JOHN 1
FER I am rather inclined to think “The Word” was a recognised appellative as applied to Christ. When the apostle speaks thus of that Person, it was in a way known and recognised by Christians. This gospel was written late.
I suppose the reference to “eye-witnesses” in Luke 1: 2 would refer more to miracles, and that sort of thing. It is “eye-witnesses of”. The Word was His personal name. I think it helps in the understanding of this gospel to see that John, speaking of “The Word”, speaks of a thought that was current among Christians — known among them.
If you talk about the testimony of God — Christ Himself is the testimony; not simply certain facts, but Christ Himself is the testimony from John’s point of view. Death and resurrection are certain facts, and they form a testimony in a certain way, but in John, Christ Himself is the testimony. These things are all parts of the testimony.
Ques Would you regard the title as an adaptation of a thought that was in man’s mind?
FER Well, that is, after all, a matter of small moment to us. If it comes to that, all words are taken up in man’s literature, and no doubt the thought may have been familiar to men. The thing is, Christ Himself is the testimony — He is “The Word”.
Ques Is it right to say, “The eternal Word”?
FER Scripture does not so speak. The expression is used here in connection with His presentation in manhood. It is He who is “The Word” who was “in the beginning”.
Ques What is the meaning of “in the beginning” here?
FER It carries you back to the farthest point of time. No human mind can take in a period previous to “the beginning” in John. “All things received being” by that Person, and “without him not one thing received being which has received being”. The full thought in the title “The Word” belongs to Him as become flesh. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”, and afterwards we have, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”. He came out as the testimony of God — all the thought and heart of God find their expression in Him. Resurrection may witness God’s power, but it would not, in that way, be the expression of His love. His giving His only-begotten Son is the witness of His love. No one who was not all He is said to be in these verses could be the expression of God.
Ques What is the difference between “the beginning” here and in the epistle?
FER “From the beginning” in the epistle is “from the outset”. You remember it says, “The devil sinneth from the beginning” — that is, from the outset of sin. It is the beginning of the thing spoken of to which the writer refers. In the epistle John is speaking of Christianity, and so he speaks of what was from the outset of that. Christ was the beginning of Christianity from John’s point of view — all that preceded that was completely ignored. It is peculiar to John.
Ques I suppose that Christianity does not properly begin until resurrection and ascension?
FER It is one feature of John’s gospel that he speaks of what Christ brings in — he carries you back, even in the epistle, to what, in a certain sense, was from the very beginning of Christ. It connects itself with the peculiar line of John’s testimony — it presents Christ coming in after a completely new order.
Rem The “corn of wheat” which fell into the ground and died, that it might not abide alone.
FER Yes; it is all after that kind.
Rem John speaks of Christ because failure had come in.
FER Yes. The church may fail, but Christ can never fail. It is a great point that there is no failure about Christ, and all this was written when everything was broken down. It is supposed to be the last book written in the New Testament. John is altogether different from every other gospel. What I mean is this — he brings to light what is in the Godhead. No other gospel does that.
Ques I suppose you would say there is abundant proof in the others of His being God’s Son come down here?
FER Oh, yes. But there is no other gospel which takes quite the ground of His being the Son here to reveal the Father — that is not the line which they pursue. Matthew, for instance, presents Him as men knew Him here on earth, but John gives you what lies behind — the relationships of divine persons — if I might say so, the inner life of the Godhead. You do not get that developed in any other gospel. Then, in the latter part of this gospel, you get the coming of the Holy Spirit; it is the truth as to the Godhead which is brought out in John, which is totally different, in that way, from any other gospel.
Ques What do you understand by the “Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father”?
FER The Father is the source of all — the source of divine counsels, but then the Son comes to carry those counsels into effect. The Son and the Spirit both come forth from the Father in that way. The Holy Spirit came on that line, in connection with the counsels of the Father. Then, too, you find that the [p. 4] Son is the centre of those counsels; the Spirit is the bond, if I may so speak, between the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son are one in the unity of the Spirit.
Ques The Spirit is a distinct Person in the Godhead?
FER Yes, of course. It is in the same way that the Spirit is the bond that binds all Christians together. The Father and the Son are One, but they must be One in the unity of the Spirit — you cannot leave the Spirit out — it is the Spirit of the Father, but then He is spoken of too as the Spirit of Christ.
Ques Do you take “The Word” to be that which expresses God?
FER Yes. It is that in which God is expressed — you get all the heart of God coming out. A prophet could not make known to you the heart of God; he might make known a great deal about God, but there could be no testimony like the testimony of a divine Person. The Lord said, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen”. A prophet very often did not know at all what he was speaking about. Christ was altogether what He said He was. In Him there was One down here in this world who could tell you what was in the heart of God. It is most wonderful.
If you want to get all about the divine nature, and love, you have to go to John for it. He presents to you the One in whom it was all manifested. No one but Himself was equal to the manifestation of it. I do not see how you could have love presented except in a Person. You could not get at the reality of it except in a Person. Think of a Man being here — there was a Man here — the exact expression of God, and who knew all that was in the heart of God. What a moment for earth!
