JOHN 14
Ques The beginning of this chapter is evidently connected with the previous one; but what would you say is the import of the chapter?
FER I think that, in the previous one, the Lord brings before them what they will have to meet in the world, but the object of this chapter is to take them out of the world. As men they would have to meet a great many things in this world, trials, and evil, and all that sort of thing, but the Lord’s object is to take them out of the world. His object is not exactly to give you relief from the things that trouble you; relief may or may not come, but His way is to lead you out of the world. You often find people who become opposed to the light, and the Lord allows them to go on, and often even to a very advanced age; you are surprised at it, for they do not exactly do any good, and yet the Lord leaves them here. You have to meet this and all kinds of things, such as you get in chapter 13, treachery and faithlessness, and so on, but at the same time the Lord knows all about it. He Himself has had to meet it, and the object of this chapter is to take you out of this world; that is, of course, in mind and spirit. You are indoors in this chapter, in with the Lord, and outside the world. The sympathy of the Lord leads you out. He makes you conscious that He has been into the circumstances and everything down here, and He knows all about things down here, but the effect of His sympathy is to carry your hearts out of it, to carry you, in thought and spirit, to where He is. There is no trouble where Christ is, all the trouble is down here. For instance,
[p. 278] if you come to the throne of grace, you come to where there is no trouble at all. Down here you might have to meet a very great deal of trouble.
Rem And contact with the throne of grace would enable you to meet the trouble.
FER Yes. I think so. When you come to the grace of Christ you are out of all the trouble. It is a great thing to know that there is a place to which you can go where there is no trouble. It is not that Christ has come in to modify things here, but the power of Christianity is that it leads you out of all that is here. Power has come in adequate for it, sufficient for it, and then it is that you can come back to the things here in an entirely different spirit.
Ques Is that what you get in chapters 15 and 16?
FER Well, when you come to those chapters, it is not a question of yourself at all, you come out for Christ; there you come to fruit-bearing, and so on, you are entirely for Christ, you have done with yourself.
Rem You could not have done that unless you had had all those questions as to your own need settled?
FER No; but the practical effect of chapter 13 is to fit you for this. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” — that shows you the indispensable necessity for the feet-washing.
Ques I suppose that verse 3, “where I am, there ye may be also” has a present application?
FER Yes; you can be there. Paul speaks of the same thing practically. He speaks of the “exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward”, but when John speaks of it he says, “[p. 279] I will come again, and receive you unto myself”. John presents the Person, Paul the power. “The exceeding greatness of his power” is really exercised to put us there; that is, it is that we might be in the enjoyment of the hope of our calling. John presents things in another light,
“I will come again, and receive you unto myself”.
Ques Is it collective from chapter 13 onward?
FER It is leading on to what is collective, it is with a view to that company. The idea is not that the disciples were so many units, but they had not yet the light of the company. As far as I understand the gospel, everything down to the end of chapter 6 is individual; then in chapters 7 - 12 you get the one flock and the one Shepherd, and the Lord drawing all to Himself, and the idea of the company coming into view; then in the latter part (chapters 14 - 16) you get the company there in testimony.
Rem Even in chapter 13 we have, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”.
FER Yes; the testimony was in the company, and the thought there is not merely love to one another, but to Him in that act.
Rem They had been so in His company that they loved one another?
FER Yes; they bore the impress of Christ. All the truth of God’s testimony resides in the church. You take Christendom, what amount of love do you really see there? And yet Christendom in that way holds the place of “pillar and ground of the truth”. But if the heathen were to look at Christendom, what could they see in it? The light is almost entirely hidden, you can scarcely detect it. Love is a sort of quality which is scarcely to be found; you would have to look very closely and particularly to discover the least bit of it, you would certainly have to use a microscope of very great power to discover it.
Ques Is not feet-washing in view of the company and our being put there?
FER Yes, I think so; and then there is another thing, that company was to be the recipient of the Spirit.
[p. 280] Ques Is not that the ground you would take to put you above things here — the Spirit?
FER Yes; but then I think that even antecedent to that it is very important to know your calling and place as outside this world altogether.
Ques And you get that in the beginning of the chapter?
FER Yes; it is exactly the same in the opening of the Ephesians — it is really to give them the sense that they have a place in heaven; that is the great point in chapter 1, not merely that they should know of the place in heaven, but that there is power to put them into a condition for it. That power is towards them, they have a place in heaven according to the eternal purpose of God; that is what you get in the opening of Ephesians 1 — “who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ”, and then what comes out in the close of the chapter is, the power of God that is toward the saints to put them in a condition for that place — the power that wrought in Christ, raising Him from the dead. You are not yet in the place, but there is the power for you that can put you in a condition for the place.
Ques. And now?
FER Yes flesh and blood cannot inherit, but there is a power shown in raising Christ from the dead which can really put you in that place.
Ques Not yet actually in the condition, but in the place?
