JOHN 13,14
JOHN 13,14
FER This passage indicates a very great change from all that had been connected with the presence of the Lord here. The Lord says, “I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled”, etc. I suppose it was meet that the Lord should experience every form of evil down here, that He should enter into all that man has experience of — or rather that the saint has experience of. It is this which enables the Lord to sympathise with His people down here. There is nothing that they experience that the Lord Himself has not entered into. “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me”. It is this sympathy of the Lord which is needed to uphold His people when they are brought into contact with treachery and desertion.
Rem I suppose everything culminates in this.
FER Yes; I think it is the worst form of evil you can experience.
Ques Do you think Judas’ treachery is prophetic of the man [p. 263] of sin?
FER Well, I think it is prophetic of what Israel will experience in the last days; and here the point is that Christ entered into it, so that He could take up that language, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me”. The Lord knew whom He had chosen, it was not that He was taken unawares.
Ques But at the same time He felt the treachery?
FER Yes; and Judas had a certain appearance and exterior, and the Lord Himself had appointed him — but he was a traitor. Then the Lord adds a very significant word, “From henceforth” — it is an expression that makes me think that there was a great alteration in His position from this point. “From henceforth”. I think it indicates a change; several times you get the expression: “From henceforth ye shall see the heavens opened”, as here it is, “From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass”. I do not think that you can take everybody down here in the world on trust now; you have to watch diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, you cannot take everybody on trust.
Rem There He is guarding them against apostasy.
FER Well, I think so. The Lord changes His attitude in this way. He Himself had chosen Judas, but now He changes His attitude and says, “From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass”.
Ques In what way do you mean He changes His attitude?
FER He exposes now.
Ques Did He not expose before?
FER No; I do not think so. He had taken people before on trust. Judas had been taken on trust in that way.
Ques And He was exposing what was inside now, what was in the circle?
FER Yes; and I think we have to be on our guard, too. We cannot take everybody on trust, it is instruction for us. “From henceforth” is for us.
[p. 264] Rem But He had alluded to Judas before, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
FER Yes; but it becomes much more definite here. “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me” — Judas is completely exposed here by the sop.
Ques What is signified by eating bread?
FER It is an act which expresses fellowship — it implies fellowship.
Rem You have in the chapter, first the supper, then the feet-washing, and then, “Now is the Son of man glorified”, but I do not see quite why He changes His attitude there, I do not see the connection with what follows.
FER I think you get the human side in those first verses, it is more looking at people on the human side.
Rem The first seventeen verses.
FER Well, in what I was speaking of just now. Then you come more to the divine side in verse 32; everything from that point onwards is on that side. Down here, in a kind of way, you cannot take everything as it appears, and I have no doubt that if we were dependent upon the Lord a traitor would be exposed. The Lord would make a traitor known in that sense, if we were more dependent upon Him. You see how, in the early days of the church, traitors “crept in unawares”, but if the saints had been nearer to the Lord I have no doubt the traitor would have been exposed. The only resource is the Lord. We get people into fellowship who turn out regular troublers, but perhaps if we had been more dependent upon the Lord they would have been exposed before ever they came in to trouble us. I think if we were conscious of all that side of things, we should be conscious of how very much we are dependent on the Lord, cast on the Lord. Sometimes we are too ready to get people into fellowship, and it is not very difficult [p. 265] always, but what are they going to be when they are in fellowship? We may be too anxious to get people into fellowship, because they may be anything but a help to us when they are within.
Ques Is the exposure here to others besides John?
FER Well, the Lord is speaking to them all, is He not?
Ques Is it to John in verse 26?
FER Oh, I was thinking of “From henceforth I tell you”, etc. The impression it gives me is this, that you must be prepared for it, that you cannot take everyone on trust. The Lord makes that known to you, and you are cast upon the Lord — and you need to be cast on the Lord down here. You want to watch diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest there be any profane person like Esau.
Ques You mean believers as well as the general world?
