JOHN 11
FER There are two great things, two great points, in this chapter, I think: one is the Son of God; the other, the plotting of man, the counsel of man. The glory of God comes out in the raising of Lazarus, but then on the other hand you get the plotting of man really against the glory of God.
Rem Though even here you see how entirely hopeless their plotting was; it only worked out what God intended.
FER Quite so.
Rem The plotting of man is rather late when resurrection had come in.
FER Yes. But you see that they would put the Lord to death and even Lazarus too, if they could. The real plotting of man, if we could only see the end of it, is against the glory of God. You see it in Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed”. It is the plotting of man against the glory of God; it really took place in connection with Christ in glory (see Acts 4).
Ques And therefore it comes out after the resurrection?
FER Yes, after the resurrection. It must be either one thing or the other; you must really have fellowship with the glory of God, or with the counsel of man.
Rem But what you see is that men are between the two, swayed one way or the other.
FER Yes. I have felt much lately that men will never understand what is for man unless they understand what is for God; they have very little understanding of what is for man, because they have so little understanding of what is for God.
Rem God must be first because [p. 187] He is God.
FER Yes. He first prepares for Himself, and every man must learn what God has prepared for Himself, that is the great thing to be learnt.
Ques You mean after he is converted?
FER Well, he has no taste for it before he is a Christian; but then, if he understands what is for God, he will then have come to the consciousness of what is for man; instead of believing it simply, he will have the consciousness of it. It is one thing to believe a thing, but it is another thing to have the consciousness of it.
Rem I suppose the great point in the gospel is that God has been glorified.
FER Yes, quite so. It was not simply that man’s need has been met. What took place in the raising of Lazarus was “for the glory of God”, it was really God setting forth His glory.
Ques Do you think the incident in chapter 11 is in a kind of way a proof of what He is able to give in eternal life?
FER Yes, I think so. It connects itself with Him as Son of God. When you come to chapter 12 you get other things coming out, titles which are more for man, but the great point in chapter 11 is the testimony to Him as Son of God. He secures what is for the glory of God.
Ques. In resurrection?
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem And therefore man is wholly done for, he has lain four days already in the tomb.
FER Yes; I think the Lord allowed that to come in, in a way.
Rem Man’s dishonour and God’s glory meet at that point.
FER Yes. I think that many instinctively feel that, in the presence of God, man is nothing.
Rem And a very good thing too, if it [p. 188] is accepted.
FER Yes; you see, the principle of God’s glory is resurrection.
Ques Would you say that the glory of God is what God can do from His own side?
FER Yes. The glory of God is what displays Himself, and resurrection is the principle of it all. I do not know what better word to use — though the word is not liked sometimes — than platform, the resurrection-platform; it is life out of death. That is what resurrection means, life and liberty in that sense, and resurrection is the platform.
Rem Resurrection is the platform where God can have man for His own pleasure, according to Himself.
Rem Yes, that is it exactly. God can have man according to Himself.
Ques You would say glory is a further thing than light?
FER Oh, I think so. Light is where we began to know God, it is what God is morally, but His glory is that which connects itself more with His pleasure, it is all that in which He is glorified. It is really impossible to define it — glory is distinction. The glory of a person is his own proper distinction. God’s glory is His distinction, and our glory is our distinction. As it says in Romans 8, “The creature itself also shall be set free from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God”.
Rem And like 1 Corinthians 2, “which God ordained before the world unto our glory”.
FER Yes. Glory is peculiar and particular. Our blessing is really in the glory of God, that is, the blessing of the church, the church becomes the vessel of His glory.
Ques And would not 1 Corinthians 15 be the same thing, “One glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon”, etc.?
FER Yes. The glory of the one is not the glory of the other. The sun shines by its own light, but [p. 189] the glory of the moon is its reflected light; each has its peculiar distinction. I think that God’s glory is the satisfaction of His nature in the accomplishment of His purposes, in that His nature is satisfied.
Rem And that is illustrated in the resurrection of Lazarus.
FER Quite so. Resurrection is the great principle of it — the principle or platform on which God brings it to pass. Now if you take the first four things that come out in that epitome in Hebrews 12, I think that is where the glory of God comes in: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven”. That is all for God, it presents what is for God, what God has secured for Himself; that is His glory. But then you come to another list of things which are for man: “To God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than Abel”. They are for man, but you will not understand what is for man if you do not understand what is for God.
Ques Does it not come out in Luke 10 where the Lord tells them rather to rejoice “that your names are written in heaven” — there was something for God?
FER Quite so. Take mount Zion, God has turned everything to His own glory, for the display of Himself. You see, mount Zion really represented that the ark, which had been taken captive, was brought back again to mount Zion; now the true ark of the covenant to the Jew was Christ, but then they had lost Him, and that by their own perverseness; but God had raised Christ from the dead, and had exalted Him “to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins”. You have Christ there at the right hand of God, in a [p. 190] position in which He can give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Rem It is abundance of grace.