FER Yes, spiritually; but you are not actually in the place yet. When you come to chapter 2 it is not the power of God; the power of God is in chapter 1, but I do not see the power of God in chapter 2 — it is His work there. The close of chapter 1 speaks of the “exceeding greatness of his power ... which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead”. Spiritually we are quickened together with Christ — that is all His work, that we are quickened [p. 281] spiritually, that is the effect of His work, not His power. It is His power that raised Christ from the dead and which can beget in you an actual state or condition suited to being in heaven. His power is to put you into the hope of the calling, and into the enjoyment of the inheritance. When He brings to pass a condition suited to heaven, you will come into it in a moment; but the power for that change is towards you, it is the power that wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead — that is the power that is towards the saints.
Ques What about chapter 3?
FER Chapter 3 is that state in which you are able to come out for Him here; it is not a question there of state for heaven, but that you might come out here for Him. The great point in chapter 3 is that you might be “filled to all the fulness of God” — morally representative of God down here.
Ques Would it be the same power as is spoken of in Philippians 3, “the power of his resurrection”?
FER Yes; I think so. The prayer in Ephesians 1 is that you might know it, be conscious of it — I think the word is: “That ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead”. Of course it is perfectly true that it speaks of power in another sense, it is His power that works in you, “to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think”, but in chapter 1 His power is towards us, not in us. In chapter 2 it is what God has effected, you are “quickened together with Christ” — and so, too, in Colossians, it is viewed as effected. I think you have to distinguish between the power of God towards you, and the work of God in you; it confused me a bit once.
[p. 282] Ques It is a power towards you which will eventually put you in all God’s purposes?
FER Yes; you get three things in chapter 1, the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance in the saints, and then the power of God that can put you into it. I think it is more exactly the power that brings about a condition that can put you into it, that is the resurrection condition. It is in chapter 2 that the apostle really speaks of what is effected in them; it is not a question so much there of power, but quickening together with Christ — that is all spiritual, you know.
Ques Can you say a word as to “risen with Christ”, and “raised up together, and made us sit together”?
FER It is Jew and Gentile that are raised up together, it ended all distinction between Jew and Gentile; they are made to sit together in the heavenlies, God has given them a seat there. It is beautiful to me to see the difference between John and Paul; Paul speaks about the exceeding greatness of God’s power, while John presents the Person, “I will come again, and receive you unto myself”.
Rem “We shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”.
FER Yes; it is the Person, “We shall see him as he is”. You cannot do without John; a man who is continually harping on Paul’s teaching would be defective.
Ques Is it that there is more affection in John than in Paul?
FER Well, I would not quite like to say that; John has his own peculiarities.
Ques But he bears more on that side?
FER Yes; I think we have seen, have we not, the defect of a man who is wholly taken up with Paul? What I think is that no one man was capable of being the vessel of all the truth. You do get everything in the Lord, and that is to me the value of the gospels — [p. 283] He was complete, but you could not get all the truth brought out in one man.
Rem And it must be in men who were specially acquainted with the Lord.
FER Yes; and those specially conversant with the Lord’s affections.
Ques Do you not find that usually the young Christian is more attracted to John than to Paul?
FER Yes; but, you know, it is only within the last five or six years that we have been awakened to that, that John’s presentation of eternal life is objective.
Rem And yet the study of John was J.N.D.’s legacy to us.
FER Yes; and J.N.D. himself had stated the same thing almost in the same words; he spoke of “the out-of-the-world, heavenly condition and order of things in which eternal life consists” — it shows where his mind was; and he wrote that twenty-five years before. If it is a condition of being, it is evidently objective.
Rem “Let not your heart be troubled”. I suppose that would be in connection with the troubles of the company?
FER Yes, I think so; it has reference to what had come before them in the previous chapter.
Rem They were not to lose heart.
FER No.
Rem They had reason to distrust their own hearts after what had come out.
FER Yes; it is a most painful thing that you cannot be certain of any heart in the world; the only heart you can be certain about is Christ’s, and, you know, I think it greatly helps you to trust other people if you trust Christ. Just as the apostle said to the Galatians, “I have confidence as to you in the Lord” — you can have confidence in people in that way, but if you trust people just because they are people, you will find them break down some day. I am sure [p. 284] that the disciples must have felt that, with the treachery of Judas, and the weakness of Peter, there was nothing among themselves that was any refuge for them.
Rem Christ was the One on whom the whole structure of God’s purposes rested, and He was to be a stay to their hearts.
Ques Is not that the idea in “Now is the Son of man glorified”?
FER It says in the previous chapter, “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands” — the whole of God’s purposes rested on Him, He came from God and went to God; you must take all that in if you want to understand this chapter. Now supposing that the Lord had not gone on, and been steadfast, supposing He had left His teaching only — like a system of ethics — where would Christianity have been? What could it have been if the Lord had just retired to heaven?
Ques I suppose that in verse 1 He Himself is brought in as an object of faith; they had believed in God, but now there is a Person revealed as an object of faith?
FER Yes; but I do not think it is quite the idea of faith in a Person; a pious Jew might, I suppose, have said he believed in God; but now God was presented in a way personally. Of course there was a kind of personal idea connected with Jehovah, but a Jew will never know Jehovah save in Christ. I do not think you can speak of Christ being seated “on Jehovah’s throne” — it is not quite just. He is seated on the Father’s throne; I should not like to sing it myself.