Then you get, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (verse 4). All things came into [p. 5] existence by Him, and in Him was life. I think “life”, as here, involves the power to quicken, it is a divine Person who could make others alive. You could not speak of life being in a creature, because he is simply made alive by an act of power. You are quickened, but it can only be said of a divine Person that life was “in him”. “The life was the light of men”. “He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”. When man saw this “life”, he really saw what the life of God was, that is, love; love is properly the life of God. I have no doubt that Christ was as strange to man as man was strange to Him. If you could conceive such a thing, I really think that the Lord must have been surprised at the motives which actuated man — the way he sets to work to gratify himself, and to make himself happy here. It must all have been so strange in His sight to see man pursuing happiness, as he thought, and yet to know that it was not that, but just the opposite. We too ought to learn to look at things morally, and not as they appear. It must have been a strange path for the Lord through this world; things must have looked strange to Him here, and I have no doubt He appeared equally strange to them. The Christian ought to be as strange to the world as Christ was. You get the principle in the verse, “The spiritual man discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man”.
Rem Selfishness cannot understand love, and love cannot understand selfishness.
FER Still, the life was the light of men; it came into the world as the light of men, although, I quite own, it needed a work of God for them to receive the light, but the life was the light.
Ques How does this verse fit in with what we have in John 5: 26, “As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself”?
FER You get what is proper to divine Persons [p. 6] spoken of here, but in John 5 it is developing what was between the Father and Himself as a Man down here — that which He takes up as “given” to Him, all that was His as Man. When you look at that Person abstractly, He has life in Himself; but in the other case, viewed as in His ministry here on earth, He received it from the Father.
Ques The “last Adam, a life-giving Spirit”?
FER Well, He became that — He was made that. Until resurrection He could not give life to men. It was in resurrection that He is spoken of as the “last Adam”. He cannot be a “life-giving Spirit” until resurrection, until the judgment of God had been met. As a matter of fact, in John 5 He is speaking of Himself all through as the “last Adam”, but the “last Adam” is the Son of God.
I think the idea in verse 4 is that there was no other light for man — He was the only light for man. “The life was the light of men”. There is no record of any quickening here. “The darkness comprehended it not”; it was impenetrable darkness, even as regards divine light. Man was not capable of taking in the light, it just proved his perfect incapability. It is like those wonderful rays we hear of now, that can penetrate solid bodies. They can penetrate to the bone, but they cannot make alive. They can discover the bit of dead bone, if it is there, but they cannot make it alive. They leave the dead bone just what it was before.
Rem It brings the two things very markedly together — life and light.
FER It is as plain to me as daylight, because, as far as man is concerned, he cannot live if God does not reveal Himself. The fact of man’s living depends on God revealing Himself. Life must depend upon light.
I do not suppose Adam wanted much in the way of “light”. He, as far as I can understand his experience,
[p. 7] knew God in everything — every created thing was to him an evidence of the goodness and beneficence of God, and before he fell, I suppose he was filled with gratitude and thankfulness. He could have known nothing about the righteousness of God, or the holiness, or love, of God, although everything witnessed to the goodness of God. It was in that that Adam lived. Now we, in God’s ways, know a very great deal about God; we know His righteousness and His holiness and His love. All these things have come out to us now as “light”, and in that light we live. “The Son of God has come ... that we should know him that is true”.
Rem And in that way He undoes the work of the devil.
FER Yes. You want light to enlighten you, but how are you going to live, or where? God begins a work in you, but that is not life in the true sense of it. There must be a work of God in you, but living is quite a different idea in Scripture. We commonly speak of a man having “life”, but life really is living in certain relationships — that is really begun when the heart has appreciated the light of God. There is, of course, a starting-point, and that is when God is known. When there is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we arrive at the starting-point of life. What makes me say that is this — “The letter kills, but the Spirit quickens”, 2 Corinthians 3: 6. Then a little later in the chapter you have, “Now the Lord is the Spirit”. When your soul apprehends the Lord in resurrection, you have got hold of the quickening Spirit.
Rem That is, across the Red Sea.
FER Yes, exactly, that is just it. Now, until that point is reached, there is no deliverance from the judgment of death; but when you come across the Red Sea, and apprehend the Lord risen, you apprehend life — “the Spirit makes alive”. You know the life of God — you get an insight into life.
[p. 8] Ques Is that the beginning of light as well as life?
FER Not exactly. The first light that comes in is as to the blood; a person gets a sense of divine righteousness, and of being under judgment; but if you are going to live to God, you must get outside the flesh. You are landed outside the flesh when you apprehend the Lord Jesus Christ as outside the flesh. Your faith has taken you outside the range of flesh. The cleverest man cannot enter into the idea of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is impossible — naturally man cannot go beyond the flesh.
