JOHN 12 (1)
JOHN 12 (1)
FER In chapter 12 you get the second great testimony to Him as Son of David.
Ques Mary anointed the Lord for His burial, did she not?
FER Yes. The Lord must die as of that line. He could only have His glory as Son of David in resurrection. And so, too, as Son of man. It is most [p. 216] essential to see that these chapters contemplate everything on the ground of resurrection.
Rem This quotation from the prophet is really a testimony to resurrection.
FER Yes.
Ques What does the perfume of the ointment set forth?
FER It was what was grateful to the Lord — it filled all the house. Mary was in a way representative; she comes in in a sort of remnant character, ministering what was grateful to the Lord.
Rem And yet in view of His death.
FER Yes. She must have had a measure of sense of this, that He was superior to death. He could not be holden of it; if He went into death, it must be that He should come out of it.
Rem She would have learnt that at the grave of her brother.
FER Yes. I think any really pious person must have felt that there was nothing in common between Christ and the will of man. The day we live in is a day of very small things, but there is that down here which is grateful to the Lord; I think there is that, and that is what I want to be in touch with. I am convinced that “right ground” and “right standing”, and all that, is not grateful to the Lord.
Lazarus was one of those who sat at table with Him — you see Lazarus in association with Him. I think it shows us a little that resurrection is really the new platform. I have been very much interested lately in a remark of J.B.S., that we are as much risen with Christ by the grace of God as that we are saved. I mean the fact of our being risen with Christ is as much of God’s grace as our justification.
Ques You mean that if you speak of the grace of God, it includes that?
FER Yes, it is not apprehended, perhaps. The resurrection of Christ was an act of God, but justification [p. 217] is His mind; not an act so much — it is the bearing of His mind. The thought of God for us is justification. His act was in raising Christ from the dead; but now His mind goes further than justification, it goes on to raising you with Christ; and it is really a question of faith, of entering into His mind. You see it is, “if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” — that is, justification is based on the resurrection of Christ. Then when you come to Colossians you find “risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”, and if it is of faith, it is of grace. It is as much of grace that you are risen with Christ as that you are justified. It is just as much His mind that you should be risen together with Christ, as that you should be justified; then, if you enter into it, you have got it. You are justified by entering into His mind, and so, too, you are risen with Him when you enter into His mind, it is His grace to you.
As far as fact goes, the fact is Christ is risen. You are not justified until you believe, and so, too, you are risen “through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” — it is the character of it, not just the mere fact of His resurrection.
Rem That thought is really brought out in Ephesians 1.
FER Yes. “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead” — but there you get the exercise of God’s power towards us. He has quickened us — that is power, and it is according to that power that He works in us. Justification and “risen with Christ” are the mind of God for us, but quickening is the act of His power; deliverance comes in in connection with quickening. I see this much, that the moment you come to quickening you have got the exercise of God’s power. He has forgiven you all trespasses,
[p. 218] spoilt principalities and powers, and you have faith in the operation of God; but deliverance comes in in connection with quickening.
Ques What does “risen with Christ” mean then?
FER It is the mind of God that you should be with Christ over Jordan, on heavenly ground.
Rem You used to say that they were concurrent.
FER So they are, but deliverance is connected, I am sure now, with being quickened into the divine nature. A man is not quickened except as formed in the divine nature. Putting off the old man is concurrent with putting on the new. This latter has been a help to me. I had always puzzled over that sentence of the apostle and wondered what he could mean, but I think I begin to see it now.
The motive of these Jews does not seem to have been a very exalted one — they were just wonder-seeking, I should say. “They came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead”. I think that one sees today, too, how very much moral levity there is with people, and entire want of any fixity of purpose; it is much the same now as then. You find people pursuing this thing and that thing, running first after this thing, then after that, but you do not find them pursuing light or truth or anything of that kind. Here you find they give the Lord a kind of ovation when they know that He is coming to Jerusalem, they “took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord”.
Rem It seems that they were more Galileans, according to the record given in the other gospels.
FER Well, a great many of His miracles were done in Galilee, and we read, too, that they came up to the feast.
Ques. What feast is this?