Rem I have always sung it with reserve. A Jew will only know Jehovah in Christ. But would you not say that whenever Jehovah is spoken of it refers to Christ?
FER Yes, I think so; Jehovah is presented in Christ. If you talk about “The Almighty” that is not exactly a Person; “The Almighty” presents to us God, but all the Trinity is included, in that sense; it is an attribute of the Godhead, but is what it presents to us.
Ques Does not Christ take that title in the Revelation?
FER Yes, He does, “The Almighty”.
Ques You said just now that this chapter takes us outside?
FER Well, the first great thing is to know that you have a place somewhere else. If a man is going to be outside of this world, then he must first get to know that he has a place somewhere else. If a man were pursuing a business in England, but had his family and all his belongings in Canada, my own impression is that that man’s heart would be in Canada. He might remain in England for the sake of his business, but his heart would not be in England if all his belongings were in Canada. I do not know how far we have got hold of a “place”; I do not know how far I have yet done with the earth. “I go to prepare a place for you” — then in Ephesians and Colossians you have got the “hope of his calling” — and that is a place. I feel sure that the “place” needs to assume more prominence with us; I think J.B.S. pressed that. Then, I think, the very fact of having a place there would lead to our refusing a place here.
Rem The Person is not here.
FER No; the teaching in this chapter goes exactly with Ephesians 1.
Rem In spirit, you mean, we have got to the place now?
FER Yes; the very sense of our seat being there, and all our belongings and associations there, would practically deliver us from the idea of a place here. You often see that if you get mercies and all that kind of thing, they are very apt to attach you to [p. 286] the place where they are. Now I think the great point of Christ being in heaven — of a place in heaven — is to attach you to the place where He is, in order to detach you from the place here. All your relations being with the saints, with those who belong to that place, you are in affection out of this place, and you are getting a foretaste of the place that is above; that is the true power of the assembly.
Rem If we had better known Him that is from the beginning, we should be more detached from things here. A man naturally might find the world stripped of its happiness for him, but that would not be sufficient to detach his heart from it, he must have an object outside of it.
FER Yes.
Rem “Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know”.
FER He was not communicating strange things to them, but things with which, in principle, they were perfectly familiar.
Ques Was the way through death?
FER Well, I think it is more that Himself is the way; “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. You will not touch it if you do not understand what is presented to us in Christ — all the testimony that is presented to us in Him. If you do not understand God’s approach to us, you cannot understand our approach to God. That was the great defect with the children of Israel, they were brought into the land of promise, but without the knowledge of God. In the future they will be brought into the land with the new covenant written in their hearts, one term of which is, “They shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest”. They will all be brought into the land with the knowledge of God.
Ques And if we are brought into this place it is with the knowledge of Christ?
FER Yes; He has presented God to us. He had presented to them the Father. “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. You cannot come to the Father except by Him; it is only by Him that we get the knowledge of the Father.
Ques And the Father is distinctly a personal name?
FER Oh, undoubtedly. “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me”; then He goes on to say, “And from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him”.
Ques Why did not the Israelites know God?
FER I think it was because there was no work of God in them; they must have been born again for that — to have the knowledge of God. When they come in again in the future they will have the new covenant written in their hearts, and clean water will be sprinkled over them. They soon became idolatrous the first time.
Ques Do you not think we know more of the work of God for us, than in us?
FER Well, they must have had some kind of remembrance of Egypt, and of their deliverance from it, but that is not the knowledge of God.
Rem You would distinguish between Moses and them?
FER Yes, quite so. They are addressed as the house of Israel in Acts 7, when Stephen says, “Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them”. But I think it is evident in the history of Moses that he knew God. Think of “I beseech thee, show me thy glory” — it is a beautiful expression on the part of Moses.
Ques And does He not show it to him?
FER Yes.
Rem I suppose the sum and substance of all this is that He has gone to the Father, but he that had seen Him had seen the Father also?
[p. 288] FER Yes; everything is bound up there, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” — God has come out. It is like the “new and living way” — you have boldness to enter the holiest. I think that is because God has come out; you could not go in if God had not come out. If the veil had not been rent from top to bottom, you could not go in. For a man to have gone into the holiest of all it would have been death. You could not enter into what was unknown, but only into what is made known. The Lord had brought all to them, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. He brought everything to them in His own Person.
Ques “If it were not so, I would have told you”. What is that?
FER I do not know that I have any other thought about it than this, how completely frank the Lord was to them; He would not conceal anything at all from them. The greatest mark of affection is confidence — do you not think so? I do not think confidence belongs to faith but to affection. You will never confide in a person if you do not love that person. Love begets confidence.
Ques How would you say the affections are formed in this chapter — by the Spirit?
FER Yes, I think so. He says, “at that day”.
Rem And that is the Spirit’s day?
FER Yes. If they had the Spirit of truth, they would go on pretty fast in the apprehension of the truth. Everything being clear in a certain sense, if a man has the Spirit of truth, he must make great advance in the things of truth. Therefore if there were no hindrances, one who has the Spirit of truth ought to make the most rapid advance in the truth.