As a matter of fact, people do not know what faith is. They give you an illustration of it, a story something like this: “You have heard there is such a place as, say, Canton. You have received it upon trustworthy authority, and you believe it. Well, that is faith”. And people want you to believe that that is faith. There is not a bit of faith in it! Why, I could go and verify that statement to-morrow if I had ways and means. Now, the thing is, faith is what you cannot verify, but you take it upon the testimony of God. Before God comes out in a public way, I accept His testimony, and that is the link between my soul and God. “The just shall live by faith”. “Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen”. The heart is interested in that scene — it is with the heart you believe. How do you know that God raised Christ from the dead? You say you are sure of it, you know it upon God’s testimony — it is God’s testimony that enables you to know Him risen from the dead. I do not think that, even with the disciples, it was simply upon the testimony of their eyesight that they believed in the resurrection. I believe they accepted the testimony of God’s word — the testimony of the scripture. Man has to learn to accept God’s testimony. How could you be happy through eternity if you could not trust God’s word? That is a very much greater thing that just believing the historical facts.
[p. 9] I feel sure that the resurrection is the true test of faith. The human mind can take in death in a certain way — it is familiar with that — but it cannot take in resurrection. God had before Him in the cross a true demonstration of man’s state and place, and that is why the apostle pressed so much the testimony of the cross; but you cannot believe in the cross unless you believe in the resurrection. The resurrection is the great proof that the One who died on that cross was the Son of God.
You see, if there is to be universal blessing, God must come in and establish a link between man’s soul and Himself. To introduce blessings into this world, to heal ills, and all that sort of thing, would not be sufficient. He must have a link established between Himself and the heart of man. What is to accomplish this? Why, nothing but His word — making Himself known, and getting a place in the heart of man.
Ques Would not that produce repentance?
FER In one sense it would — “The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance”. The principle was the same with Israel: “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart”. The word is the link between them and God. It was the same with Abraham — “he believed God”. If God sends light into the world, man’s heart is tested by it — the gospel comes in, a great testing process, in order to bring to light the elect of God. It is like the woman in the parable that lighted the candle in order to find the lost piece of silver. It is the light of God testing every man. Some reject and some receive, but the great purpose of the gospel is to bring to light the elect of God.
Returning to the chapter, it is noticeable that you do not get any sort of detail here, either in regard to the Lord or to John the Baptist. John is simply introduced as “a man sent from God”. We have nothing of the connection between him and what [p. 10] preceded. Luke presents this — in Luke we get his parentage and all the details of his birth, but in the gospel of John everything is viewed quite abstractly. He says, “There was a man sent from God.... He came for witness”, a testimony. So, too, in speaking of the Lord, he introduces Him abruptly, simply as “The Word”.
Ques I suppose that in Matthew, where you get John preaching the kingdom, it was what a Jew would naturally expect?
FER Quite so. But here he comes to bear witness to something which was entirely fresh. He comes to “witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him”. That was the bearing of his testimony.
Ques It is not, of course, that men coming into the world were enlightened?
FER Oh, no; it, that is, the true Light, “coming into the world, lightens every man”. There was the complete exposure of man, the light made manifest every man, it found man out. Not only did it reveal God to them, but He was revealed really according to the truth of man’s condition. The Light came in revealing God, but, at the same time, exposing man. Men did not know their need of forgiveness any more than they do now. What they really needed was something deeper, even new birth. What people prefer is to be told what they ought to do, provided, of course, it is not too irksome; but the Light coming in exposed man’s state. It was so in John 8, but those who were exposed took care to get out of the Light — they all went out.
It is a revelation of God to man, suited to his state. If God were revealed in judgment, it would not be light; there would have been no light for the woman in John 8 if God had come out in the way of legislation. It is what God is in relation to man, in suitability to [p. 11] man. Nothing is more important than to see the way in which men were exposed in the presence of Christ. If the Lord comes in in the way of forgiveness, then it proves that man needs forgiveness. If He comes in to raise man from the dead, then it proves this much — that man is under death. If He heals man of leprosy, well, man is morally leprous. The Light coming into the world really proved what the state of man was, and it proved him to be in darkness. “The light appears in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not”.
The Lord never did anything but what was really necessary for the relief of man. I do not think there was any superfluity in that way; the secret of all that He did was to make God known, but it was all in relation to the necessity of man. For instance, He would not call fire down from heaven, neither would He command the stones to become bread. Such things were not called forth by the condition of man. There may be, no doubt, an occasional exception, such as the cursing of the fig tree, but that is quite understandable. There was a necessity for the fig tree to be removed out of the way.
There is nothing more wonderful than the way of the Lord down here in the world. There is one verse which expresses it exactly — “He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him”. It is all summed up in that verse.
Ques Does “light” carry the thought of blessing as well as exposure?
FER “Light” is the revelation of God, and that, of course, is blessing. If the light comes out, God reveals Himself according to man’s need. It is not a legislator that man wants, but One who can make Himself known, as God has done, according to the truth of man’s condition; and the fact is that man, on his side, has to accept the exposure. The very [p. 12] fact of its being light must needs expose you. God does not accommodate Himself to man’s condition — He exposes it, and if man accepts that, he gets blessed; but if, on the other hand, he refuses the light, it proves that he does not accept the exposure.
Ques You would say that light was a necessity for man’s blessing?