FER Yes. God comes out according to all the greatness of Himself, and to accomplish His own pleasure.
Rem And if God did not act in His sovereignty, man would have nothing.
FER No. God takes occasion of what sin had brought in — death — to display Himself in the power of resurrection.
Rem And that is the outcome of man’s plotting together.
FER Yes; and then everything that is raised from the dead is for God.
Ques What relation would you say the Holy Spirit has to the new platform of resurrection?
FER Well, it is the power by which God enables us to reach that platform; the Holy Spirit has come here to enable us to reach what God has reached; God has reached the ground of resurrection, and the Holy Spirit has come to enable us too to reach that ground. It is in our state. The Holy Spirit has come to give us complete deliverance from sin and the flesh, and to quicken us in the life of Christ.
Ques Just as Lazarus is brought into the company of Christ?
FER Yes. He has a peculiar place after this, he is in association with Christ, and that is the position of all now. What brings us into our present place with Christ is being risen with Him. Deliverance brings you into the present place now. You are not qualified for your priestly position except as risen with Christ.
Ques And you must go through the experience of death?
FER Yes.
[p. 191] Ques Would the washing the hands and feet at the laver be the symbol of it?
FER Well, I should think that would be more practical suitability for it, in a scene where the hands and feet are likely to be defiled. Every miracle is selected in John. It is not a mere record of the miracles He did, but they are selected specially.
Ques And for what object?
FER I think the object is to hang the teaching upon them. There are miracles of Christ recorded, but I think they are all used upon which to hang something greater.
Rem So the raising of Lazarus is to show that He is the Son of God.
FER Yes; and so in chapters 6 and 9, too, you get teaching resulting from the miracle. In chapter 6 He makes the feeding of the multitude the means of presenting Himself as the Living Bread come down from heaven.
Ques Were the signs the introduction of Christ to the new company?
FER Well, I think the signs really set forth Christ as presented to Israel, as, for example, the man at the pool of Bethesda. But I think they are used for the introduction of something much greater.
Ques And He will have to come to Israel as He came to Lazarus?
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem He “does many signs” (verse 47).
FER Yes, and they were really to them the sign that He was what He avowed Himself to be. You see, a sign is a sign. A sign has reference to something which is signified, it is not the thing signified, but the sign of that thing. What is signified lies behind the sign.
Ques Are there not three very distinct signs in the resurrection of Lazarus, the entry into Jerusalem, and then the Greeks coming up to [p. 192] see Jesus?
FER Well, I do not know whether you would call them signs exactly, with the exception of the raising of Lazarus. What I see is this, you must have the Son of God before you can have the Son of man or the Son of David; in the moral order of things you must have the Son of God first.
Rem Resurrection must be brought in.
FER Yes; you must have what is for God before you can have what is for man. “Son of God” refers to the glory of God; “Son of man” and “King of Israel” are the titles which comprise everything for man. “Son of man” means the subjugation of every enemy of man, and “Son of David” means that He has the “sure mercies of David”.
Ques And even these two are in resurrection?
FER Yes, everything is on the ground of resurrection.
Ques Is there not something for God in the title of Son of man?
FER Yes, but then I think that what that really means is the introduction of blessing for man, the putting down of every enemy of man, that is, to bring in the world to come. That is the idea of Son of man — the subjugation of every enemy of man, Satan and every enemy.
Rem We see it in Psalm 8: “that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger”.
FER Yes, quite so. The Son of God presents, if I might use the expression, His link with God; but Son of man and Son of David present His link with man, that is certain. Now on the resurrection platform He is on the one hand the expression of God Himself, but on the other, you see His link with man. It is very evident that His title of Son of David refers to His link with man. It says, “I am the root and the offspring of David” — not ‘I was’, but “I am”.
Rem “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels ... for the suffering of death”.
FER Yes, that is the Son of man, that He might “taste death for everything”. It is that side, man’s side.
Ques But is there nothing for God in that a man holds the reins of government for God?
FER Yes, of course, because God’s glory is in all, but I am only speaking of the particular connection of these titles in Scripture. God is glorified in everything, though man is too. If he has dominion, it is for God’s glory, but, for all that, it is man’s side. As far as that goes, God is glorified in the fact of a man having forgiveness of sins, but it is not for God; neither is the subjugation of every enemy of man for God, but really for man.
Ques Would you say in what connection the “innumerable company of angels” comes in on God’s side in Hebrews 12?
FER Well, they are His ministers in everything. Everything is cleared out of the way by them. He sends forth His angels and they clear out of His kingdom all that defile, and cast them into the lake of fire.
Ques “Bind them in bundles to burn them” — is it the angels who do that?
FER Yes; that is, out of His kingdom.