FER It is the passover, is it not? I think you [p. 219] get three passovers in John. At the beginning of the gospel “the passover of the Jews was near”, then in chapter 6 and here also, you get mention of a passover. And this was the one at which He suffered. The death of Lazarus was in connection with the first testimony, as we saw in chapter 11 — the testimony to Him as Son of God; then Christ’s entry into Jerusalem is the occasion of the second — King of Israel — One coming in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel. That is the prominent thought of it. It is a most remarkable circumstance that when it is a question of dignity, or exaltation, witness has first to be borne to it in humiliation; you do not inherit exaltation, according to God, until witness has been borne to it, until it has first been testified to. I was speaking of it last night in connection with Joseph — Joseph had to bear witness to his exaltation before he got it.
Ques And it took a long time before he reached it?
FER Yes, a long time. It is a principle with God, I am sure. You see it, too, in regard to the Lord, and you get the very same thing in regard to the church. That is, to my mind, the force of the conflict in Ephesians 6. You see there the church standing for the sovereign will of God, and it brings it into conflict with the powers of evil; that is my conviction, the will of man sets itself against the sovereign will of God. You see the same principle in the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia. He is to be conspicuous in the light, “Him ... will I make a pillar in the temple of my God”; but it must be first in testimony, so that he might be accounted worthy of the kingdom. You suffer for it in testimony, and then you get it in glory. “If we suffer, we shall also reign”.
Ques “And having done all, to stand”?
FER Yes. You stand in the evil day; and you are standing, too, for what is your own according to the sovereign will of God.
Ques Do you think there is any significance in [p. 220] this incident taking place after the Supper — I mean, is it a figure of resurrection ground, so to speak?
FER Well, it is striking that Lazarus, whom He had raised, was one of those who sat at supper with Him. But I had looked at the supper more as a Jewish figure. What do you say?
Rem I had thought so. How could they think that Christ could abide for ever, as it says, save in resurrection?
FER Quite so. And there is no way to eternal blessing save through His own death. But to refer to the point I was speaking of a moment ago, I am perfectly certain in my own mind that no one can be established here, or effective in conflict, if they are not established in the sovereign will of God — God’s sovereign purpose. God will establish what pleases Him — I am more and more convinced of it.
Rem You can have no solid ground else.
FER No, not a bit; God will effect the purpose of His will — He will be sovereign.
Rem And really that is the only comfort that we have got, poor fickle things that we are.
FER Quite so. Then the result of that is, you have to accept the place that God has given you in the sovereignty of His will. I do not think the church ought to have been ashamed to stand to its place, but they left “their first love” — they did not stand to it.
Ques What is their place?
FER Heavenly places — He has “raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ”.
Rem The Jews gave up the kingdom, that was their portion, and turned to the king of the earth.
FER Yes. I think that what we have to be so thankful for is that God has, in some little measure, opened our eyes to it, that we should not be content with things as they are.
Ques How would being established in the sovereignty [p. 221] of the will of God affect us in the preaching of the gospel?
FER It does not touch it, the light of God comes into the world for all, and you present in the gospel in that sense the light of God. You have got this much which your Calvinist has not, that there is nothing in the mind of God against the salvation of any one.
Rem I ventured to remark the other day to someone, that there was nothing in the counsel of God about any one being lost.
FER No. God’s counsel has all to do with blessing, it is God’s sovereign purpose of blessing, blessing in which He will be sovereign.
Rem He “will have all men to be saved”. That is the light of God, and there is nothing in the heart of God against the salvation of any one. Of course it is true, on the other hand, that God will compel the salvation of those who are in the purpose of His will, and there would not be much security for you and for me if He did not.
FER I think you get it in the parable in Luke 15. The woman brings the light into the house, but it is to bring to light the lost piece of silver. The whole house is lighted with the candle. “Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil”. They would not come to the light.
Rem But it leaves them without excuse.
FER Yes, without excuse. They did not come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved. I do not believe in any goodness in man, that is all moonshine. Experience would teach one that.
Rem We find it often enough in our own hearts.
FER Yes, indeed.
Ques The purpose of God is not in regard to the first man at all?