FER Oh, quite so. From henceforth He changes His attitude; I mean, He allowed Judas to be with them before, but now He says, “From henceforth I tell you before it come” — speaking of Judas’ treachery.
Ques Is there any moral connection between this and feet-washing?
FER Yes, I think so. The thing is the exposure of the traitor. Later on it says, when Judas has gone out, “Now is the Son of man glorified”. Judas does not come in in the latter part of the chapter.
Ques Is it prophetic, would you think?
FER Well, it indicates the ground that the Lord would take from that time, “From henceforth”. It indicates a change in the course of things, and those who were near Him would soon discover the need of it. Take, for example, the case of Simon Magus, and see how they were guarded in that case; they had perception to refuse him; he would have turned out a traitor if they had [p. 266] let him.
Ques Did baptism let him in at all?
FER Yes; but he was detected then, he did not get the Holy Spirit. I suppose people have very little sense of the great interest which the Lord takes in what is passing down here. I think we have, after all, very poor confidence in our own position. We can talk about our “ground” and all that sort of thing, but virtually people have very little confidence in their own position. One has so little sense of the interest which the Lord takes in things down here; but the interests of the Lord are down here, and if that is the case it must be that the Lord has the keenest interest — attaches the greatest importance to what passes down here.
Ques Do you mean temporal things?
FER No, indeed; I do not think the Lord is occupied about temporal matters, the Father takes that in hand; but I think that the Lord has the keenest interest, if I might use the expression of Him, in all that is connected with His name down here, and in all that is connected with the saints too. And in that way I think the position of brethren is an extremely important one from a moral point of view. I think it is of the last importance.
Ques As guarding what is due to Him?
FER That is it. I think if brethren were characterised by this, that they are in the full light of the testimony of God, that would be a spot of the deepest interest to Christ. And I think, too, that if there were dependence and confidence and all that sort of thing, we should be forewarned of what would otherwise become a source of trial to us.
Rem That is why I mentioned its being prophetic; you would be really acquainted with the mind of God.
FER Yes, I think so. The Lord was speaking just to the little fragment of the disciples, but I think the interest of the Lord must be wherever you have, it may be, but a fragment of people in the light of God’s testimony. It is impossible to get beyond the light of God’s testimony.
Ques What is the force of the last half of verse 19, “that ... ye may believe that I am”?
FER I think that people would be discovered, and the discovery of them would really confirm the word of the Lord; they would confirm His premonition. I think you may be, in a certain sense, shy of a person who is even inside, watching him diligently lest he fail of the grace of God. You might get a profane person, and you must watch him diligently.
Ques If there were progress in the divine nature, there would be no root of bitterness springing up?
FER No, there would not; but it is astonishing how much a man can take in naturally. If he is a profane person, he will treat the word of the Lord as a common thing — that is what I understand by a profane person.
Ques Was not Judas here a root of bitterness?
FER Yes, he was.
Ques And might you not find a root of bitterness even in people you could not unchristianise?
FER Oh, quite so; but a person who fails of the grace of God could hardly be a Christian. So a Christian may, or may not, be a root of bitterness in a certain sense.
Ques It is very strong in allusion to Judas?
FER Yes; he had no grace. Then I think what comes out afterwards confirms the greatness of the interest which the Lord has in things down here. “He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me”. I feel pretty sure of what I said, that, in spite of all the assumption to “right ground” and all that sort of thing, brethren have had exceedingly little sense of their position from a moral point of view. You see, the assumption to “right ground” is after all only relative in regard to other people; it means that if we are on right ground, other people are on wrong ground,
[p. 268] but that is not the way I should look on things at all. We are really in the light of God’s testimony, and the interest of the Lord is there. He has His eyes upon us, and His interest is there. I have no doubt that there may be plenty of Christian people in Popery, but how can the interest of the Lord be there? And it is much the same in the National Church. But here you have a little company really in the light of God’s testimony, and the interest of the Lord must be there. His greatest interest must be there; and that is the importance to my mind of the position of brethren.