Ques What does it mean, “They are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”?
FER They are like the angels in some particulars of their being. It is a heavenly order of being, not an earthly one — “they are equal to angels”. In one sense, too, the angels are guardians providentially.
Ques The guardians of the heavenly city?
FER Yes; but, mark you, the heavenly city is for God, though man gets the good of it.
Ques Would you gather that from its coming down “having the glory of God”?
FER Yes.
Rem We can see from the chapter before us that [p. 194] they had to be led on to this platform in their souls, they were believers already.
FER Yes, I think the most wonderful thing is to see what God has secured for Himself.
Ques Do you not get a hint of it in Exodus 15?
FER Yes, you do: “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established”. And you get exactly the same thing in Ephesians 1: “that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself”. It is not for our pleasure, but for His. Then eventually you come down to the forgiveness of sins, that is for man; but you enter into consciousness of what is for man, because you are in the full light of what is for God. Thousands and thousands of Christians believe in the forgiveness of sins, but they are not in the consciousness of it, because they do not apprehend what is for God. That accounts for many of the hymns that are sung in the meeting, people are not in the consciousness of having their sins forgiven, and therefore they like to sing about them, so as to give themselves assurance that they are so. They have the faith of it, but they have not the consciousness of it. If they understood what was for God, they would understand what was for man, and then you would not care to talk much about your sins.
Ques Is not that the principle of Hebrews 10? You get the will of God first, and then that “He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”.
FER I think so. I do not say that you begin at the top when you are first converted, but when God takes you in hand you begin from the top. It is perfectly right in principle to say that you begin from the top. The fact is this, if there were not something for God, there would not be anything for man. You see,
Christ has been presented to man’s responsibility and He has been rejected of man, and therefore if now there were nothing for God, there could be nothing for man.
Rem And no doubt you have noticed that people who are always on man’s side never get established.
FER No; I am very glad it does not need consciousness to save a person; it is faith that does that, but it is required for Christianity.
Rem As you see in 1 John 5, “that ye may know that ye have eternal life”, who “believe on the name of the Son of God”.
FER Yes; that is the consciousness of it.
Ques But does it not often, in the way it is put, begin with man’s need?
FER Well, I do not know, I was only speaking of it in connection with the chapter, because this is a most striking chapter. It brings in the glory of God in the Son of God: “that the Son of God might be glorified thereby”.
Ques What does that mean, “that the Son of God might be glorified thereby”?
FER I think it gives Him the distinction of being the One who really brings into effect all the pleasure of God, that is, the glory of the Son of God, God is glorified in Him. He brings into effect that which-is for the pleasure of God.
Rem It brings Him into prominence, too.
FER Yes. You get the thought in chapter 17: “as thou hast given him power over all flesh”. That is His place, His distinction.
Ques Then “glorified” here is connected with resurrection?
FER Yes, I think so. He was glorified by the resurrection of Lazarus, but what the resurrection of Lazarus means in type and shadow is that the Son of God brings in all God’s pleasure. You get in Hebrews 1, where He is looked at as Son of God, what God has [p. 196] secured for Himself. Then chapter 2 gives you what is secured for man. You get distinctly the two sides there.
Ques In what sense would you say making purgation for sins was for God?
FER That was really needed to clear away all the difficulty. But then in the whole of the chapter afterwards you find out what is secured for God. It goes on to say, “being made so much better than the angels”, etc.; then you get all the detail of the name and the throne; it is really what God has secured for Himself that is presented. Nobody but the Son of God could have interfered in this scene as He did.
Rem None but He could call the dead from their graves.
FER No. None but the Son of God could bring in life out of death. How was God coming into death? But that is the secret of grace, the manner of grace. God Himself came into death where man was; how was that to be done but by the Son of God? God comes where man was in the place of death, and He comes in the Person of the Son.
Ques. The Son become man?
FER Yes. But then He comes into it in all the value of what He was, and He could not be holden of it. Resurrection must come in as a moral necessity. God comes into man’s judgment in divine goodness and grace, and brings into it all the moral excellence of what He is, and then resurrection comes in as a moral necessity; the excellence outweighs the judgment — surpasses the judgment.
Rem So that there is absolute benefit for man out of it.
Rem He was declared Son of God with power by resurrection from the dead.
FER Yes. Resurrection glorified Him in that way.
[p. 197] Rem It testified to Him as Son of God; it is not exactly a question of when.
FER No; it is the principle of it; the Father was glorified in it, and He too. You see, in the raising of Lazarus I think there was testimony to Him, as to who He was, before all the shame came in. I think one can see the wisdom of God in it, that there should be ample testimony to Christ, and what He was before He passes on to the suffering.
Rem In one sense it was as you say, He could not be holden of it, but He came there to deliver His friends.
FER Yes, quite so. He is superior to all. He can break the bands of death, and raise Lazarus.