FER No, not at all, but with the second Man;
[p. 222] you have no vantage ground down here unless you take that ground, and are prepared too, to stand on it and to aver that ground too. The enemy hates the idea of the sovereign will of God. You preach about the capabilities of man, and you will not have much conflict.
Rem God will work according to His own good pleasure.
FER Yes. He “works all things according to the counsel of his own will” — that is the statement. Man wants to be as great as God, and to dictate to God what He shall do, but God does not take counsel with man.
Rem And man would advise Him very badly if he did.
FER God will not allow the first man any place. David wanted to build a house for God, but you see it was not the first man that built the house, it was David’s son who was to build it; so blessing does not come in by man but by the Son of man.
Ques How far do you think the believing in Jesus in verse 11 carried these Jews?
FER Well, they came not for His sake alone, but that they might see Lazarus also. I should not trust it much. You get the same kind of thing more than once in John, believing in Jesus when they saw the miracles that He did, it was simply a mental conviction. Nothing is trusted in John’s gospel but what originated in God — nothing of man is trusted, that is a principle that underlies all John — God must originate everything, and nothing otherwise is trusted.
Rem And when they saw Jesus deliver Himself up to be crucified, they were just as easily convinced the other way.
FER Yes. Well, until resurrection Christ took the place of weakness. He did not vindicate Himself. He did not do anything to deliver Himself, but in resurrection He is “declared to be the Son of God with power”. As long as He was after the flesh, He took the place of weakness. “He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God”. Here what you see is one coming in the name of the Lord; it is not the King of Israel coming in His own name, but it is the name of the Lord which is the prominent thing.
Ques They will receive the one coming “in his own name”?
FER Yes; they are prepared for it. Here it is simply an ovation of the people, and the very people who cried “Hosanna” on this day will cry something else tomorrow.
Rem We see Him as the “meek of the earth” here.
FER Yes; sitting on an ass, but then there is a great deal in meekness, it is the moral title for inheriting the earth. “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”. The proud are not going to possess the earth, although they have it now, but it is the meek who “delight themselves in the abundance of peace”. The amazing thing is that Christ should take that place. “I am meek and lowly in heart”.
Ques Was not their voice used of God in a way like Balaam’s?
FER Well, it was allowed in that way; it comes out at the proper moment.
Ques Is it not that those who were true led the way, and then the multitude followed?
FER Yes; that is likely enough. It is very like what happened in Christianity at the descent of the Holy Spirit. “It filled all the house where they were sitting”, but the Holy Spirit really came on those who were true saints, though the influence went out beyond themselves.
Rem Yes; and afterwards we read of a great company of the priests being obedient to the faith.
FER Yes; but you have no very great guarantee of their being truly converted.
[p. 224] Rem How truly indeed we find that man is not to be trusted.
FER No; people can be affected for a moment, but when they get tested a bit they do not stand to it. Today it is “Hosanna”, but to-morrow, “Crucify him, crucify him”.
Rem In becoming man He really secured the company that God had purposed.
FER Yes; to my mind, the greatest effect of the Lord’s having been here was that He left a company here on whom the Holy Spirit could come. I do not see how otherwise the Holy Spirit could have come, if there had not been that company prepared for Him. It was a small company, a limited company, but still the Holy Spirit could come upon them, and therefore there is no limit to what the Holy Spirit could do. It reminds one of what the Lord said to them in Matthew 16. You see, they were the bread — they were the nucleus of what was to be, they were in the eyes of the Lord the beginning of what was to be. Then He warns them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees — the Lord did not care about the mere bread at all, but the point of the passage is, they were the bread, and His great anxiety was lest they should be leavened. The Lord’s public ministry was over, and everything now was bound up with that little company.
Rem But that company that the Lord left has become leavened. I think you have noticed that whatever the Lord warns them of is sure to happen.
FER Yes. You look at the High Church party with its Pharisaism, and the Broad Church with its Sadduceeism — that is what you have got in the present day. What do people want to wear garbs for, uniforms, and the like? It is as clear as daylight, that it is to put something on the natural man. What possible meaning can there be in it if it is not to put honour upon the natural man, to add something to him, to [p. 225] give him an appearance? Now the moment you get that sort of thing it is Pharisaism. It distinguishes the natural man.
