JOHN 15 (2)
JOHN 15 (2)
FER It is a remarkable expression, “I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” — it was a very great word for the Lord to use, “Ye are my friends”; it made them the depositaries of all that He had heard from His Father, “All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you”.
Rem Is it not a similar thought to what is said of Abraham, he was the “friend of God”, and in connection with Sodom the Lord says, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?”
FER I think that is the idea of a friend, one to whom you may give your confidence. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing for the Lord to say to these disciples. It was not a question of how far they understood His words — they understood very little — but, at all events, what the Father had made known to Him, He made known to them. I think it shows how very important the communication to them must have been.
Ques What about, “If ye do whatsoever I command you” (verse 14)?
FER I think it is evidenced in that way, it is the test of it — “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you”.
Ques Is not His death looked at in a special way in this chapter in connection with His friends?
FER Yes; He laid down His life for His friends, just as in chapter 10 He gives His life for the sheep. I think in this chapter all through you find He will not attribute His death to the hand of man.
Rem It is for those given Him of His Father.
FER Yes; it is looked at in connection with them. It was in the purpose of the Lord to relieve man of the pressure under which he lay, from the pressure of death. You cannot judge of the Lord’s communications to them by what they afterwards communicated in their public testimony. I think the Lord communicated to the twelve a very great deal more than they spoke of in their own public testimony.
Ques And therefore it would be a mistake to apply to ourselves everything that was said of them?
FER Yes, I think so. And I think, too, that the testimony came out according to what was suited for the moment; for instance, in the beginning of the Acts what comes out is the exaltation of Christ, but all the counsels of God could not come out in a moment. The testimony of all the twelve was, at the beginning, to His exaltation, and the Holy Spirit was witness of it. Peter’s public testimony at that moment did not go further than that; but then Paul comes in, and you get a new epoch in the testimony, a great advance, for it says he preached immediately “Jesus that he is the Son of God”. You get a great enlargement in that way in the public testimony. But the Jew refused that, they refused Paul’s testimony, and then it is that the testimony went to the Gentiles. “It pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen”, but it had been presented to the Jew, only the Jews would not have it.
Ques Would you say that all that comes out in the gospels has to be put together for us to get all the Lord communicated to the disciples?
FER Well, I think that the things which the Lord heard of the Father came out specially in this particular gospel, that is the line specially pursued in John’s gospel. John, of course, was one of those who heard all these things, and he is the one who records them, as he says, “We know that his record is true”. I think the effect of Paul’s ministry was to put everything in connection with Christ in glory, but then I think all that came out in Paul’s public ministry had been previously spoken of by the Lord when He was on earth.
Ques And, therefore, taking Peter, you could not limit what was revealed to what he brought out, or even wrote?
FER No; in fact, in my own mind, I feel perfectly sure that he knew a very great deal more than came out publicly.
Ques The Spirit only brought out what was suitable for the moment?
FER Quite so.
Rem And that goes to show that, however they may differ, even James, yet it is all Christianity that they present, whether in James or Peter or John.
FER I cannot help thinking that one very greatly helps to the understanding of the others.
Ques Christianity is really one great whole?
FER Yes; you could not understand prophecy by simply studying Isaiah; no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, it does not carry its own interpretation, neither do I think that if a man were to give himself up to the study of one particular epistle he would gain much, he would be very defective, I am sure. One part of scripture helps to throw light [p. 326] upon another. John very greatly helps to the understanding of Paul.
Ques What is the aspect of His death here for His friends?
FER I think it was that they might be free in that sense from all that was upon them, brought into liberty, and free from the pressure that lay upon them.
Ques Do you mean that He might bring them into intimacy?
FER No; it was to remove every hindrance from them.
Ques With regard to what you say as to their public testimony — I think you said on Tuesday that a man is rightly judged by his testimony?
FER Well, you rightly judge of Peter by his testimony, I think.
Ques And yet you say he knew more than he brought out?
FER Yes; but still I think you can rightly judge of a man by his testimony. After all, nothing could be more simple and real than the testimony of Peter. If our testimony was as simple and powerful as his was, I think we should be content to be judged by it.
Rem His ministry was truly living ministry.
FER Yes. Now with preachers in the present day there is a certain inconsistency between what is presented and the men who present it; their ways, it may be, and that which marks the men, are not in keeping with the testimony. Someone has said, and I think it is perfectly true, that if a testimony comes down from Christ at the right hand of God, there can be nothing admitted into that testimony but Christ; everything that is human, if brought into that testimony, obscures it, mars it.
Ques Have we not all been led to feel that for ourselves?
FER Yes; and I think, as you go on, [p. 327] you really get troubled in that way, and you would really rather display yourself as weak and inefficient than bring into the testimony what is artificial.
