side of death. If you learn the love of God you are out of death. Death is annulled where love is revealed. Death was annulled in the cross, and Christ brought in the love of God, the testimony of God’s love. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”. He died for us to abolish death, and if we live we live in the love of God, which is inexhaustible, immeasurable.
Rem It is important to see that things are not repeated, and in chapter 4 the believer is looked at as having the Spirit.
FER Yes; that is my firm conviction. A statement is made, and you have to bear that in mind all the way through, the same ground is not gone over twice.
Ques What about chapter 20, “He breathed on them”?
FER Well, He had spoken in anticipation, but when redemption is accomplished He makes it effectual. Everything in John is anticipative — this whole chapter presupposes His death. His death proved Him to be the good Shepherd. Here He says, “I am the door” — not “I am going to become the door”. The idea is, I think, that it shuts you up to Him, there is no other door. I do not see how a man could possibly be saved except through His death.
[p. 168] Ques And there is no other way of entering in but by His death?
FER No: “I am the door”. I think He bases His title of good Shepherd on the idea of His giving His life for the sheep; it is expressive in Him of divine goodness.
Rem It says, “more abundantly” in verse 10. It would read better, “very abundantly”.
FER “More” gives rather a wrong impression in regard to it, as though there were two stages — “life”, and “more abundantly”, but that is not the idea at all.
Rem But we used to think that we had “life” here, and the “more abundantly” in chapter 20.
FER Well, the secret of that was that it was not seen that life was in the Holy Spirit.
Rem Yes; it was “life” in the old order that people had, and then “more abundantly” was the gift of the Holy Spirit: that when He breathed on them it was “life more abundantly”.
Rem The New Translation puts it very simply, and confirms fully what has been put before us.
Ques What is the idea of “go in and out”?
FER It is expressive of liberty. They used to say, “went in to worship, and out to service”. I do not care for these expressions myself. The idea is simply liberty.
Rem I never was very happy about it myself, because I wanted to know where it was I went out to service. There is no reference to place in it, or of service.
FER Now the wonderful thing is that you are kept by what is within you; the Jews were kept by the fold, but now you are kept from within, you do not want four walls.
Rem I suppose the fold was the system of ordinances, etc. The sheep were kept guarded in that way.
Ques Does the “middle wall of partition” refer to the same kind of thing?
FER Yes, in some respects; but then it was an enclosure in which God saw fit to keep His people; it was a middle wall of partition between them and the nations, but now that is broken down. The passage (Ephesians 2) goes on to say, “Through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”. It is in the Spirit you have everything now — salvation, liberty, and pasture — so that you do not want any enclosure. Men have been busy in building up enclosures for themselves. The Roman Catholics will tell you there is no salvation outside the church, and neither is there, at all events there is none outside the Holy Spirit.
The “hireling” principle prevails to a very large extent in Christendom today. Now suppose you were to be joined to some chapel, and had a paid minister (and that minister might be a godly man enough), and you may look to him for guidance, but what security have you for doctrine? People get to depend upon their minister for doctrine. That has been proved abundantly to be a rickety foundation with ministering brethren of any kind, You may depend upon the power that is within you. Christ is the Object of faith, and you are, at the same time, dependent upon the anointing you have received from the Holy One. The Spirit keeps you in the faith of Christ, and in liberty too. Christendom has gone back to the very thing the Lord died to deliver the flock from.
Rem Only now it is not one fold, but many.
FER Yes, quite so. I only mentioned it to show how folds and enclosures have been set up; but now, in contrast to that, a man is kept by that which is within him — the Spirit of God. It is only by the death of Christ, of course, that you can come on to the new platform.
[p. 170] Ques What is the idea of the good Shepherd in verses 11 and 14?
FER He is laying the foundation in verse 11, and in verse 14 He is bringing them into all the good of it. In verse 11 He is giving distinct proof that He is the good Shepherd, but in verse 14 He tells you very much more what the good Shepherd means. You get the full expression in Him, the perfect expression of divine goodness. He knows His sheep, but knows them as God knows them in divine goodness. You would not know the Shepherd unless you loved Him, and His knowledge of the sheep is in divine goodness — “as I know the Father” — it is all divine goodness in character.