Ques Do you think the Pharisees discover their weakness in verse 19?
FER Well, I think they were convinced of it, in a way; they saw the crowd gone after Him, but they need not have feared. It is remarkable how the disciples come out; they did not understand what they were doing at the time, but when Jesus was glorified then they remembered that they had done those things to Him. You get much the same thought at the beginning of the gospel.
Rem Yes; in chapter 2 it shows what a necessity the coming of the Holy Spirit was for their understanding.
FER Yes; you see many of these things had reference to Christ in glory, and I very much doubt if they could have been understood until He was in glory. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. That really refers to Christ in glory. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. Here the testimony is what belongs to Him now; He was the King of Israel, and testimony was borne to that, but He is that now, and therefore I think I can understand that they could not enter into it until He was in glory.
Rem What you find at the end is that the resurrection really confirms the scripture.
FER Yes. “Destroy this temple, and ... I will raise it up”.
Ques Is the thought that God dwelt there?
FER Yes. You get the two expressions in Colossians. “In him all the fulness was pleased to dwell”, and “In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” — that is a statement that refers to the present, and not to the past. You get in chapter 7,
“[p. 226] The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”.
Rem But when that was written, He had been given.
FER Yes. “The hour is coming, and now is” — that is a remarkable way of putting it. It was the recognition of an hour that was coming, and yet giving it a present application. The disciples do not spare themselves. “These things understood not his disciples” — who is it that recalls that? Why, a disciple — they do not spare themselves a bit. It is very remarkable, when you come to think of it, how little is recorded by the disciples. Take the scene on the mount of Transfiguration — you would certainly think that would be recorded by one of those who were there. Peter, it is true, refers to it in his second epistle, but he does not record it, not one of the three present records it. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke was present, and John, who was present, does not mention it.
Ques Does he not allude to it in the gospel where he says, “We beheld his glory”?
FER Well, at all events, it is not very certain.
Ques In John 1 they contemplated His own glory, the glory of who He was?
FER Yes, I think so. Peter says, “He received from God the Father honour and glory”. That is not exactly what John speaks about.
Rem “A glory as of an only-begotten with a father”.
FER Yes; he speaks of it in that way. John speaks of what was more characteristic, of what could have been seen every day by those who had eyes to see. “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory” — we contemplated His glory.
Ques Like the Shekinah, in a way?
FER Yes; in a way. It would be very extraordinary [p. 227] if they could have had the Lord dwelling among them and not have beheld His glory, and at any rate they must have been struck by the fact that He was not like themselves. I think that if you could conceive such a thing as that the Lord were dwelling among a company of ourselves, I think we should all have the sense, pretty strongly, that He was not like ourselves; you could not fail to see that He was very different from you. Even though you might be very attached to Him, as John was, still I feel sure that John felt how very different He was from himself.
Ques Does not the expression “only-begotten” bring in the thought of affection?
FER Yes. He is the only one of that kind; it is the word, you know, used in the Old Testament in regard to Isaac. “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac”, it is the same word there.
Rem And that was a very distinctive glory.
FER Yes. The Lord prays in chapter 17, “that they may behold my glory” — but if you are to behold His glory you must be with Him. It is a remarkable thing that the Lord should have prayed that they should be with Him where He was; it was a peculiar favour for any one to be with Him where He was — a very peculiar and distinctive place, do you not think so? I do not doubt that there may be circles in heaven who do not behold His glory in quite that way; they are quite aware of who He is, but it is another thing to contemplate His glory, I should say.
Rem It will be our special place of nearness.
FER Yes. “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also”. I cannot think that the same thing will characterise every family in heaven.
Ques Is that the thought in the “many mansions”?
FER Yes. I think so. I very much doubt if every family will have the place spoken of in the passage quoted from chapter 17, “that they may behold my glory”.
Rem I think you have pointed out that there are several companies contemplated in Psalm 45.
FER Yes. There are the queen, and the queen’s daughter, and the virgins her companions — a number of companies are contemplated; I do not of course say they are all heavenly companies. It speaks of that in Ephesians, “Of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named” — not the whole family, as it is put, but every family.
Rem And that which has formed the faith of the saints here must have its effect.