Ques Could you perhaps make it a little simpler to us?
FER That is quite simple.
Ques You must know what God’s testimony is?
FER What I understand by God’s testimony is the showing forth of His pleasure in Christ — the expression of His pleasure in regard to man, and I am in the light of that testimony — not only in the light of justification, but risen with Christ — that is His mind. It is to be in the light of His testimony that I am risen with Christ, “through faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead”. And that is the proper position of brethren, not simply that you are justified. They believe in justification in the Church of England, and remain just so many units; but the light of God’s testimony is Christ risen, and the great point is to be in the full light of that testimony. That is God’s mind; you are outside everything by the pleasure of God; you are outside every order of man down here. Now if you could have a company of people in the light of that, depend upon it the deepest interest of Christ would be with them, because they are associated with Him — they are risen with Him. It may be true in God’s mind as to every saint upon earth. God has not two minds about people, but a great many accept it up to the point of justification, but they do not accept His mind about “risen with Christ”. Do you think that is true?
Rem Yes; and that is quite simple now. How could you tell about being “risen together with him” if you were in the Church of England?
Rem For the light of God’s testimony must you not have both Romans and Colossians?
FER No, I do not think so. Because in Romans you have Christ risen — you get it all there. You see, the first step with regard to the believer is appropriated by faith, but with every other step it is only apprehended by faith. It is apprehended by faith, but it is not appropriated so. The first step is you are justified by faith, that 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” — it is put in that way, and you appropriate it by faith. But with every other step you do not appropriate it, though you do apprehend it by faith. I believe appropriation lies in the divine nature; you apprehend things by faith, but you do not appropriate them so.
Ques That is to say, that all faith does for you is, it enables you to apprehend God’s mind?
FER Yes, quite so. You may have the setting forth of God’s pleasure, but the way you appropriate it is by the work of God in you.
Ques But you may have the apprehension of God’s mind by faith?
FER Yes; but I think the apprehension and the appropriation must go together somehow. You really apprehend the thing when you are ready to appropriate it.
Ques And the power of appropriation is affection?
FER Yes; love. If you had a company of people who were really in the full light of God’s testimony down here, let them be as feeble as they may, is it not true that the deepest interest of the Lord would be there? Then you get, “He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me”.
Ques They are to be companions of Christ now?
FER Yes. It is like as if Christ Himself came. “Receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me”. Romans is light, that is the great object of it, it is the light of God’s testimony in which you are to walk down here; and, as a man upon earth, you could never go beyond it. It is impossible that you should be beyond the full light of God’s testimony down here — it is absolutely impossible.
Rem That testimony is complete by the testimony of Christ risen.
Ques And when you come to the Colossians and the Ephesians you are not a man down here?
FER No; because you are quickened together with Him; you must understand this in Scripture, that you are outside yourself.
Ques And God’s testimony as you have it in Timothy is in Christ — God’s pleasure in Christ?
FER Well, quite so. I think the death and resurrection of Christ are both parts of God’s testimony. The death of Christ is the showing forth of what God’s love is; but He shows forth His pleasure in the resurrection of Christ. The death of Christ is the revelation of God, it is the commendation of His love, and His righteousness is seen there, and all that; but the showing forth of His pleasure is in the resurrection.
Ques Everything is involved in the resurrection?
FER Yes; quite so. It is the great divine triumph, or rather the testimony of God’s triumph, though the triumph was really in death. The power was really in death, though in resurrection you have the expression of it. But the power of it really was in death; He “death by dying slew”. Every enemy was silenced by death, and resurrection was the testimony of it.
[p. 271] Ques And glory must follow, because He had no place here as a risen Man?
FER No; I think there is a great opportunity before brethren at the present moment. The only thing is whether they have spiritual energy to avail themselves of it. Nobody else takes the trouble to do so.
Ques What are other people doing?