Rem It is distinctly said of the babes, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”.
FER Exactly; I think that we sometimes take all these things as expressions of the Lord when on [p. 289] earth, but they are just as much the expressions of the Lord now that He is in heaven. I think we often get to look at the Lord as a very beautiful picture upon the earth, but then He is exactly the same in heaven. The Lord is just as tender as ever He was when on earth, and He will say exactly the same words in heaven as when on earth. He is not a bit different in heaven from what He was when upon earth. He would say, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”, just in the same way there as here. I do not think that any thoughtful person could think, for an instant, that there could be any difference in Christ, though, of course, if you want to know what the heart of Christ is you must learn it as it came out down here.
Ques As a matter of fact the whole record of what Christ did and said is written in the light of resurrection?
FER Yes. It was the Lord Himself who began to speak of the great salvation, it came out in principle by Christ; it was not that He brought out one thing, and the apostles another. I think people have sometimes set the teaching of the apostles in contrast to Christ, but they brought out nothing afterwards in testimony that had not, in principle, already come out in Christ. Of course, it could not come out plainly, but in principle everything that they brought out had come out first in Christ, in His testimony, by His word.
Rem I think that makes the gospels very interesting.
FER Yes. It is not an original thought of mine at all, but I never got hold of the gospels at all until I heard that. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil”. He began to undo the works of the devil when here upon earth. I will tell you how the devil’s works are undone. If you bring God close to man in testimony, I defy any man, in the light of God’s testimony, to go on with the world. You may say, “But a man may get dark” — still, I defy any man who is in the light of God’s testimony to go on with the world. If he does, it is a proof to me that that man has never really been in the light. The world is a great system of which Satan is the god and prince, but “the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil”.
Ques Would you not say that a man who has been in it could get out of it?
FER I doubt it very much, though I think that a man might have known a good bit intellectually without being in it.
Rem “By every word of God” shall man live.
FER Yes, quite so. The word of God is the testimony of God, it is the real, living power of God. You know it is said that when a man in the world is greatly intent upon some particular line of things, that man will not care much about the details of his existence down here, about his bread and butter, for instance. Well, the testimony of God is far greater than anything of that kind, and I do not think that a man in the light of that ought to care very much about his food here. “By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live”. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness”. You are not to go and worry yourself about the bread that perisheth if you are intent upon God’s kingdom. I think it is pretty evident here that the disciples had a very poor idea of what the Lord was presenting to them. I think they were true to Him, and they felt really drawn to Him. They had come to Him, and they believed in Him, but they had a very poor idea of what Christ had presented to them. He presented the Father to them — “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?”
Ques Were they not in the position of knowing the Saviour, but not going on to know the Father, like so many [p. 291] Christians today?
FER Yes; they only know Him by name. The name is maintained, but in Christendom generally there is exceedingly little acquaintance with the Father. I think the bulk of people look upon the Father as the Judge, and upon Christ as the One who makes propitiation for them; but the generality of Christians have no idea of counsels as connected with the Father.
Rem I believe that one of the thirty-nine articles is to the effect that you must believe that Christ died to reconcile the Father to us.
FER Yes; the bulk of Christians do not enter into it; they connect Christ and love, but as to the Father they simply think they are heard with Him for Christ’s sake. They do not know that the Father Himself is revealed in Christ.
Ques Is not the Son of God manifested in connection with the Father?
FER Yes; the Father sent the Son that He might be the Saviour of the world; it was not only that the Son came, it was the Father sent Him.
Rem I suppose you would say the revelation of the Father could have little meaning to us unless the Son had been here?
FER No; it never could have come out otherwise. The presence of the Son here, so that they could say, “That which we have seen and heard”, gives it a character and reality that never could have been conveyed by mere words. But all that we have is recorded by eye-witnesses. God has taken care, and it is wonderful the care that He has taken, that there should be ample testimony to Christ, not simply an adequate record, but abundant testimony to Christ Himself. Take the resurrection — and the testimony all hangs on the resurrection — Christianity was formed on the testimony of the resurrection, and that, too, when the Person who was raised, and all the circumstances of it, were still fresh in the minds of the people.
[p. 292] Well, look what abundant care God took that man should be cognisant of His resurrection; the Lord lived here forty days upon earth, and was seen, time after time, by different people. Suppose a man told me that he did not believe in resurrection at all, why, the Old Testament scriptures bear ample testimony to it, and here you have the witness of such as Peter and John and Paul; am I to set more importance on what you tell me, than on the witness of Peter and John and Paul, in things of which they knew a great deal better than you? I was only thinking how the grace of God is magnified by His putting the resurrection of Christ as the foundation of everything. Everything in the way of testimony has been placed fully within the cognisance of man, as, for example, His being seen of five hundred brethren at once. You may depend upon it the resurrection is the crux, there is nothing like the resurrection; it is the real ground of conflict, everything is admitted if the resurrection is admitted. You cannot gainsay anything if you believe in the resurrection.
Ques But would you not think that there are vast numbers of persons who do not believe in it?