It is noticeable that when the young man came to Him, calling Him “good”, the Lord turned it aside — “Why callest thou me good?” If they addressed Him as a man, He would not accept the title “good”, but, on the other hand, if they regarded Him as the One in whom divine goodness was expressed, then it was a different matter altogether. It brings in, as you see, the mutuality of affection between the Father and the Son — the bond of love. No one could gainsay that for a moment: “love, which is the bond of perfectness” — and what could you have more than “perfectness”? It is all of that character — it is the knowledge of the divine nature: “rooted and grounded in love”.
It is wonderful to hear the good Shepherd saying, “I know my sheep”. Think of what it is to be known of Christ, and then, too, “I am known of mine”; but we only know Him as we are responsive to His love. To believe in Him is one thing, but it is by love that you know Him — not by faith, but by love, and no one knows Him any other way.
Ques When the statement is repeated, it is, “I lay down my life for the sheep”. Is that the measure of His love?
[p. 171] FER Well, it is the expression of it, it is not the consummation of it. It is a circumstance in the pathway of love. There is no greater love than to die for one’s friend, but with Christ Himself it is a circumstance (and withal how wonderful!) in the pathway of His love. The consummation of love is properly to bring them into the Father’s house. I believe it is most important for us to see this, because, do you not see love preceded His death, and love follows it? there is no change in the love. What is expressed abides as an unchanging love. Although it has such a wonderful expression, the love is not gone in death. I attach as much importance to His death as anybody, but what I would press is that it is a circumstance in the pathway of His love.
Ques. A means to an end?
FER Yes.
Rem David, in Psalm 78, is spoken of as a good shepherd, but then he was prophetic of Christ.
FER Yes. I may say that there cannot be anything more awful than the attitude of the Jews in this scripture. All testimony is rejected, and you see nothing but poor, contemptible cavilling on the part of the people, who did not understand one bit of what the Lord was speaking to them.
Rem Redemption brings everything to those who know their need of it.
FER Exactly. That is the whole secret of blessing.
Rem That verse in Corinthians, “The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God” comes in here.
FER Yes, quite so; “they are spiritually discerned”.
Rem One characteristic of the sheep is that “they know his voice”.
FER Yes; and that was the fruit of divine work in them: “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all”.
Rem He rejects the Jews with all their pretensions; they said that they saw, which only proved their blindness. It is not that the Lord ever rejects people because they are poor, miserable sinners.
FER No, indeed; the Lord never rejects such; it is people like those in Laodicea whom the Lord rejects, because they say, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing”. Then “their sin remaineth”.
Rem I have sometimes wondered that it should say here, “it was winter”.
FER Well, morally it was winter to the Jew — the Lord was leaving them. It is like that verse: “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved”.
Rem You have said nothing about verses 17 and 18, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again.... This commandment have I received of my Father”.
FER I think it is that He does nothing whatever independently of the Father; but here He was acting as a divine Person, and as such could claim to do anything that God did. But He never took the place of God here, although a divine Person. As He says in chapter 2, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. He could claim to do all that God might do, but He never took the place of God, He ever was in the truth of the place He had taken as Man.
Rem And yet there were things He could not have said except as being God. He could not be other than He was.
FER Yes. Whatever ground He took as a Man here, He could claim to do all that God did. “This commandment have I received of my Father”. You see that they never understood, in all these statements, that it was really the Father who spoke; whatever the Lord said, it was the Father who spoke.
[p. 173] There is another remarkable thing in this chapter: all through His death is not attributed to man, it is the good Shepherd laying down His life for the sheep in divine goodness. The object the Lord had before Him was to bring the sheep out — He ignores man completely. “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself”. Divine goodness expressed itself in that way.
In verse 16 it is the entire flock that is in view — Jew and Gentile. “I have other sheep which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd”. There can be no difference between that and the thought of the one body — it is only a different figure. A shepherd is a head, only the thought of the Head brings out the pre-eminence of Christ, just as a husband supports a wife; whereas the idea of a shepherd is that He leads the sheep. It is in that way that the sheep are led really into worship, and it may be into the light of divine counsels. That is where the Shepherd comes in. The Shepherd dies for the sheep; Christ dies for the church. Every figure serves to bring out some more wonderful phase. All these different ideas converge towards the same point, and merge in one another. If you could get them all as a whole, you would have a perfect blaze of light; but the only one who could do that is the Holy Spirit, whose work is to put them together in you, as you are able to take them in.