FER Haggling over one thing or another, but certainly not concerning themselves about the pleasure of God. They know nothing about what it is to be in the light of God’s testimony down here. They may claim to have a certain standing and that kind of rubbish, claiming what is official and formal, and all that, but the real thing is all left — all that is really for the pleasure of God.
Now what follows is that Jesus was “troubled in spirit, and testified ... one of you shall betray me”.
Ques Does that refer to His feelings as a Man?
FER Oh, I think it was a very great deal more than that. “He was troubled in spirit”, that was Himself who was troubled. Every sensibility was distressed. I do not think that anything is much more important than to see that every sensibility in the Lord sprang from what was divine. He had taken the place of man, but every sensibility had its origin in what was divine.
Ques It is not referring to Judas’ action exactly?
FER You find that the Lord always anticipated everything that was troublous; you get that even in regard to the cross. He goes through the trouble before the trouble comes; so here, He goes through the trouble of it before the treachery comes, and when it came He was calm and prepared for it. It was a very strange thing, “one of you shall betray me” — a man who had been three and a half years in the company of the Lord, and who had seen all that the [p. 272] Lord was, and who yet, after all, could have the heart to become a traitor.
Ques Is not the heart of man fully exposed in Judas?
Rem His ruling principle is exposed.
FER Yes. In Peter’s case, he did what he did under pressure, he got himself into a false position, and could not stand the pressure; but with Judas, it was more or less planned and deliberate.
Ques Was it not a special mark of favour on the part of the Lord to give the sop to Judas?
FER Well, it was a very dreadful thing in a way, because it marked him out as a traitor.
Rem Peter loved the Lord, but he was weak.
FER Yes; and I think the Lord can bear with weakness, but with Judas, as you say, it was the ruling principle of his heart that comes out, and the whole thing was more or less deliberate.
Rem So that what little knowledge of Christ he had turned to his ruin.
FER Yes. I think it has been said that Judas had some sort of idea that the Lord would deliver Himself. This is very likely true, but then he did not understand the mind of God.
Rem When Satan had put it into his heart to betray the Lord, then he encouraged it.
FER Yes; it was all moral progress; covetousness was there, and then the conception of the thing comes in, and then Satan enters into him.
Rem If there had been any real knowledge of Christ, he would not have allowed the thing.
FER No; he would not have allowed the thought; but you see he never judged his covetousness, his ruling principle was never broken. I think J.N.D. makes the remark that, dreadful as was the thing that came out, the disciples never doubted the word of the Lord, “One of you shall betray me” — it only became a question who should do it.
[p. 273] Rem Faith is there, there is the mark of the work of God in them.
FER Yes; “after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly”; it is not Judas the Lord addressed then, it is Satan, I take it.
Ques But they understood it to mean Judas?
FER I do not know at all, but the moment Satan entered into him, he was no longer Judas to the Lord, he was Satan. As He says to Peter, you know, “Get thee behind me, Satan”.
Then comes out a remarkable statement — “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him” — and the remainder of the chapter puts the disciples in that light, They were the disciples of Christ if they had love one to another, “as I have loved you”. I think that proves that they were to be the continuation of Him down here, “as I have loved you”.
Rem It is a wonderful circle of glory that you get in these two or three verses.
FER Yes; hitherto it had been a question of the disciples, and Judas and the traitor, and all that sort of thing, but from here onward He looks at things in quite another light. Judas is exposed now, and the Lord looks at things from another standpoint — it is “the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him”.
Ques And He looks at them from that standpoint?
FER Yes; quite so. Everything contributes to the glory of God, and to the working out of His counsels; not a single thing but contributes to the accomplishment of His purposes in all that transpires down here, and to the working out of His glory. “Being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”. You see the Gentiles are brought in, but they do not continue in the goodness of the [p. 274] Lord; and they too are broken off, and the Jew is brought in again.
Rem And when the first man is set aside, the second Man is brought in.