FER Yes, there are; but that is exactly because they are not acquainted with the testimony of God. Let the resurrection go, and all is gone, but hold to the resurrection, and you have all — the whole fabric stands.
Rem The resurrection is really the victory?
FER Yes; it is the glory of God; the resurrection of Christ is the expression of God’s pleasure, while His death is the expression of God’s love. If God could not raise a man from death to life, justification would simply be a dead letter, it could have no meaning. The resurrection is, therefore, the testimony to justification, and there could be no justification if it were not in God’s power to raise man from death to life. If God is going to give a testimony to His [p. 293] ability to justify, it must be that He can raise the man out of death, because man is under death. His power is the testimony to His attitude, and His attitude is to justify. The expression of His power in the resurrection of Christ is that which evidences His attitude. It would be futile for Him to be in that attitude unless He could raise a man from death. What would be the use of clearing a man from his sins, and yet not from the penalty of those sins? The testimony of resurrection was really necessary to vouch for the truth of His attitude.
Rem “Whether is easier to say?”
FER Well, quite so; it is the principle, “Rise, take up thy bed and walk”. I have no courage in that way, but if I had to do with infidel people, I should hang everything on the resurrection. Detail, and all that, is really not worth telling about, you must hang all on the resurrection.
Ques Justification really puts you on resurrection ground?
FER Yes, it does; but the point is this, you are brought into contact with Christ as Lord, and that puts you outside of all that is here. You are justified from all those things, from which you could not be justified by the law.
Ques I suppose there would be something different and special about a “commandment” in distinction to “words”, would you say?
FER What do you understand by commandments?
Rem I am not very clear about it.
FER There is a remarkable instance of a commandment in the close of chapter 12, “The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak”, etc.; the character and force of the Father’s commandment was [p. 294] life eternal.
Ques Would that be the force of a commandment here?
FER Well, a commandment, in John’s idea of it, is an expression of the Father’s will; any expression of the Father’s will was a commandment to Christ; and so too with us, any expression, any word of Christ, has the force of a commandment to us.
Rem Laying down His life was a commandment from the Father.
FER Yes; and I think, too, there is one great point about a commandment, that the Lord never enjoins upon them anything which has not been first seen in Himself; and commandments assume a very different character when they come from Christ from those that came from Mount Sinai. The latter show what a man ought to be, but they did not express what God was.
Ques What would you say is the difference between keeping His commandments and His word?
FER His word was His testimony. I rather fancy that His word is the revelation of the Father, but the commandments were the expression of the Father’s will. I think you are compelled to distinguish the one from the other. Christ revealed the Father, but He made known, too, His pleasure; and you have to distinguish between the Person and His pleasure. Now the cross is the revelation of God, but the resurrection speaks of His pleasure. You see Himself in the cross, but His pleasure comes out in the resurrection. It is most interesting to see that the veil of the temple is rent in twain from the top to the bottom when Christ died, not when He was raised. The resurrection sets forth God’s pleasure.
Ques Would “keeping his commandments” mean that you treasure them, value them?
FER “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”. I think you not only cherish them, but they are effective with you.
[p. 295] You can scarcely speak of keeping His commandments if they had no effect upon you — they are the foundation of your practice. I think that is the great point in the maintenance of the truth; you may put the truth into creeds and formulas, but they are all ineffective — the truth is not kept in that way. The truth is maintained in that it gives character to the saints, it is effective in that way. The fact is this, if it had not been for vitality in Christians, the word of God would have been a dead letter; the truth is maintained by the power of the Holy Spirit in the saints. In no other way would the truth have been maintained.
Rem You could not put living things into moulds.
FER No; the word of God is living, but, as I have said sometimes, it is only living when in connection with a soul; apart from that the word of God would be a dead letter.
Ques It was so in the dark ages, was it not?
FER Yes; but even there a certain amount of vitality was maintained in connection with the saints. I do not see how the truth could be anything but a dead letter apart from the Spirit’s work in people; creeds and formulas are totally ineffective. You see that coming out in 2 Timothy through the apostle, “The same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also” — you really want the faithful men: it is in that kind of line that the truth is really maintained. Of course you have the Scriptures as the limit of truth, they form the limit and standard of the truth you have, and whatever light it may please God to give you, you are always bounded by Scripture, you cannot transgress that, you cannot go outside that.
Ques Verses 21 and 22 are individual, are they not, though what you have afterwards is all collective?
FER Yes; the spirit of John is collective, the spirit of his teaching, but wherever you have testing coming in, it is always in connection with the individual.
[p. 296] It is remarkable how very often the pronouns are emphatic in this passage.
Ques What is the difference between “dwelleth with you” and “shall be in you”? Is the latter collective?
FER No; I think that would be more “dwelleth with you”. I think that when it speaks of His being in you, He may be in a very great number, but then He is in every one of them. “He continues with you, and shall be in you” — that is the force of it.
Ques It is that He does not go away?
FER Yes.
Ques And that is the thought in verse 16, “abide with you for ever”?
FER Well, I think it is in contrast really to Himself going away; and I do not think — I cannot conceive but that the Spirit will be in the church for ever; I do not think that the church will ever lose the Spirit, I have never had that idea.