Rem Man had come to the lowest ebb if be whom the Lord loved was dead. As to Martha, I think she was simply orthodox, she did not believe on Him as the resurrection and the life. She says, “Thou art the Christ ... which should come into the world”. She would have assented to anything that the Lord said to her, I suppose.
FER Yes, I think so. I think she gave herself credit for more than she really believed.
Rem Is not that where many of us are, we believe or give our assent to things just because they are the word of God.
Ques How do you get the faith of it; of course it is individual?
FER Well, I think we have to travel through a good deal of exercise first.
Rem Man could not reach the resurrection platform except through death.
FER No, it involves death. Resurrection has no meaning except it is a taking out of death.
Ques I suppose the sisters could not have reached it except through the death of their brother?
FER No. The Lord used the death of their brother to exercise them. It has been often remarked [p. 198] that Mary of Bethany was not at the tomb; she anointed the Lord for His burial, and she was in the faith of His resurrection, that is certain. You find a very different tone about Martha.
Rem It does not say of Martha that she wept.
FER No, it does not. The Lord wept, and Mary wept. Then it is very remarkable what Martha says to Mary, “The Master is come, and calleth for thee”; she recognised, I think, if you can understand the expression, that she could scarcely sustain the intercourse. She felt that Mary understood Him better. I think it is a great test as to how people can bear intercourse with the Lord — one can test oneself that way.
Ques As to whether one is resting or restless?
FER Yes. Whether they are at home with the Lord.
Rem Does it not come out in our meetings sometimes? If there is a pause, there is a feeling that something must be done.
FER I was thinking more of people individually, it has to begin there.
Ques Do you take Lazarus as a figure of the whole company brought into resurrection?
FER Well, I had not taken it so much in that way; I had looked at it more as the circumstances being a testimony to the Lord; I had not quite entered into the typical idea of Lazarus.
Ques How did you mean that intercourse with the Lord was a test to us?
FER Well, I think I can test myself that way, as to the liberty of intercourse one has with the Lord.
Rem The children of Israel told Moses that he must speak face to face with the Lord, but they would not come near — it tested them.
FER Quite so; it tested them.
Ques Is it through prayer that we have intercourse?
FER In a certain sense prayer is different from [p. 199] intercourse. All pious people pray, and there are circumstances which will cast us upon God; but intercourse is to me more exchange of mind with the Lord in regard to His interests.
Rem The intimacy of friendship.
FER Yes, certainly. In fact, it is one feature of the gospel of John that you get very little of prayer on the Lord’s side. It is just the very opposite in the gospel of Luke, where you so often find the Lord in prayer. Paul prayed before he had the Holy Spirit, “Behold, he prayeth”.
Rem What you were saying would just agree with the character of the two gospels.
FER Yes, I think so. A wonderful thing strikes one in this chapter: the tenderness and sympathy of the Lord. They come out very remarkably on the part of One who could exercise the power of resurrection.
Rem He waited deliberately for the glory of God, though He felt for them in all their sorrow.
FER Yes. In the Lord you see perfect power for all the sorrow and infirmity of man. There are many things which distress me down here, the poverty and the misery that meet one in everyday life; I can truly say these things distress me, they make me sick at heart sometimes; but then I cannot touch them, it is impossible for me to touch them, no power on earth can meet them. But with the Lord the case was entirely different. On His part He had power to meet everything, but what you get coming out here so beautifully is the wonderful tenderness and sympathy of the Lord. You see, if the Lord simply exercised His power in regard to us, it would not form any link between us; it is the tenderness and sympathy of Christ that link us to Him. He really forms the link before He exercises His power; we get the exercise of all His priestly offices before we get His power put forth as Saviour. He establishes a moral link first,
[p. 200] and that is what you get coming out in principle here. Before ever He raises Lazarus, He forms a moral link with Martha and Mary.
Rem “In all their affliction he was afflicted”.
FER Yes, exactly.
Rem The exercise of His power would not give us the knowledge of His heart.
FER No. You see, Aaron not only bore the names of the children of Israel on his shoulders but on his heart; so when the moral link, the spiritual link, is formed, then He goes on to the exercise of His power. In the first creation you see the exercise of power, but there is no moral link in “He commanded, and it stood fast”.
Ques Did you say we knew Him as Priest before we knew Him as Saviour?
FER Yes, I did. What I meant was that before you get, “He shall change our vile body”, you have the moral link with Him. And that is why the Lord delayed to interfere here. It was so important to form this moral link before He exercised His power. It is really formed through priesthood, and that is just the value of the priesthood.
Ques Is it in verse 26, Every one that is alive and believeth on Me, shall never die for ever?
FER Yes. “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” — that is the first part.
Ques When was it “day” for the Lord in contrast with “night”?
FER Well, there is a time allotted to work, and a night of darkness when no one can work, when a man would stumble.
