JOHN 10 (2)
JOHN 10 (2)
FER The controversy which goes on in this part of the chapter only tends to make the rejection of the Jews more distinct.
Rem I suppose they would think that if any people in the world were the sheep of God, they were [p. 174] the people.
FER Yes; and the words of the Lord caused a division among them. Some said, “He hath a devil and is mad: why hear ye him?” while others said “These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” People carp at the Scriptures in exactly the same way today. Their great anxiety seems to be to get rid of the authority of the Scriptures, and yet they cannot leave them alone. They do not like the Scriptures any more than the Jews liked Christ.
Rem And it was just the same with the Lord, they could not let Him alone. Would you say it proved their hatred of God?
FER Yes, I think so. The great idea seems to be to get rid of any light from God, any testimony from God.
Rem The time will come when the Lord will let them alone. He did this with the Jews even here in a certain sense.
FER Yes: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind”. A great many people in the present day think they have disposed of the Scriptures, but they will find out their mistake. There is a living character about the Scriptures; the moment they come in contact with faith they become living. “The word of God is living”, it has that character. Of course, as far as the mere book goes, that is simply the “letter”, but the moment you get the Scriptures in contact with faith, then it becomes evident that the word of God is living, faith can use it in that way; it is the living word of God.
Rem What you said about the Scriptures having a certain character about them, which is undeniable, could be said also about the Lord Himself.
FER Yes. There were certain things about the Lord which made Him totally different from anybody else, and it is the same with the Scriptures; they are totally unlike anything else. No human composition,
[p. 175] for example, has such a character as the Psalms, neither is there any human composition which can compare with the Proverbs. Plenty of proverbs have been written, but they have evidently no common ground with the Proverbs of Solomon.
Rem But what was of that character in the Lord was only seen by those who had their eyes opened.
FER But there must have been certain features which marked the Lord off from other men — I mean purely moral traits.
Rem As when the soldiers returned and said, “Never man spake like this man”.
FER Yes, and that was from His opponents.
Rem It was no new thing to them, as we see from their own words: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (verse 24).
FER No. It is the very same principle continually at work with the enemy. It is a very difficult thing to make the Scriptures plain to the natural man.
Rem Their state was not right for it.
FER Well, I think they wanted the Lord to do what He never would do, that is, to assert Himself. He did the Father’s works, and spoke the Father’s words, and there was no self-assertion about Him. I think man can understand self-assertion, and that is just what will characterise the Antichrist. “He sits in the temple of God” — that is self-assertion; but you see there was nothing of that kind on the part of the Lord, though, at the same time, there was the strongest possible testimony as to who He was. He says, “The works that I do ... they bear witness of me”.
It is perfectly certain that, through the whole of the gospel of John He is dealing only with what is the work of the Father, and He rejects all else. He repudiates everything that is of man. Even their claim in chapter 8 to be Abraham’s children the Lord repudiates entirely. “He knew what was in man”.
Men’s opinions are simply nothing, the real point is what there is of Christ there.
Ques Do you think they hated Him because He exposed them?
FER Yes. Man, as such, does not want the light of God. “He that doeth truth cometh to the light”, but, you see, there was nothing of that in them.
Ques Is not the idea of “children” in Scripture moral resemblance to their father?
FER Yes; and the Lord says to these unbelieving Jews, “Ye are of your father the devil” — they were morally of him.
Rem That thought comes out in the sermon on the mount: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”.
FER Yes; and so in Philippians, they were to be “blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke”. It is really a divine generation coming out, a state which has been formed in man by the power of the Holy Spirit. I do not think that many people are alive to what Paul says in Romans, “In my flesh dwelleth no good thing”; even the best unconverted man that ever was has nothing good within him. That is the conclusion to which you must come, however distasteful it may be. You have to accept it first, and to find it out as a reality afterwards. Very many people in the present day will tell you that there is good in man, and some of the most eminent men in the present day have been bent upon bringing out the good that is said to be in man. A great headmaster revolutionised the public schools of his day by saying that Christianity could cultivate that supposed “good” in man; but the most that sort of thing could do was to make people grow up manly, and honest, and truthful — a very poor result, as far as God is concerned, and in itself quite negative. The teaching of Romans 7 is a very different thing, though it is very hard to reach it.