FER How else is man to know God? I cannot conceive how a man is to be made acquainted with God if He does not make Himself known, and that is light. If there had never been light, we should be just like the poor degraded people of Central Africa or India — shut up in darkness. It is pretty certain that the moral atmosphere of Greece or Rome was not much better than that of Africa or India.
Ques What was the necessity for a witness to the light?
FER When God comes in with a testimony to man, He takes care to bring it within the cognisance of man. He orders it so that it may be within man’s cognisance, and in that way He does accommodate Himself to man. John came and pointed to the Christ, so that He should be, in that way, brought effectively within the knowledge of man. It increased man’s responsibility, but it is the divine way. God takes good care that if He addressed a testimony to man, it should be within man’s full cognisance. That is the force of the expression in verse 31, “That he might be manifested to Israel, therefore have I come baptising with water”. People have not, I am sure, apprehended the force of it.
It would be a very interesting study, especially in this gospel of John, to trace in what way people were exposed by the light. There were very many cases in which people were brought into the light, and exposed by it. Take Nicodemus, for instance, he was brought into, and exposed by, the light, and virtually it put him into the same position as the woman at Sychar’s [p. 13] well. Man would not have thought of their equality, but, as a matter of fact, directly they get into the presence of the Lord, they are both found to be in the same boat. Nicodemus could no more understand the kingdom of God than the woman. The woman, really, was quicker to take in the light than Nicodemus was — “Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” You might take up everybody you find in John’s gospel — Nathanael, Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the blind man, and the rest — they are a curious company, but you could put them into the same boat.
Ques They come out in different colours, I suppose?
FER No, I do not think so — they are all of one colour. They are totally unable to apprehend the kingdom of God. Nathanael — perhaps the best of them all — said, in answer to Philip’s testimony, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” This was right, so far as it went, for “good” can only come out of heaven, but the thought in Nathanael’s mind was merely contrasting Nazareth — outside the pale, as he thought, of religious privilege — with Jerusalem, which, according to his reckoning, was the centre of everything for God here upon the earth. It only proved what man’s state really was.
In regard to the gospel of John generally, it does not deal with the question of man’s responsibility, but almost exclusively with man’s state and the way it is met. No doubt that is why the question of new birth is brought in. It is John alone who gives us the truth as to the new birth, just because he takes up the question of state. You see, the Lord does not say to a poor Gentile, “Ye must be born again”, neither does He say it to an ignorant Jew, but it is to a teacher of Israel. If a teacher of Israel needed to be born again, then most assuredly it is a necessity for a poor Gentile. If a man of the very best type needs it, then [p. 14] certainly it must be a necessity for one of the very worst. The light “coming into the world, sheds its light upon every man”. Coming into the world, every man is exposed by it.
It is a great thing to apprehend how thoroughly God does His work. All has come out, the whole state of man has been completely exposed. See how man exposes himself in this gospel with regard to Christ! We get the effect of the light coming in, it just proves man’s utter incapability to receive it, and his insensibility to what is good. Man was completely out of touch with God. What an awful thing! God created the world, and then He came into the world, and man does not know Him! “He came to his own, and his own received him not”. It is exactly the same, in principle, in the world as it is today. It is a very terrible testimony to come out in a couple of verses, “His own” refers, of course, to the Jews, and “the world” to everybody.
“As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God” (verse 12), refers to what was the effect of the light being here; it is a summary, an epitome. These verses give you, in a short and concise way, the effect of its being here. “As many as received him” received him as the Light of the world, I think. Now we receive the testimony of God, but not quite in the same sense. We believe in the Son of God on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but in the gospel it is more that they believed on Him as the Light of the world. We believe in Christ at the right hand of God, and not as the Light of the world here. We believe that the Son of God has come. The rejection of Christ by the world has changed the whole position of everything. If there is to be anything of blessing for man now, it must be outside of this world — it cannot be in connection with the world which has rejected Christ. The testimony of God addresses itself to every one in the world, but really [p. 15] with a view to taking them out of the world. You get a figure of it in baptism.
There are a vast number of things which God owned, in a certain way, but which now He can no longer recognise. God owned the flesh, for instance, to a large extent until Christ was rejected, and worldly motives, and that sort of thing, but He cannot sanction anything of that sort now. Even in what you get in these words, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God”, He gave them a place outside this world; they belonged to God, and not to the world. It was not a natural place for them at all, but He gave them the title to take it.
Ques Is not that what the blind man got in chapter 9?
FER Yes. As has been often said, in chapter 8 they refuse His word, and in chapter 9 they would not have His work. They try to stone Him in chapter 8, and in chapter 9 they cast out the blind man, and it is then that God meets him.
Ques “Power” has the sense of “authority”, has it not?
FER Yes — title, or authority. I think it refers to chapter 20, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. It was the declaration of the Father’s name, as the title of relationship; it was then that He gave them title to become the children of God when redemption was accomplished. While He was with them, they had no authority to take the place of children — He gave it to them in the declaration of the Father’s name. A child of God does not belong to the first man, and until the first man was ended he could not be put into that place. If otherwise, it would have involved putting something on to the first man, which was an impossibility.