Ques What relation has the answer of the Lord in verse 26 to the question of Martha?
FER I think she is looking at the event rather than the Person. People are always looking at the wrong thing; you see people wanting to understand [p. 201] what is going to take place on the earth, but they are looking at the wrong place. If they were to look up to heaven, they would soon get to understand what is to come on the earth. And you see many people looking for the Lord’s coming, but they look at the event, not at the Person. The fact is this, we only come into resurrection as we partake of Christ. All that is raised is Christ; not a single bit of us will come out of death but what is of Christ.
Rem Though, of course, it includes the body.
FER Yes. But I was not thinking of the mere body, you will find Scripture always speaks of the person being raised.
Rem Yes; except that there are the two classes: those who have died and those who will be alive. “I am the resurrection, and the life” — a mere man could not say that. What it brings before me is the moral certainty of His coming out of death.
Rem And therefore His friends, His company, must come with Him.
FER Yes. If He goes into death, He must come out of it.
Ques Is it not a correction of what Martha says as to the resurrection at the last day?
FER Yes. “I am the resurrection, and the life”. I am more and more assured in my own mind that everything that comes out of death is for God. Whatever He takes out of death is for Himself. “The ... church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” is for Himself. The fact is this, the greatness of our blessing just depends on our being for Himself. You would not say that hired servants are exactly for Himself. He has them to serve Him, but what a man has for himself is sons. A man does not have affection for his hired servants exactly, those who have the knowledge of his affections are sons.
Ques And we are really sons of God, being “sons of the resurrection”?
FER Yes. God claims whatever is of the resurrection for Himself, it is the first-fruits for God in that way.
Rem The same can be said of the three last parables in Matthew 13.
FER Yes. It is the divine side of the kingdom. Man seizes it according to his own mind, he humanises it, but, after all, in the three last parables you get the secret of it all, God is securing something for Himself. The treasure, and the pearl, and the net — the good fish carried into vessels — are for Him. I am sure that if we apprehended what God has effected for Himself, we should not lose as to our side at all; we should really come into the consciousness of it.
Ques If a man “lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God”, what then?
FER Well, he makes himself the object.
I think nothing can be more wonderful than to see that Christ is perfectly unchanged; I feel sure that nothing can be more beautiful than to see the extraordinary tenderness and sympathy of the Lord. It was not for Lazarus that He wept. A man that is dead does not feel the pressure. The widow’s son was not the one who felt the pressure, it was the mother, the widow, and it was for her the Lord was touched with compassion. Here it was Martha and Mary who were under the pressure, Lazarus was dead. You see, they have to drink the bitter waters of Marah, but the great point of it is to form spiritual links between Christ and the believer. The Lord wept; He saw the pressure that rested upon man, and the inability of man to meet it, he could not relieve himself from the burden of it. You know, I really feel I could not be too thankful that I was not taken to heaven when I was first converted, for there would have been no moral link between Christ and myself, no knowledge of His heart and affections.
Rem The Lord Himself prays, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world”.
FER Yes. He left them here for infinitely wise reasons.
Ques Why does it say that as Priest He is Son of God?
FER Because He must be the Son to be a Priest; how could you have access to God except as a son? “Jesus, the Son of God”; the two things are carefully connected in Hebrews, the Son and the Priest. We are priests as being sons — “in bringing many sons to glory”.
I think we were noticing in our last reading that there are two main things that come out in this chapter: one the glory of God, and the other the plotting of man.
Ques Would you gather that Caiaphas spoke really by the influence of the Holy Spirit? that it was not merely the working of his own mind?
FER Yes, I think so. It says, “This spake he not of himself”.
Rem I wondered if its being referred to as a prophecy would imply that it was from God.
FER Well, I think it is so because of what is added to it. “He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad”. He was the high priest for that year, and I think in that sense his prophecy was official. I do not think the man himself was engaged in it any more than Balaam was engaged in his prophecy. Then from that day they plotted and took counsel how they might put Him to death. It was the worst possible thing they could have done; they really used the word of God as an occasion to carry out their own ends.
Rem Something like what Peter says in the beginning of the Acts, “Him, being delivered by the [p. 204] determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain?”
FER Yes. But here they use the prophecy as an occasion for giving effect to their own wills.
Ques Do you think that the office of the high priest was recognised of God at this time?
FER Yes. I think it was recognised until it was publicly set aside.
Rem Paul recognised it.
FER Yes. But here you get a prophecy from the mouth of the high priest himself. Nothing could be worse than that the word of God should be taken up as a means of carrying out the will of man, to give effect to man’s own will.
Rem They used the prophecy to cover their own wickedness.
FER Yes. As long as the system existed I think the Lord recognised it. Speaking in a general way, I do not think that people ever do the right thing to save themselves.
Ques Not when their own state and trouble is the motive?