[p. 177] Rem Yes; and made harder to a man who is outwardly good, and honest, and truthful, as many are, than to those who are outwardly sinful.
FER Yes; you can see how the thing works.
Rem What is sometimes urged against it is the case of the young man on whom the Lord looked and of whom it is said, “He loved him”.
FER Yes; and I think you do meet people in the world who have such an amount of amiability that you cannot but be drawn to them, but you cannot trust it where there is no work of God.
Rem The “touchstone” has not come.
FER No. The best unconverted man that ever breathed has no appreciation of God, or of His goodness. If a man appreciates the goodness of God, that man will reflect it, and you will never get real goodness in man in any other way. You must be in the joy of the goodness of God.
Ques But it is right to give children a moral training?
FER Well, it is better to give them a Christian training; I know what you mean — to give a true sense of right and wrong; but it is so different with a Christian, he does not judge as man judges, he is in the light of God.
Ques Do you remember Stanley’s sermon on “Gather up the fragments that remain”? He made it to apply to gathering up the fragments of good in man, that nothing should be lost, and to make use of them.
Ques Is it not iniquity to look for good in man now?
FER Well, it is the blind leading the blind. The fact is, things are so entangled in Christendom now that you could not pronounce on it in that way. I believe this, that the best man naturally that ever breathed has no pleasure in the ways of God. For [p. 178] example, you attempt to explain to him such a thing as “Mount Zion”, that man will not be attracted, he will be bored by it. He has no appreciation of the goodness of God, and if you were to press things you would soon bring out the enmity. The very beginning with a Christian, the beginning of his birthright, is Mount Zion, but what does an unconverted man care about Mount Zion? He likes to be truthful and conscientious, and would have other people the same, but what does he care about Mount Zion?
Rem He could be all that without God.
FER Yes; without recognising, on the one hand, the ruin of man — man’s fall — and on the other hand, the sovereign mercy of God.
Rem Goodness that no evil could conquer!
FER Quite so; so that He brings back to God, on the ground of redemption, much more than was lost. An unconverted person does not appreciate that.
Rem Where there is a work of God in the soul it is, “My sheep hear my voice”.
FER Exactly so. It is this in chapter 5, as we have seen, where they hear the voice of the Son of God. He is the touchstone, and the dead hear His voice and live; the voice of the Son of God is the touchstone.
Rem He draws a very sharp distinction between the Jews and the true flock.
FER Yes. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them”, etc. It is a wonderful succession of statements. It is remarkable there are just seven of them — perfection of blessing.
Ques Would you say that this verse is for security?
FER Oh, I think so. “No one shall seize them out of my hand”. Then they shall “never perish” — that, I think, refers to the present time; it is not a question of perishing eternally. They will not be lost — it refers to the power which keeps them now, they [p. 179] will not apostatise, like Judas. As the Lord says, “I have lost none, but the son of perdition”.
Ques Is “saved in the power of his life” a similar thought?
FER Yes. It is like what the Lord says, “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost”. You see, there is always a power working here to lead people away. “The wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep”. It is the hand of Christ which holds His own. There will be no question of perishing in heaven.
Rem The course of the Christian is continually beset with dangers, and assaults are made upon him.
FER Yes. Even after the brazen serpent there is an attempt to destroy the children of Israel by the Midianites. Balaam comes in, and his counsel is to destroy the people by worldly associations. And it is so, too, in regard to us. After being brought into consciousness of eternal blessing, as in chapter 3, you may still be snared by associations; people get entangled by their associations. I think the great point is, if you have reached the platform, that you should be maintained in it.
Ques I suppose “following” here would necessitate the acceptance of death?
FER Well, if you are going to reach Christ, you must reach Him where He now is: the platform of resurrection. From the very fact of its being a platform of resurrection, I must be free from all that is not of that order — morally free. “In that he liveth, he liveth unto God”, and if I am going to reach Him, I must reach Him in moral freedom from all that is unsuited to His own position.
Rem And there, I suppose, you would find the pasture.
FER Yes.