The point is to see that everything depends upon Christ’s taking up the place of “last Adam” in [p. 16] subsisting righteousness. He is the living Head, and under Him all will come out according to God. When He took that place before God in subsisting righteousness, it was then that God was completely glorified. He had the Man before Him. But then another thing comes out, the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. It was true there was only one Man before God, but then that One was a life-giving Spirit. He could quicken, and so you may have any number of men there. That is the meaning of what the Lord did in John 20. He was “last Adam”, and He breathed on them and said, “Receive ye Holy Spirit”. The first man dragged his posterity down with him under death, and he had no power to quicken; but Christ is a life-giving Spirit.
Ques He is that as a divine Person?
FER Yes; and that is a point of the very last moment; He could not quicken unless He was a divine Person.
Ques What do you mean by “subsisting righteousness”?
FER It is that there is nothing left to be effected — not like the high priest who had to go in year by year with the blood of others. This is not the case with Christ, who accomplished eternal redemption. The question of sin can never be raised again, because in Him there is subsisting righteousness, the value of which can in no wise be diminished. He is the Head in subsisting righteousness; the old thing is gone, and the righteousness of God is met, and He is the Witness to it. But then He takes up the position of last Adam, a life-giving Spirit, the Head of every man, and He takes up that place in subsisting righteousness, it is eternally established. “He was delivered for our offences”, but then He was also “raised again for our justification”. The question of sin is settled, because the question of righteousness is settled. Christ is our righteousness. It is not simply that we are [p. 17] purged. We are that, but more than that, we are before God in Christ our righteousness. “He has obtained eternal redemption for us”. The great point, to my mind, is that, in that position, He is a life-giving Spirit. It is only a question now as to whom He will give it, and all is done in perfect accordance with the Father. It is to whom the Father wills, but the One who did the work is the One who also has the right to quicken. It is, “as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”, and “as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will”.
All this shows how perfect the recovery has been. The first man dragged his posterity through the mire, but when Christ quickens, it is after His own order. It is not in the order that failed, but it is a new Man. I believe that nothing has been more prejudicial than the talk about “nature”. It is a new man — a man after a new order, with a whole system of affections suited to him.
What is Christ’s mother to Him now? A saint, of course, but all that she was to Him has gone. Mary Magdalene is just as much to Him as His mother. That shows at once the difference between what ends and what subsists. Many seem incapable of taking in the thought of the new order, but, for all that, there is no trace of the old line left. He confided His mother to John — that line is closed. At the same time, when He comes in resurrection, you do not find His affection for His disciples one whit abated. His affection for Mary Magdalene was just the same. All the natural is gone, but all that is divine remains, and will last for ever. You hear nothing about His natural kindred after His resurrection.
Ques These things are not yet in actuality?
FER We are formed in them in the divine nature. It seems to me like a dissolving view — another [p. 18] view is coming on the sheet while the old is passing off. The day will come when the old will be completely gone, and there will be nothing seen but the new.
Rem At present there is a mixed condition of things.
FER The new is obscured by the old, but no doubt Scripture is right, which indicates that as long as you are in the scene of God’s institutions, you are not to make light of them. As a man down here I have my part in them. In the Christian circle, as in Christ, there is neither male nor female; neither is there Jew nor Greek, and I come out of my natural relationships for the time. There is a new system and framework of affections, the start and power of which lie in the divine nature. We are “born of God”, not by the will of man, or of the flesh, but of God. It is the divine nature. “Born of God” carries the thought of being partakers of His nature; “born again” is by the Spirit, it is of that character. “Born of God” is what is properly descriptive of the Christian. You could hardly consider a cry of helplessness as properly Christian.
The fact of a man having “blue blood” in his veins does not avail much in divine things, for you are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. It might give a certain amount of refinement and that sort of thing, although it is often the case that the highest born are the most worldly and offensive.
Ques Why does it say, “To them gave he the right to be children of God” if they did not reach it until John 20?
FER Well, it is only the statement of the fact, it is not historic. Those who received Him were “born ... of God”.
What we see here in connection with John the Baptist is that he takes no place, he disclaims being the Christ, or Elias, or “that prophet”, but speaks of himself merely as a “voice”. He was no more than a voice. “I baptise with water”, but the Christ was preferred before him, for He was before him. You can scarcely take a less place than that of being but a “voice”.
Ques What would you say was the idea in their minds in asking him whether he was the prophet, or Elias?
FER They thought he was making himself a rallying-point. Baptism was the end of an old order, and they thought he was making himself the rallying-point for the new departure. If he was neither the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, he was scarcely entitled to take up such a position.
Ques Baptism would mean the ending of the old state?
FER Yes; and then you must have some kind of rallying-point.
Ques What is the distinctive character of John’s testimony, would you say?
FER Well, his testimony here is negative. He himself is nothing — merely a voice. He was making straight the paths of the Lord. When they asked him who he was, he “confessed and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ”. It just confirms what was said before, “There was a man sent from God” who was not the light, but was sent to bear witness concerning the light.