FER No. If you take the history of the children of Israel, for instance, they never really saved themselves out of their difficulties. They schemed and plotted, they turned to this king and that king, and to this nation and that nation, but they really never saved themselves; in fact, they only brought themselves into worse difficulty in the long run.
Rem You see that at the time of the captivity.
FER Yes. They tried to set one nation against another, they turned to one and sought to set another against it. It was just a bit of human scheming, but they never really brought about their own deliverance.
Ques To “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” — it is rather remarkable [p. 205] that they should be designated in that way. Who are those thus designated?
FER Well, I think you have to bear in mind that this gospel was written very late.
Rem But still, I suppose there are those gathered even in the present time, the children of God.
Ques Is it not somewhat like chapter 10, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring”; in that way recognising the sheep before He “brings” them?
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem I think what you say is very important, that John was written very late.
Ques Is it like Hebrews a, “Behold, I and the children which God hath given me”? In what sense is it children there?
FER It is not exactly children of God in the family sense.
Ques Is it not a term of affection in Hebrews 2 for His own?
FER It is quoted from Isaiah 8. It is the same word as there, it means “little children”. I think it is a word John uses; you know it is the same in “Little children, it is the last time”, 1 John 2: 18.
Ques Did it not refer here to the remnant from Israel?
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques But does not this passage in chapter 11 also go far beyond Israel?
FER Yes, no doubt. “Children of God” here is really those who are begotten of God, it is a word derived from “beget”. “Now are we children of God” — that is what the apostle says in the first epistle, and it is the same word here.
Rem Apart from the death of Christ the saints could only be individuals.
FER You could have nothing corporate until the Holy Spirit came. There might be a sort of [p. 206] national link, but no real link except in the power of the Holy Spirit. You would have unity in the flesh otherwise; but there could not be any such thing as spiritual unity until the Holy Spirit came. One body is dependent upon one Spirit, it is the one Spirit that forms the unity. You may have unity in the divine nature, but it is really a deeper thing than the unity of the Spirit.
Rem Please explain that.
FER Well, you might have unity in the fact of having the Spirit, but unity in the divine nature, “that they all may be one, as we are”, is really the work of the Spirit, and lies deeper than the other. The fact is this, you may have baptism by the Spirit into one body, but you cannot really make much of it on account of the general state of things. What you want in the present day is unity in the divine nature.
Ques “Love, which is the bond of perfectness”?
FER Yes, exactly; you have to come to realities in the present day.
Rem We might have the Spirit, and yet be very small indeed in the divine nature.
FER Yes, very small indeed; you cannot touch those things apart from the Holy Spirit. In the death of Christ two things are seen: one, man is gone, he is removed in the death of Christ, but then what comes out also in that death is the formation of a new man. The man under judgment has gone in judgment; but what has come in through the death of Christ is the formative power for a new man. Man is not one single bit in touch with the love of God until he has got the Holy Spirit; but then he is not partaker of the divine nature by the fact of having the Spirit, but when he is formed in it. A man is born of God, I should say, not when he receives the Spirit, but when he knows and responds to the love of God.
Ques Is not a man born of God when the love of God “is shed abroad” in his heart by the [p. 207] Holy Spirit?
FER But he wants to breathe in response to it; you want a breath from the man in response to it.
Rem God breathed into Adam the breath of life, then he began to breathe.
FER Yes. I think you get the response in Romans 8. Chapter 5 is one side, chapter 8 is another. In chapter 8 you get, “All things work together for good to them that love God”; that is the way in which we live, it is the spirit or character of the life. “Born of God” is properly a description of a Christian. Christians are born of God; that is, their generation is after God — like the new man “which after God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth” — it is after His own nature; it is characteristic in that sense.
Rem It is “He that loveth is born of God”.
FER Yes; it is whosoever loves; that verse really puts it plainly enough: the one who loves is born of God, and knows God. You see, you cannot know God except by love, you are not in touch with Him, there is nothing akin to Him.
Ques What about 1 John 5: 1, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”? In chapter 4 it is, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God”.
FER I think “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the-Christ” is looked upon in that way as evidence that he is born of God; it is in order that you may not discredit those whose faith is not equal to the apprehension of Christ as the Son of God. You can recognise those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, and you can love them because they are born of God. We might have seen the necessity for this in the early days, when they were dealing with the Jews. Take the apostles in the early part of the Acts, they had very little apprehension of Jesus as the Son of God. I do not say they did not know it, but it did not come out in [p. 208] their testimony much.
Rem That was really a new departure with Paul.
FER Yes.
Ques Do you not think there are souls in that condition in the present day?
FER Yes, I do. There is a great deal of difference between orthodox belief and what people really believe. There are many who have not believed as much really as they put in their creed; do you not think so? I think people are very much behind their creed sometimes.