FER Yes; and it is difficult to see how the Lord could bring in the second Man unless the first man had been set aside. That, I think, is the wonderful thing, that really God brings in the second Man where the first man had been, in the very place of the first man — that is in you and in me.
Ques If there had been no sin, could there have been His glory, as we understand it?
FER Well, you know, that is so very hypothetical. It is much more easy to deal with the positive side of revelation. It is a fact beyond all manner of question, that sin has become the occasion of God revealing Himself.
Rem What I was thinking was that the divine nature would have been there, but not perhaps the glory.
FER The glory of God would have been here apart from that, because the glory of God is in the accomplishing of His purposes; His purposes are eternal.
Ques In what way is the Son of man glorified?
FER I think that it was a remarkable thing that the Son of man should, in that way, be entrusted to secure the glory of God. It is remarkable that it should be given to Man, the seed of the woman, to secure His glory; but it is all perfectly simple if you see that the Son of man is the Son of God. If you look at the Lord in that light, under that name, it is a remarkable thing that God should be glorified in man. And He Himself is glorified in its being entrusted to the Son of man to maintain the glory of God.
Rem It was man who called the glory of God in question, and now it is in the Son of man that God [p. 275] is glorified.
FER Yes.
Ques Is not His glory redemption?
FER Yes, I think so. “Now is the Son of man glorified” — it is a wonderful contradiction of the human thought. It was in the cross that every attribute of God was expressed and in a Man; I think it is a point of the last moment to see that the Lord was here in that condition as a Man, and was always true to it; every attribute of God — all that God was — was vindicated and expressed, whatever it was.
Rem Exactly the opposite of what man was at the first?
FER Yes. On the other hand, He emptied Himself. The great point in that passage is that it was not simply the outward act, but there was a corresponding mind there. He made nothing of Himself; there was an act of mind that accompanied what was outward. “I come to do thy will, O God”. There was the corresponding act of mind. In fact, I should suppose the act of mind really preceded the outward act. He came with the full knowledge of all that lay before Him. He accepted it. “I come to do thy will, O God”.
Rem And all those expressions are used of Him, “Thou hast hated iniquity”, etc.
FER Everything that God is going to display has first to come out in the way of testimony. So the throne of God will really be based on “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity”, but then it all had first to come out in testimony in Him. It is in that way the Lord is glorified. I do not think that God would have been glorified in the same way in the mere repression of evil, but lawlessness has been hated and righteousness loved to the glory of God, and all has been maintained in a Man down here. And that is the basis of the throne.
[p. 276] Ques And that has been done in the face of all the opposition?
FER Yes; in the face of all the power of the enemy. The point is that the triumph must be moral.
Ques How do you understand the expression, “God shall also glorify him in himself”?
FER It is the present place of the Son of man; His rights are in abeyance. Nothing is displayed yet, you know.
Ques Does not that connect itself with the next expression, “and shall straightway glorify him”? I always feel that that is a passage I cannot bottom.
FER Well, I do not know that I can either. It was provisional in that sense. He must have glory as the answer to what He was in the place of deepest humiliation. He must have glory; but it is not yet public glory.
Ques How could the Son of man be glorified in God?
FER Well, the only possible clue to it is that He is divine.
Rem Like that passage in chapter 17, “Glorify thou me ... with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”?
FER Quite so. And “if” in Scripture raises the necessary moral consequence. “If God be glorified in him” the necessary moral consequence is, “God shall also glorify him in himself”.
Rem No creature could ask for glory with Him.
FER No; it would be the greatest piece of presumption.
Rem It is in Him as Son of man, but it could not be unless He were the Son of God.
FER The Lord speaks of Himself under an official name or title. He does that very commonly. But many people in this world are spoken of in their official names; you may speak of the Queen, for instance.
[p. 277] Rem Anyone who was less than divine could not have done the work He did.
FER No; I think the bearing of the title “Son of man” is the complete subjugation of all evil.