Ques Did he baptise them to the One who was coming?
FER Yes. His baptism was in view of the coming Messiah. John baptised to One who was coming, and the disciples to One who was actually present, but both had the same moral force.
Ques. Repentance?
FER Yes. The principle which comes out in baptism is dissociation, cleansing. You are cleansed [p. 20] from associations in which you have been before. “Save yourselves from this untoward generation”. Then they were baptised to answer to that. It appears to me that it is what God claims down here. There is no virtue in it — nothing communicated in it — but it has its value as cleansing. “The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth also now save us”. Then, too, “Arise ... and wash away thy sins”. I think the force of “Save yourselves” is — cleanse yourselves from them.
Rem Cut your connection.
FER Just so. Now suppose a Jew or a Jewess in the present day were to be baptised, that would mean a very great deal to them. In all probability it would expose them to bitter persecution. They would be despised by all their relatives. What is involved in baptism is dissociation — and it includes even dissociation from oneself. John refuses all place, and even name. He was a “voice” and nothing more. The Lord speaks of him as the greatest of the prophets, but he himself takes the simple place in which Scripture puts him, that is, “to bear witness of the light”. If he had not taken that place, he would have nullified his mission, he would himself have become a gathering-point. He testifies to the Lord in new characters and aspects — “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him”, he testifies to that, and then he says, “This is the Son of God”. He first of all introduces Him as the Lamb of God, and adds, “This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me”. It is not that John is speaking from any knowledge that he might have had of Christ naturally, but as any true Jew might have had knowledge of Him. All through the passage He is spoken of as entirely outside the natural thoughts of men — of the Jew. He comes to “take away the sin of the world” — not of the Jew simply, but of the world. Then, too, He baptises with the Holy Spirit, and He [p. 21] who does that is the Son of God. It is a great expression that — He “takes away the sin of the world”. I think the first part of the expression — “Behold the Lamb of God” — is sacrificial, but “takes away the sin of the world” is not so, as I understand it. Of course, had there been no sacrifice, the gravity of sin would not have been known, and on the other hand, if the sin of the world had been taken away without sacrifice, it would have looked as if God condoned the sin; but He takes away the sin of the world really by revealing God. If He brings God into the world, it must take away the sin of the world — the very fact of God coming in breaks the whole thing down. Sin all depends upon God not being there. The existence of sin depends upon that, but if God comes in, then sin cannot be there. That is true of ourselves individually — sin is really taken away by God being revealed to us. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested”. The manifestation of God, the light of God, coming into the soul of a man, takes sin away practically. And so it is in that way that the light of God coming into the world takes away the sin of the world. But all this would not have been possible except for the sacrifice — hence the immense importance of the first part of the expression.
Ques Is it an equivalent thought to what we have in the end of Hebrews 9?
FER Yes. He has been manifested for the setting aside of sin.
Rem But even there it goes far beyond the instrumental act. When He is manifested to any one it is then, and not till then, that the power of sin is broken, and the same thing will be true when He comes again.
Rem “When it pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me”.
FER Yes. It was that which broke the power of sin in Paul; sin was set aside; it is the manifestation of Christ that sets sin aside. The dealing with [p. 22] sin sacrificially is one thing, and the setting aside of the principle is another; the one depends upon the other, but they are two distinct things.
Rem Then really a deepening acquaintance with Christ is the true way of deliverance?
FER Yes, I think so. He brings in what is completely and morally of God — He baptises with the Holy Spirit. I think there are two things involved in that, first, the complete setting aside of sin in the universe, and then, with that, it is that “God may be all in all”.
“Lamb of God” is not simply a title in which He stands in regard to Israel, but it is more general. When you come to Revelation, you get the thought more in connection with the world. The Lamb is “in the midst of the throne”, and all that is in connection with the world. Then, too, the baptising with the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Jew. The promise is, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh”. Then the “Son of God” has authority over the nations — it is a title which has universal application.
Ques Would you say that it is right for us to worship Him under the title of “Lamb of God”?
FER Well, you find the whole company in heaven worshipping the Lamb — you have that fact to face. In the presence of that, it is very difficult to say we must not do homage to the Lamb. I do not think it is what is peculiar to the church — the other heavenly saints are there; but what I should rather object to is the idea of excluding the worship of the Lamb. I cannot think that what we shall do in heaven can be very wrong upon earth. There may be something higher and nearer, but I should not like to call that wrong for us, when the whole twenty-four elders — the whole priestly company in heaven — are engaged in it.
Ques “He was before me” — is that pre-existence?
FER It is, I think, pre-eminence. It is His pre-eminence [p. 23] as a divine Person. What marked Him out to John the Baptist was the fact of the Spirit descending and remaining on Him. It was not merely the announcement that the Spirit should descend upon Him — the thought of the Spirit of God coming upon a man was a familiar one — but it was that He should “abide” upon Him. John knew Him as the One who Himself should baptise with the Holy Spirit. You can scarcely have a more distinct testimony to the greatness of Christ than that He should baptise with the Holy Spirit. For that, a divine Person was needed.
Ques Does it involve death and resurrection?