Ques What does the pasture refer to?
FER Well, I think this chapter takes [p. 180] you over Jordan. The flock is over Jordan. If you follow Him, it must be over Jordan.
Ques And you would say that every provision is made for us, like the armour in Ephesians, though that is often said to be for a heavenly man?
FER Well, no one puts it on but a heavenly man; it is a man who has been in to God that takes up the armour, because I do not think any other man would apprehend what there is to fight against.
Ques Would you say that these two things go together: “My sheep hear my voice ... and they follow me”, and “I give unto them eternal life”?
FER Yes. I think that is the case. You follow Him to the sphere of eternal life. It does not lead you to heaven, but it brings you to Gilgal, and there you are kept by the power of Christ.
Ques You are still actually here, but in spirit there?
FER Yes. Like Colossians — there were plenty of dangers, traditions, and so on, there, things which would tend to interest the mind: “philosophy and vain deceit ... after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”. People have got to be a bit careful as to the food of their minds. They are uncommonly careful as to the food of their bodies, but they do not think much about what is suitable for their minds.
Ques What about literature?
FER Well, it all depends on the object for which you read it. But what tries me is that I do not see the “wisdom of God” absorbing the attention of the young people today. They read Scripture, and they go to meetings, and they are orderly, and so on, but they have not come to the wisdom whose “ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace”.
Ques That is Christ, is it not?
FER Well, it is. You see it is all put abstractly in the Proverbs. There is enough in the wisdom of God to absorb the greatest man, so that you would [p. 181] not want philosophy, vain deceit, and the like. You get it in Colossians 2: “the full knowledge of the mystery of God; in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge”.
Rem If we saw what was “in man”, we should not be taken up with these things.
Rem What we apprehend “in God” would be likely to attract us, rather than what is “in man”.
FER Yes, I think so. If you get an idea of the scope of God’s ways, and the wisdom declared in the working out of those ways, you soon turn away from man’s ways, and his wisdom, which has never really attained form or shape; it has been all theory, without any real development.
Rem It is all an attempt to build up a basis, but nothing ever stands the searching light of divine wisdom.
FER Quite so. On every hand you see the wisdom of God coming in, baffling every combination of man and the enemy, and giving the form of His own purpose to everything. That is what you see on the part of God all through.
Rem And you really get the Father and the Son here on one line with one purpose.
FER The resurrection — Christ and the flock — is wonderful. Christ has given His life, but what comes to pass is that there is the revival of Christ and the flock. They are risen together with Him; they cannot perish, they are revived with Him. That is where I see divine wisdom. God is not baffled by all the working of man, but Christ is revived in the very scene where He was put to death.
Rem And He is the wisdom and power of God.
FER Exactly. The revival of Christ is for testimony, but there is also what I might call the worship side of it, the “Aaron and his sons” side. Worship and testimony go together.
[p. 182] Rem The worship side is what He presented to the woman in chapter 4.
FER Yes, you must have that side. I think the worship side is the higher of the two. Take the calling in Ephesians 1: “He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” — it is “through Jesus Christ to himself”. God must have the first part, and then there is the side of God’s testimony.
Ques Would you say the worship is more for the inner circle, and the testimony for what is. outside?
FER Yes, quite so, as to its aspect. Until the time comes for the display of Christ in glory, God maintains a testimony here. The flock is the testimony. The whole thing is most beautiful. You see, when Christ was here He was in humiliation, but now we have Christ at the right hand of God, and morally revived in the saints down here. That is a much greater thing, in a certain sense. When He was here it was all limited to one Person, there was but one “corn of wheat”. Now in chapter 14 things are to be fully commensurate to His place in glory. He was solitary down here, but now He is at the highest place of honour and glory, and you have what is commensurate down here in the power of the Holy Spirit. All that which came out morally in Christ down here comes out now in the church, and then the church is in the light of His glory, though down here it shares in His rejection.
Rem “Whom he justified, them he also glorified”. You could not have had that before.
FER No, quite so. The Spirit is the Spirit of glory. Really all that is of God in the saints is from heaven, and therefore when you get to the church, you find it properly on the resurrection platform, in complete deliverance from all that is contrary to God.