Ques You mean He will indwell the church eternally?
FER Yes, I should say so. You see, everything subjectively in the church is in the power of the Spirit, and I think that if you come to take into account the place that the church gets, you will see that it must always be maintained in the power of the Spirit. In fact, it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that marks the special place of the church; I do not think that any other company is indwelt in that way. The unity of the Father and the Son, as I understand it, is really in the Spirit, though one does not care to speak much about it; the Spirit is spoken of as proceeding from the Father, but then He comes as sent of the Son. If the church is brought into such a place in connection with Christ, it is “by the Spirit all-pervading”. If it is to be brought into such a place — I mean as “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all”, it is inconceivable to me that it could be so except by the [p. 297] all-pervading power of the Spirit. Every one in the body participates in that one Spirit. It is only one Spirit that baptises the whole body. Here I think the Lord is speaking of Him in contrast to Himself.
Ques Is it His coming as the seal?
FER I think “continues with you” is in contrast to Himself. “He shall be in you” — not simply upon them, but in them. You see, you get the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but that is not exactly the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; I do not see that the baptism of the Holy Spirit might not take place again.
Ques You mean in regard to Israel, not again in regard to the church?
FER No.
Rem I do not quite catch what you say as to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in regard to Israel.
FER “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Spirit”. I take it that Israel will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.
Rem It certainly seems that the indwelling of the Spirit is what marks the church now, and I can quite see that it is not likely to terminate when the church is taken out of the scene.
FER Well, the formative work of the Spirit will hardly go on then, but there will be the Spirit pervading all. I take it the Spirit will pervade everything, and give character to all. There will still be the unction, you could not have union else. Just as the unity between the Father and the Son is in the Spirit, so union between Christ and the saints must be in the Spirit.
Rem If we are to be brought into the place of God’s Son, it is by the Spirit of God’s Son.
FER Yes, that is another point.
Ques Why is it here the Spirit of truth?
FER It is in contrast to the letter of the truth: all Old Testament saints had the letter of truth, but [p. 298] what marks the present time is the Spirit of truth. The important point is this, that saints are really taught from what is within, not from without. I do not think sufficient account has been taken of that. It is what John presses so much in his epistle. “Ye have not need that any one should teach you”, it is the anointing that teaches you, you are taught from within. The word brings you the light of the truth, and then the Spirit comes as the seal, and then, after that, you are taught by the anointing, but you have the word as a limit. You do not really understand the word except by the Spirit. You notice how very rarely a man is converted through reading the Bible simply. I should suppose that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand do not get light directly from the scripture, but through the preacher. You see, a man gets exercised, and then he comes to the scripture to get enlightened. The great use of Scripture to a soul is to teach him what God has wrought. A man is converted but he does not know what it means, and so he comes to Scripture to get light as to what God has done. Every advance which a man makes in light is preceded by the work of the Spirit. In fact, a man gets no light at all except as it is preceded by a work of the Spirit of God in him. Of course, if a man goes to make a statement to others, he can only refer them to the word of God — he would have no authority but the Scriptures. It would not do for him to make out that he is taught from within. And that really shows the immense importance of the Scriptures.
Ques But to preach he must be taught of God?
FER Yes; he will not produce much effect without the teaching from within.
Rem But that is not his authority.
FER No; you must have external authority. I know everything in the word was a dead letter to me except for the Spirit’s teaching in me — you know that yourself.
[p. 299] Rem And that, I suppose, would explain how the great men who study textual criticism all their lives are yet often infidel.
FER Yes; to them it is just history mixed up with a certain amount of myth, and they are clever enough to go through it, and to distinguish between the history and the myth; they have no idea but that what is a myth to them should be so to you, they have no idea that you could be beyond them, with all their research and that sort of thing. It is a myth because they say so. Supposing that a man assumes, as they do, that there can be nothing in this world but what can be explained by natural causes, nothing spiritual, then Scripture must be to that man a myth; the point to him is that it is an absolute impossibility that there should be that in this world which is supernatural.
Rem The conversion of Saul was distinctly supernatural.
FER Yes; and so is the conversion of any one of us, it is very supernatural.
Rem I suppose the Spirit of truth is a Person, as we speak?
FER Yes. You see, the Spirit is the truth, you get that statement in the epistle, and it does not matter what truth one has to do with, He is the Spirit of it. Take sonship, He is the Spirit of sonship, and so you might take any truth, and the Spirit is the Spirit of it. The Spirit is life, and then, too, it is, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come” — that is in connection with the coming of the Lord, and so with every truth in the same way, the Spirit is the Spirit of it.
Rem The practical difficulty lies in this, that everything is made of what is outward, but the moment you come to speak of the Spirit of truth, that is received in quite a different way.
FER Yes; the illusion is this, that many people think that they are born again by the preaching, and [p. 300] the consequence is that everything they get they get from without.
Ques What is the force of being born again by the word?
FER Well, you can only count converts by their profession of faith, and so you can only tell people outwardly by their profession of the gospel. Even the apostle speaks of some being his children by the gospel. He says, “I have begotten you”; no one would think of supposing that they were born again by the apostle. I do not think that presents any real difficulty, because whoever is converted must be the fruit of the gospel, and born of the word of God, as to their public confession in the world.