Ques Was not this used as a test for the Jews of that time, whether they believed Jesus was the Christ?
FER Yes. It is used in that way as a test for spirits. You see, Christ Himself was anointed with the Holy Spirit, and He anoints with the Holy Spirit. But that is the proof that He is Son of God; yet it is as the Christ that He gives the Spirit, it is as the Christ that He gives the living water in chapter 4.
It is very awful to see the fearful perverseness of man after such an expression — if I might use the word — of the glory of God in the raising of Lazarus. They set to work to plot how they might get rid of the Lord. It is just the same with men in the present day, they almost plot to get rid of Christianity, yet surely they cannot shut their eyes to the effect that Christianity has had on the world.
Rem Here it seems the more wilful on account of the prophecy.
FER Yes. I think it is just evidence of the desperate dislike that men have of God interfering in the world. I think that men will bear what is providential, but the idea of divine interference is very intolerable to man; man cannot tolerate the idea of that.
Rem They blasphemed the God of heaven in Revelation 16.
FER Yes, exactly. They wanted God to keep [p. 209] in His own place; I think it is true what is generally said, John claims the world for God.
Rem I thought that in the Revelation you find them refusing the God of the earth, but then, you see, they give glory to the God of heaven.
FER Yes. But at the end of the book you get them blaspheming the God of heaven.
Rem In chapter 11 they refuse His claim to the earth, but they give glory to the God of heaven.
FER Yes.
Rem It is a great comfort that, act as man will, God too will do as He will.
FER Quite so. You cannot gainsay that fact which comes out in this chapter: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby”.
Rem The Heir had come.
FER He had. It is remarkable that in Matthew the parable of the husbandmen is followed by the parable of the marriage of the king’s son; they say, “Come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance”. But when you come to the marriage supper what you find is, “A certain king ... made a marriage for his son”. God’s purposes stand good in His Son really; and so here, witness has been borne to the glory of the Son of God. What God intends to bring into this world is victory over death; it is His superiority over evil, and that has been witnessed by the Son of God.
Rem Only man would not have it. They said, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance”.
FER You know, I think that if such a thing were possible as that Christ should come into the world and raise the dead, it would be very intolerable to men; they would rather have death than that the Lord should come in and raise the dead. They would like it staved off by means of medicine, perhaps, but [p. 210] as an act of divine power it would be very intolerable to man. You see, it would upset everything. They even wanted to put Lazarus to death.
Rem They would not put up with a risen man who bore witness to the power of the Son of God.
FER No. What man virtually says is, Leave the earth to us; whatever the woes may be, leave the earth to us. They want nothing more of God than His providence.
Ques Their own side of things?
FER Yes. But then there is a vast number of people in the world on whom the providence of God falls very heavily, but they would rather have even that than that God should interfere with them.
Ques Do you think the spirit of that was seen when they said, “We will not have this man to reign over us”?
FER Yes, I think so. Of course, that was more especially the Jews, they were the husbandmen. You look at the terrific effort that is made to get rid of the Scriptures — repeated and constant effort to get rid of the validity of the Scriptures; the thing is not let alone, there are constant attacks made upon it, the effort is unceasing. But if Scripture is not the word of God, if it only contains divine ideas, it is not scripture to me. The interference of God down here is intolerable to men, and I am sure the very idea of the truth is also intolerable. It becomes a kind of standard by which everything must be tested. What they say today is that there may be divine ideas in the Scriptures, but they are clothed in fallible and human language. Well, if that be so, it ceases to be scripture to me.
Rem Man does not believe that death is the judgment of God, and therefore he does not want the glory of God. And they do not care one single bit about God meeting the judgment.
[p. 211] Rem People tide over the death of their relatives by visits of condolence, and all that sort of thing.
FER Yes. You see, they could not possibly look openly at the thing.
Rem Until people see what it is to be under the judgment of God they cannot appreciate the Son of God.
FER No. Resurrection is the great expression of His glory. I think it is the complete satisfaction which God has in triumphing over all the power of evil.
Rem If men understood anything at all about God, they would welcome that which relieves them of the judgment of God.
FER Yes, that is so. I think the Lord brings out the truth of things in chapter 3. He says they “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” — and they do not come to the light lest their deeds should be detected.
Rem As you have said, they shrank from exposure.
FER Yes. It is the great and prominent things that deceive people in this day; it is the great system of the world. You know Nebuchadnezzar said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?” — that is what the world is. Man with great toil has built up this great Babylon, and it is the devil’s instrument to deceive people, the great artificial system. I do not simply refer to this country, but to the whole system; and it is not the work of one generation or two, but a vast system built up, with a very long history, and with much labour. That is what the devil uses to blind people, the great system of the world.
Rem And it does succeed.
FER Yes, it does: “Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them”.