FER Well, yes. It is He who gives the Holy Spirit — He sends Him, and for that He must be more than a mere man. No man can receive the Holy Spirit and send Him. The Holy Spirit takes the place of being “sent”. He is content to take that place, and it is Christ who sends Him.
Rem John repeats twice over, “I knew him not” (verses 31, 33).
FER Well, it is emphatic. I think it is the refusal on his part to acknowledge any natural knowledge of the Lord, from the fact of their being cousins, or anything of that sort. I think there is one principle which pervades the whole of the gospel — that all was completely outside the flesh. It is an emphatic “I” — it means “myself” personally. If you look at John naturally, he was a distinguished kind of man. His father and mother were both godly people, too. He was connected with the Lord by the ties of kindred, but, for the knowledge of God, all did not avail him. It appears to me he disclaims anything which might not have been true to any true Israelite.
Ques Is it like 2 Corinthians 5 at all?
FER I think that passage looks at Christ as having passed out of the condition in which He had been. Those who were godly would have known Him [p. 24] after the flesh, and that is how He was revealed to John the Baptist.
Ques Would it include the intimacy in which John knew Him after the flesh?
FER Yes, I think so; and the disciples knew Him after the flesh — He came in that order. But now even the Christ is no longer known in that order; what comes out now is “If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation”. But there was the manifestation of Christ after the flesh — “God was in Christ”. It conveys to me the great importance of maintaining the unchangeability of the Person. The One who came after the flesh is the same One we know now as raised from the dead. The apostle Paul knew the very same Christ that Peter and John had known — though Paul knew Him in resurrection.
Ques What about the Spirit descending in the “form of a dove”? Somebody has said that it is in contrast to the “tongues of fire”.
FER You see, the presence of the Spirit in us really involves self-judgment, but it was not in that way that He came upon Christ. Fire speaks of God’s testing. I think that in early days they were not long in losing the moral effect or sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit. They wanted licence for the flesh, and the sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit soon died out. “They all slumbered and slept”.
Ques And then, I suppose, setting up a human ministry was a further result of that?
FER Yes, I think so. I do not believe that any of us have any idea of what the church was at the very beginning. We cannot conceive for a moment what the power was when the Spirit was free, nor have we any idea of the holiness which the Spirit maintained. To set up anything again seems to me so presumptuous; it means that we think we can do better than any of those who have gone before us were able to do. The thing has failed once, and the probability is that [p. 25] it would fail again, and, for my part, I do not want to be involved in any second failure. The presence of the Spirit must always demand self-judgment. If God is there, flesh must go. The Spirit will not tolerate the flesh.
Ques That is the idea, is it not, in “The Spirit against the flesh”?
FER Yes. Neither one will tolerate the other. Now there was no need of self-judgment in Christ. The Spirit comes upon Him in the form of a dove, and it remains upon Him. It is a kind of figure — the Spirit descending in that way — to bring within the cognisance of men what God thought of His beloved Son. God took that way to do it.
Rem In the sovereignty of His grace, would you say?
FER Well, the gospel of John is not so much characterised by the sovereignty of grace as by the sovereignty of love. God claims to be sovereign in love, but I think the grace of God is toward all men.
Ques What about John 3: 16?
FER That is His nature, in a certain sense, but even there, there is the element of purpose in it. God “gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.
Ques But is not that verse often used to prove God’s nature — One who cannot judge, and all that sort of thing, because He is love?
FER Yes. But then the love of God has come into the world in order to lead out of the world. Goodness comes to them to lead them out of prison. Man is shut up in prison, and God has opened a door out of it, but if people do not care to avail themselves of the door of escape out of the world, they come under the wrath.
Rem “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us”. What [p. 26] is that?
FER Well, that is the greatness of the love, the style and character of it. It is the love of a Father to His children. We are in that place to God so that “we should be called children of God”. If you are to be in the enjoyment of eternal life, it involves leaving the world, that is certain. What person in his senses could say he has eternal life in this world? If you are to find eternal life, you must find it outside this world. The love of God opens a door out of this world, and you really leave this world in spirit, and enter into relationship with God outside of it. I am a child of God, and an object of His love, although in the world everything may be against me, and I may have to meet the power of Satan and the persecution of men. In the millennium, it will not be a question of leaving the world, for God will have come into the world, but today we have to find God outside of the world. Christ has been into this world to draw our hearts out of it — He is outside it, and God is outside it. If the Father draws to the Son, it must be to where the Son is.
John the Baptist puts great prominence to the thought of Christ being the “Lamb of God”. It seems to be his one thought in regard of Christ. The latter part of the chapter takes in the three titles or glories of Christ — Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of man — but John seems to keep to the way in which Christ had been made known to him. This was his apprehension of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Everything had to begin with death, with sacrifice. The term could have no meaning save as viewed sacrificially, and He was God’s Lamb, God’s providing.