Ques But as to what is done in themselves, is not that by the word of God, “the incorruptible word of God”?
FER Well, in that case they were Christians, but that is a different idea from new birth.
Rem I think that is the difficulty to many minds, they make new birth equivalent to being born again.
FER Yes; they have taken up what was said to Israel, and have confounded it with what you get in the epistles; but if you want to know the meaning of these things, you must take them in their context and bearing.
Rem It is not “by” instrumentally in Peter, but born again “out of”. And Peter is speaking of those in whom new birth had taken place.
FER When the Lord speaks of it, He speaks of it more abstractly.
Ques Is it not “by means of” in Peter?
FER Through the word — I think it might almost be rendered, according to J.N.D.’s rendering, “on the principle of”.
Rem The word is distinguished from the seed. Would you say there were two things there or one?
FER Well, how would you distinguish [p. 301] between them? The difficulty to me would be to make a distinction between the seed and the word.
Rem What was of God in the soul was the result of the operation of God.
FER Well, I do not know what the seed of God is except the word; I think it is very difficult to distinguish between them. It is a figure at the very best, it is not the letter of the word, it is only a figure.
Ques Is not the seed the word of God in living power?
Rem You get in the parable of the sower, “The seed is the word of God”.
FER Yes; I think there must be the most intimate connection between the seed and the word. If you say the word is not the seed, at all events the connection between them is of the most intimate character.
Ques What is the difference between being born again and new birth?
FER Well, I should suppose that the testimony of God went out into the world, and everybody that was converted by that testimony is looked upon as born of the testimony, and being God’s testimony they are born of God.
Ques But the difference between new birth and being born again?
FER “Born again” is not, of course, exactly the same expression, but in John 3 it is really “born from above”; that is not exactly the same as being “born again” in Peter, for instance.
Rem In Peter he begins by saying, “Hath begotten us again unto a lively hope”, they were already on the way.
FER Yes; that is the very introduction of the epistle, they were “begotten ... unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”. You must take these things in their connection. I have heard of that difficulty before as to the word and [p. 302] the seed, but all I can say is that it is a very fine distinction; I cannot conceive what difference there could be between the seed and the word which expresses God. It is a figure taken from what is sown in the ground, because it is contrasted with corruptible seed; now if you speak of what is sown and the word of God, the connection between the two must be very intimate.
Ques Might it not be that the word of God is sown and heard and known intellectually, without any work of God in the soul, but when God works then it becomes the seed of God?
FER Yes, it may be; when it is living, then it is the seed of God.
Ques What would you say is the Lord’s object in what He says to the disciples here as a whole?
FER The Lord’s object was the maintenance of the truth, that they might not lose anything of the good that He had brought to them. This, to my mind, is the great feature of the chapter — light brought to them in His communications, and the point with the Lord was that everything that He had brought might be maintained — nothing lost of it; it is all on the principle of continuation. It was not simply that He was going away, but that He left the light here, and the office of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth was to maintain the word in living power in connection with men. That is the great point in this chapter — “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”. This becomes the foundation of what follows. You could not possibly have chapters 15 and 16 if there were no company in whom the truth is livingly maintained, and for their own comfort and enjoyment too. You see, the first part of the chapter brings before them that, although He went away, He had the care of them at heart, and He would come again and receive them to Himself. Then He goes on to tell them of the Spirit, and says, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”. So you have light and truth maintained here in living power by the Holy Spirit in connection with men. You see, the first part of the chapter is faith, then you get love coming out — those are the two great principles in the chapter.
Ques And love would desire the continuance of what has come out in Himself?
FER Yes; love is the great point, you could not have the truth maintained apart from love, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”. It was the proof of loving Him, and “he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him”. It all shows the great principle that everything that had been brought by Christ into this scene abode here in the power of the Holy Spirit, not a bit was to be lost, everything was to be maintained here in living power. There was no more truth to be brought out, nothing could be added to what had been brought out by Christ.
Ques Is there any distinction between “I will come again” in verse 3, and “I will come to you” inverse 18?
FER It is the present tense in both, curiously enough. “I am coming again” it is really, “and shall receive you to myself”, that is future; the “again” makes it so, I think.
Ques. Is it the rapture?
FER I do not know at all; it says “I will come again”, and that makes it plain. But in verse 18 He does not speak of coming again, He says, “I will come to you”.
Ques Is that in the assembly?
FER Yes, spiritually; “I am coming to you ... the world sees me no longer; but ye see me”.
Ques It is in that day — that is, the Spirit’s [p. 304] day?
FER Yes; the Lord is there in that day, “I in you”.
Ques It is present now, it was future at the time when He spoke?
FER Yes; I think the great thing down here for the saints individually — and it is individual in that sense, because whenever it is a question of the light it is individual — the great point is to be in the full light of the revelation, that my soul may be in the conscious enjoyment of it down here; you have not to go to heaven to get light, you are entitled to be in all the light down here. “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and in you” and “I will ... manifest myself to him” — I will put Myself in evidence. If you have a case in the law courts, you put certain things in evidence; well, the Lord uses that kind of expression, I will put Myself in evidence to him — I “will ... manifest myself to him”. You get the same kind of thing further on — “We will come unto him, and make our abode with him”.