The world on the one hand, and Christ on the other — Christ who is the image of God — are at the [p. 212] very opposite poles, but man is really in bondage to one or the other; that is as certain as possible.
Rem If a man were to be raised from the dead, the world would not know what to do with him.
FER No; and I think whatever God raises from the dead He raises for Himself, and I should not find it difficult to prove that it is so from Scripture; He puts His hand, His claim, on everything that is raised from the dead.
Ques Would you mind giving us a scripture which proves it?
FER Well, “They are ... sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” — they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels, and they are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. The same thing comes out too in regard to Israel, “I will be for thee and thou shalt be for me”; they are raised again for Jehovah. You see, it says to us, “that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”. I am sure that where the resurrection platform comes in, you will always find that all is for God.
Rem Even as to Christ it says, “In that he liveth, he liveth unto God”.
FER Yes, “liveth unto God”; and so He always did, but now in resurrection it is that others who are raised from the dead should be with Him, they have God for their object.
Ques And the firstborn were really taken from death?
FER Yes. The “church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” — that is really an allusion to those who were spared out of Israel. You see, God claimed the firstborn of Israel, but then He took the tribe of Levi in place of the firstborn.
Rem Resurrection would be an awful thing except as we know it to be a resurrection to life.
FER [p. 213] Yes. Resurrection in itself is a fearful idea. You see, in resurrection a man is not free for his own will again, but must be conscious that resurrection means the will of another for him. Resurrection is for God.
Rem Except that you get the resurrection of the just and the unjust.
FER Yes. But the real power of God’s salvation is resurrection.
Ques “For all live unto him” would imply resurrection, would it not?
FER Yes. The Lord quotes it in that way.
Ques It could not be said of the wicked dead, could it?
FER No, I think not.
Ques. Not in one sense?
FER Well, I do not think I should care to apply the word “live” to them. I think it is simply spoken of Isaac and Jacob and those.
Ques Would you say that “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” also applies to Isaac and Jacob, though in a more limited sense?
FER Yes, I should say so. “Sons of God” is really indefinite. You see, the twenty-four elders in the Revelation are all priestly, and if they are priests then they must be sons, and therefore in a sense they are sons of God; but I do not think it alters the special place of the church.
Ques It is not quite the same thing as sonship?
FER No. The Old Testament saints were formed on different lines to the church. There is only one formative line for the Christian, and you could not tell me of another.
Ques. The Holy Spirit?
FER No, love. Old Testament saints were formed in a certain way, and what is formed down here has its lasting effect in glory. You see their aspirations coming out. Look at Abraham: he [p. 214] sought a city and desired a country. They embraced the promises; there was a certain moral effect that the promises had upon them. But we are not formed by promises. There is only one thing on which Christians are formed, and that is the revelation of the love of God in Christ. But really that includes and covers everything else; it brings in the whole compass and extent of the divine glory, “the breadth, and length, and depth, and height”. It far surpasses everything, the greater includes the less. I imagine such a company (and, alas, that one has to!), a company really formed in divine love; what a company it would be! That is the thing in 1 Corinthians 13; it shows you not only your fitness for the assembly, but for the place that you are going to occupy in heaven.
Rem I suppose moral glory will come out especially in the church.
FER Yes, quite so; that they may “be with me where I am”. How could you be with Christ where He is if you were not according to Him! it would not be possible.
Rem It is love that fits them for that: “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them”.
FER Yes, “and I in them”. The course of the Lord is really very remarkable. He walked no more openly among the Jews, and Judaism goes on just as usual: the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
Ques And they were the people who really sought Jesus?
FER Yes. They could not let Him alone, in a sense. Man goes on, these men went on with their passover and their purification, and all that kind of thing.
Ques Is it not remarkable that religion and wickedness can go on together?
FER Yes. Religiousness is no kind of check on downright wickedness; there are all kinds of wickedness covered up in a congregation if you could realise it.
[p. 215] Rem But on the other hand, the passover of God was about to come.
FER Yes, it was the substance. I think, too, man’s puerilities, if I might use the word, were all very well previous to that, but not afterwards. I think even before God’s passover came there must have been many a man who did not act on the letter exactly, but I think he would get into the spirit of the things, he would be right and true in spirit. I very much prefer a man who is right and true in spirit to a man who is so punctilious as to the letter; I think it really wants faith to break through the letter sometimes.
Rem I think J.N.D. used to say, if only they had recognised that the Lord was in their midst, priests and people would all have been at His feet.
FER Yes.
Rem It is striking the way it comes out in John: they were really plotting against the Lord, seeking His life, while outwardly keeping the passover.
FER Yes. Plotting against the Christ was quite consistent with external righteousness, and so it is today. I think the great thing is to abide by the testimony of the glory of God: “the glad tidings of the glory of the blessed God”. The love of God remains; the man who was under judgment has gone in judgment, and the love of God remains.
Rem It superabounds.