FER Yes. It depends on that by which it has been formed. The church is not formed by the promises; what the church is really formed by is the known love of God. That is the great formative principle in the church — the known love of God as revealed in Christ. Nothing can “separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. What is formed on that is of a very peculiar character — a very wonderful character.
Ques Would you look at this as a figure of the coming blessing, the Gentiles coming up to the Jews (verse 20)?
FER Those were Greek proselytes, I suppose, “Sir, we would see Jesus”.
Ques In verse 23, “The hour is come” — to what does that refer, the cross or resurrection?
FER I think it is the future glory that the Lord is contemplating, when everything will be put under Him. “The hour is come”, that is, morally. He had been owned as coming “in the name of the Lord”, and then those Greeks were coming to see Him; it is that combination of things that brings it before the mind of the Lord. I do not think it is a point of time but of that combination of circumstances; you must take a thing in connection with its context, and not [p. 229] always attach the same force to the same expression; here, you must certainly take account of the context. It is the combination of circumstances that brings before the Lord the hour when all things will be put under His feet. “The hour is come” was a sort of finish-up to the picture of what is to come; but then He goes on immediately to show that all must be by His death. No doubt the disciples would have been very well pleased to have the Greeks subject to Him then, and to think that the hour had already come.
Rem “The desire of all nations”.
FER Yes; and all that passes in review before the mind of the Lord, and brings before Him the hour when the Son of man should be glorified. Had that hour then come He must have been alone — He was alone in life, for all were under death.
Ques I suppose this would be earthly glory?
FER Yes; the accomplishment of Psalm 8.
Ques What is meant by “still the enemy and the avenger”?
FER Well, the cry of the faithful will be heard, they will be vindicated; and then the enemy will be stilled, silenced. Nothing affected the Lord down here, or turned Him aside; in one sense they affected Him very much, but they could not divert Him.
Ques You see how He was affected in chapter 11?
FER Yes; but He was not turned aside, He went His path, He was in the light. I defy any reasonable person to read the gospels and not to see that you are in the presence of One who knew all that was before Him. He walked in the light, and He says, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not” — the Lord walked in the day, and in the light. He came from God and went to God — that just describes His path.
Rem And in chapter 13: 3 He is in the full knowledge of everything.
FER Yes; but He was that all [p. 230] the way through,
He knew that that was the way to God through the cross. He knew that there was fulness of joy at the right hand of God; it was not down here, though He might say, “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage” down here, but fulness of joy was in the presence of God. The greatest miracle that could be conceived would be that the Lord was an impostor — that would be a miracle. No, the Lord came into this world with a steadfast purpose before Him. He would be “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”. Whatever He might do on the road in the way of works of goodness, and testing — as His presence must — His people, yet, in all, His path was to death. I do not see how He could become a man and fail of death, as things were. If He took up man, the seed of the woman, it was morally certain that He must go into death — there would have been something morally defective without that.
Ques What is the aspect of death here?
FER I think everything springs up from the death of Christ; we all have to go through the death of Christ, we all have to come from the death of Christ. Christ went into death actually, and we go into it in mind; what Christ entered into in fact, we enter into in mind. “I am crucified with Christ”, that is in mind. We all come from the death of Christ.
Rem It is looked at as fruit for God.
FER Yes. Everything comes out of the death of Christ. His death, in John, has always the company in view. He brings forth fruit of His own genus, of His own kind. The corn of wheat goes into the ground and dies — it must die — but then it brings forth fruit a hundredfold. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit”. As a corn of wheat it must dissolve, it ceases to be what it was, but then other corn of its own kind springs up. The fruit is [p. 231] not of a different kind, it is of the same kind as Himself in that sense.
Ques The same in nature, but different in glory?
FER Yes; and in form.
Rem If we are to be on the same platform as Christ, we could not be put upon that apart from death.
FER Yes; you have got to lose all that you are, there is not a bit of the “old man” in the “new man”; the “new man” is entirely new — a different man, it is not an old thing made to look like new, as you see in tailors’ shops sometimes. There is not a bit of the old man in the new man; we have come out of the grave of Christ in the character of Christ — as He is — “As is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”.