Rem What is the force of the expression, “the Comforter”?
FER It may be rendered solicitor, or patron.
Rem ‘Advocate’ is the same word.
FER It is more patron, not exactly Comforter. It was what the Lord had done for them when He was with them.
Ques Verse 23 is different from verse 18, is it not? “We will come unto him, and make our abode with him”.
FER The idea of verse 23 to me is this, the individual is brought into and maintained in the full light of the revelation, the full light of what Christ has brought. It is not the company that is contemplated there, but the individual. It is conditional, as always where the individual is in question. If you answer to the test you get the full light of the revelation,
[p. 305] and you are maintained in it — in the light of the Father and the Son; “He that hath the Father hath the Son”. You are maintained in the full light of the revelation; the Father can only come to the individual, as far as I see, in the way of light, it is only in that way that you can be brought to know divine Persons down here. The only sense in which the Father and the Son can come to us is in the way of light — you are in the light of the Father and the Son.
Ques And that light is love?
FER Yes, and a person may be conscious of it; my soul is in the sense and enjoyment of all the light that Christ has brought, and you can never, down here in this world, get further than light. The utmost point of Romans is light, and Romans views the saints very individually indeed, and the furthest point the individual can get to is light. In the assembly you get further, but as an individual the utmost you can get is light. In the assembly you can be outside yourself, that is the idea there; you are risen with Christ, Christ is there, and you come to the scene and sphere of proper spiritual affections if the assembly is realised in its true power.
Ques What about “Because I live, ye shall live also”?
FER Well, that is more connected with the company, “risen together with Christ”, in the scene and sphere of life, like Colossians. The two and a half tribes, viewed typically, never got into the assembly, and yet they had all the good of the light; they set forth, in type, Christians who never enter into the truth of the assembly. When conflict came they went over Jordan, but they returned again. They were content with light, and they never came into the priestly sphere, the sphere of life. There it is the thought you are “risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” — that is outside yourself — it is clearly outside [p. 306] man in the flesh. I think the difference between light and life is exceedingly important in that sense. It is a point of the greatest possible importance. I think that many people do not see really how great a safeguard it is to enter into the purpose of God. People who, in that sense, are purely individual, and who never get really into the purpose of God, are always more or less exposed. I am not surprised if they begin to quake a bit, “Fear hath torment” — but when you come into the sphere of life all fear is gone, and you are out of fear then. I think it is the case with many that they put the domestic and the social before the assembly; I mean the assembly in the true sense of it.
Ques What is the real thought of verse 20, “Ye in me, and I in you”?
FER I think it is that you are outside the world and the flesh, you are in another circle, “Ye in me, and I in you”. If that is true of you, you are clearly outside the world and the flesh; you cannot have the world and the flesh and Christ, in that sense.
Ques. Is it collective?
FER I should think so. It is the true position of the church.
Ques Is it conscious knowledge, “Ye shall know that I am in my Father ... and I in you”?
FER No, it is not that, it is objective. I think the point before the Lord all through is that they were to be right within. In the succeeding chapters it is what they were outside, but the first great point is that they must be right within. You get the company presented as right inside, and in the consciousness of their peculiar blessings inside — outside the world, and inside with the Father. You cannot suppose there would be any great triumph in the world if they were not right within.
Rem It is clear that all this is absolutely unintelligible to [p. 307] the natural man.
FER Yes; the Lord is speaking of things outside man and all that is of the flesh altogether. It is all in view of the Christian company, the little company shut out from the world; they are viewed collectively, not so much individually. Of course the wilderness is the test to us individually, but at the same time this chapter contemplates the company, and the moment you come to the company you are outside the wilderness, in the true sense, you know.
Ques What is the difference in the way the coming of the Comforter is looked at in this chapter, and in chapter 15 as sent of Christ?
FER I think one can see the difference in one sense, that in chapter 14 it is a question of the maintenance of what had been brought by Christ. He is here in the place of Christ, and all was to be livingly maintained in the power of the Holy Spirit; but in chapter 15 He comes more in the way of testimony, He brings testimony to the glory of Christ as He alone could. Here it is more that He would “teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” — the Spirit would be their teacher here; it is the maintenance of the revelation Christ had brought. But in chapter 15 He brings the light of what has come to pass in heaven; one is the testimony inside, the other to enable them to be a testimony outside. If He presents any test, it is not to the company, but to the individual. Wherever He refers to the individual you find a test; you may test yourself, or you may test others in that way; it is the same in John’s epistle, it is continually brought in.
Ques “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice” — that refers, I suppose, to His own satisfaction in going to the Father?
FER Yes.
Ques What about “That the world may know that I love the Father”?
FER [p. 308] I think it is testimony to His death.
Ques A demonstration to the world?
FER Yes, I think so; it brought to light, in that sense, the love of the Father and the Son, “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world”.