Verse 37 shows the immediate and proper effect of all true ministry and testimony, that is, to put the soul in direct relation with the Lord. Every system — like the popish or high church system — which does not effect this is a false one. John’s testimony put the two disciples in direct relation to Christ. The Lord turned and said, “What seek ye?” They say, “Where dwellest thou?” and the answer is, “Come and see”, and they came and saw where He abode, and remained with Him that day. It is all very beautiful. It is an immense thing for the soul to get where the Lord abides. We never thoroughly know a person until we see where he abides, and his surroundings. By a merely casual visit we do not know a person.
“Our hearts resort to where Thou liv’st
In heaven’s unclouded rays”. (25:2)
Heaven is His abiding place — while He visits this world in the assembly, amongst His own.
It is a great question for each of us, Do we know where He abides? The words are really typical — they indicate a question which has to be raised and answered in everyone’s spiritual history. In the latter part of the gospel we find out how He reaches the place where He abides.
“Abide” is one of the great characteristic words of the gospel of John. It is translated “continue”, “dwell”, and “remain”. “Many abodes” is from the same word. When the Lord said, “Come and see”, you may depend there was not much of the glory of this world to look at. There would not be much in the surroundings to divert them from the Lord Himself. This is true, I believe, with regard to heaven as well as earth.
The fact that they went and saw where He dwelt proved that there was a divine work in them. All the work done in souls, I believe, is done by God. Ministry may supply a need which God has created, but God really effects everything in souls from beginning to end. God uses men to enlighten others, but communicating light is not work. Work is that which is ministered affecting a man, and that belongs to God. It is a great mistake to confound between the light which a servant may bring and the work of God.
[p. 28] You get the light through an instrument, but it is God who makes the light effective. Take the case of the jailer — the work began with God, the exercise produced was of God. Then the apostle speaks the word of the Lord to him, and the word took effect — this latter being the work of God. If it were not so, it would merely be the mind enlightened, but when God works, the truth is made effective in the heart, in the affections, as in the case of Lydia.
Another interesting point which comes out here is seen in the links which are formed — Andrew finds Peter and brings him to Jesus; then Philip finds Nathanael. I do not think Andrew knew much about Jesus, but he had been drawn by John’s testimony, and he felt that Peter had best come to the same Person. So with Philip and Nathanael — they found they had come to the One who was full of divine light.
Peter gets an anticipation of Matthew 16 here. He gets a new name, and that indicates that he was to be conspicuous in the new building — a stone. “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly”. That really confirmed what the Lord gave to him here in John 1. In Peter’s epistle the Lord is spoken of as the “living stone”, and we are living stones — but here it is more the idea of rock. In Matthew 16 Peter is of the Rock. When we come to the church, we come to the point where all testimonies rest. Take the thought of dwelling — God dwelt in the way of testimony when He dwelt in the tabernacle. So it is, too, in the presence of Christ here. God dwelt there, but in testimony, for He was veiled. So in the house of God now, God dwells by the Spirit, that is, in testimony; but, at the same time, you have another building which is growing, there is the actual constructing of that in which every testimony of God rests — we are being formed morally now for what is going to be displayed, that is, the heavenly city, now actually in construction. The present time is the closing time [p. 29] of testimony, and the beginning of that which is for display. What we get in Ephesians 3 is what is going on now in view of display. When the heavenly city comes down it will be no longer testimony, it will be all display. Testimony is the time of faith. None save the men of faith had any benefit from the cloud which rested on the tent of testimony. So, too, when Christ was here, His words and works testified to God being there, but only those who had faith discerned it. In the time of display it will be no question of faith, the nations, as such, will walk in the light of God; it will then be sight, and no longer faith.
There are three great testimonies of God which come out in the Old Testament — blessing, dwelling, and ruling — and all these centre in the heavenly city. I think the Lord looked on to all this display when He said to Peter here, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”, which is, by interpretation, a stone. What is going to be displayed then is what is growing now here. It “groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord”, that is the heavenly city, and men walking in the light of it — the public benefit of all that will be brought to pass in the millennium, although it will not effect any change in man apart from God’s work in him. This is proved by the fact that, when the millennial age is over, men will again come under the power of the devil.
Ques How do the three days come in here?
FER I should take it as, first, Peter’s day, the building; secondly, Nathanael’s day, “An Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile”; and thirdly, the third day as the figure of resurrection which introduces the marriage. Peter is a typical stone, as Nathanael was a typical Israelite according to God — no fraud, no concealment from God. It is more difficult for people to take in what is referred to in the third day, that is, the idea of a scene being on the ground of resurrection. Resurrection itself is more easily understood; but without that being actually mentioned here, we come [p. 30] into the view of a scene established on that ground. Death is dispossessed — “swallowed up in victory”. The judgment of God has been met, and the power of the enemy broken, and when Christ comes in He sets death aside and comes in in the power of resurrection. The practical working of it, in regard to saints, will be in the consciousness of a spiritual life outside and above the natural life. That will be the “good wine”. They will have perfect happiness in the millennium, but it will not be bounded by the millennium. All that is natural will come to an end then, but what is spiritual will remain. In the new earth you will get a completely changed condition of existence. There will be no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but nevertheless earth will never be heaven. They are always kept distinct, although always bound together.