Rem And even though that is not to be seen by [p. 183] the outward eyes, you would seek to bring people back to the first thought of God as to the church.
FER Yes, I would not care to bring people to anything else than the thought of God. I would not put up with anything inferior to that.
Ques God could not, could He?
FER I do not think so; inasmuch as there is no past or future with the Spirit of God, but only present — the Spirit of God is unchanging, and the thought of God unchanging.
Rem Really the whole of the gospel of John is on that line — time does not come into it.
FER No. He rather puts things upon the ground of what always abides. Everything in the gospel is outside of man, of dispensations. Nothing of man is recognised at all. He knew what was in man, and He would not recognise it. “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all” — that is what the Lord took account of. We never knew the Father except by the Son, that is, until we found ourselves in the hand of the Son. “No one comes to the Father unless by me”. Here you get the wonderful statement, “I and my Father are one”. You must take into account the Person, and lose all idea of condition, and all that.
Ques You mean by “condition” His manhood?
FER Well, you can only take account of the Person, and I am more than ever persuaded that people who try to distinguish between His divinity and manhood will find themselves in inextricable difficulties. He was the Son from all eternity. You can designate Him by titles, and so on, but you have always to keep the Son before you. That would solve many difficulties.
Rem The titles only get their value from Him.
FER Quite so. What you get here is really a most astounding statement: “I am my Father are one”. What I should understand by that is that they [p. 184] were perfectly one in purpose and counsel. No one could have made that statement unless He had been the Son.
Rem The measure of the Father is the measure of the Son all through John; and yet in what comes out afterwards, He speaks of Himself as a Man.
FER Yes. I think He always speaks to them from His position as Man. He takes them up in that way, and shows them their inconsistency: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” You see, He was sanctified and sent into the world, and He was not inconsistent with it. It might be said of an apostle that he was sanctified and sent into the world, but then he might be inconsistent with it, but with the Lord the statement was fully justified. Their only reply was to accuse Him of blasphemy: “Thou, being a man, makest thyself God”, but He shows them that to those to whom the word of God came, it was such a dignity, that it could be said of them, “Ye are gods”. If that could be said of those to whom He refers, what title too wonderful and honourable for Himself!
Rem And they could not be said to have done the works of God, as the Lord did.
FER No. He, coming into the world, did the works of God, and He bases His title to be considered the Son of God on that fact, which was before the eyes of all men. He was properly attested and proved. The works of His Father — the miracles — were there before Him, and within their comprehension, so that they were without excuse.
Rem And therefore their rejection was wilful.
FER Yes, because they were works which appealed to them, and of which man’s mind could take cognisance.
I think, you know, the Lord made them understand that He put Himself on another platform in distinction from them, and they did not like it. A prophet never [p. 185] took that ground, he was one of themselves; but, especially in this gospel, the Lord occupies another platform altogether; in spite of His being of man, the son of Joseph, as was reckoned, or Mary, yet He takes another platform. As He says, “Ye are from beneath, I am from above”. They disliked that. The same things would come out in regard to the church if they knew their proper place, which is from above — that is its proper place. That is the great point in Ephesians — you have been in to God, and then you come out from God. That is the proper place and testimony of the church down here, Jew and Gentile “builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit”.
It is not merely that He was Son of God, for He was that as man, as in Psalm 2, but it is the greatest statement He could make: “I am in the Father, and the Father in me”. He took that ground, and did the works, and they were witness to the truth, they attested it. It was not that He was doing things exactly as God, but in the way of testimony, and they proved the truth of what He said.
Ques Would you say, “in the bond of the Spirit”?
FER Yes, I think so. The gospel of John was bringing out what had never been revealed before — the truth of GOD. In the Old Testament they had no idea of the Father and the Son, but in this gospel that is the wonderful revelation which comes out. It is no longer the question of the unity of the Godhead, which, of course, remained true, but now what we have is the truth of divine Persons, and that is now, for the first time, unfolded. It never could have come out until the Son came forth.
Ques Is there not a hidden allusion to it in the words, “What is his son’s name”?
FER Well, that may be; but the general statement, running through all Old Testament scriptures, is that God is one.