Rem As far as Peter is concerned, what I always feel is that whatever is wanting in him as portrayed in the gospels seems to be found in his epistle.
FER Well, at all events, all things that the Lord had heard of the Father He had made known to them.
Ques Are they all recorded in the word, do you think?
FER I should think so. You see, it is a question of the Father’s communicating to them. He shows the Son the communications, and so what He heard from the Father He communicates to them. I think there were things which were not given to Him to communicate, but I think that the Lord made known to them everything that He heard from the Father. He had heard them from the Father in order that He might communicate them to them. But I do think that there might be things between the Father and the Son which were incommunicable; for instance, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”. Now I think that simply means that, while there could be nothing hid from the Son, just because He was the Son, there were at the same time things which were not given to the Son to communicate.
Rem And that just shows the perfection of the Servant.
FER Yes, I think so. He took that place and He communicates what is given Him to communicate, but He does not go outside the Servant’s place which He had taken.
Rem Even Paul speaks of such things.
FER Yes; he heard things in heaven which were incommunicable on earth.
Ques I suppose you must discriminate between [p. 328] what the Lord was as Man, and what He was as the Son?
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques So when it says, “neither the Son” it is as Man?
FER As in that place as being a prophet — all that was involved in His place as Man down here.
Ques Then it is not the Son there; does not the expression “the Son” generally give the thought of the Son with the Father?
FER Yes; but then it is always in grace.
Ques You only get that expression, “neither the Son”, in Mark?
FER Yes, it is in Mark.
Ques “All things that I have heard of my Father” is as Man?
FER In the place of Man, it is the Son in the place of Man; you must preserve the idea of the Son, it is that Person in place of Servant, but then it is from “my Father”, it is not as from God, but from His Father. I think it was all the counsels of the Father, all the communications of the Father’s love.
Rem As “the Son” He did not need communications.
FER No; it is that Person in that place; and you must not lose the idea of the Person; it is truly that Person in that place, and He is perfectly consistent with the place which He had taken.
Rem People so often confound the thought of who was there, and what was the Person who was there.
FER Yes; as far as I understand it, I think it is most important to keep distinctly before you that Person, so that you never have any other Person before you. He may speak of Himself as Son of man, or otherwise, but it was that Person; whatever may be the designation of that Person, it is just that Person who gives character to the whole thing.
Ques And you think it is dangerous to speak of [p. 329] one thing being true of Him as Man, and another being true of Him as God?
FER Well, I do not think you can do it.
Rem In chapter 1 you get every title brought in, but it is the same Person all through.
FER Yes; in that chapter you get all sorts of designations and titles. But if you speak of the Queen you speak of that person officially, you designate her by one particular title. Why, it is the commonest thing possible in everyday life, supposing the head of the house to be a doctor, or a military officer, he is known commonly as the Doctor, or the General, as the case may be; and, what is more, you refer the title to that person when you are not speaking of him in his official capacity at all; it is simply a designation by which he is commonly known. Of course when the Lord uses any particular designation there is a special force attached to it; for example, when He speaks of the Son of man coming “in the glory of his Father”, you would have thought that there He would have spoken of Himself as “the Son”, but it is as “Son of man”. “Son of man” is the designation of the One who comes, and He comes in the glory of His Father.
Rem It is really very simple, but it has brought in much confusion.
FER Well, I think the confusion has arisen from the attempt to press the union of God and man; it has obscured people very greatly, so that they have not really apprehended the true force of the incarnation.
Rem In the effort to describe what He was, they have forgotten who He was.
FER I would much rather know who He was.
Now, in the expression, “I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain”, the Lord keeps up the idea of fruit. You lose the vine, but He keeps up the idea of [p. 330] the fruit.
Ques What do you understand by “fruit”?
FER Well, I think the fruit was the proper spontaneous result of Christianity, and the fruits were to abide here, the moral results of the truth were to remain here. You could not speak exactly of persons as being fruit, though of course, without the persons, you could not have the fruit; and yet, after all, you could not speak of the persons quite as fruit; I think what came out in them was the fruit. I do not think the Lord is speaking here simply of the conversion of people, but that there might be spontaneous, moral effects of the truth in the way of love, and joy, all the proper effects of the truth, the fruits of the Spirit.
Rem And the first three great fruits of the Spirit were in them.
FER Yes: love, joy, peace. The great testimony here of Christianity was to be the fruit of the Spirit, it was to be a living testimony here, and the way in which life is expressed is in fruit — that is what the Lord intended.
Rem I was struck only the other day in seeing the charge given to Timothy, “the end of the commandment is love”, it is the moral result.
FER Yes; the two things of which the Lord speaks here are love and joy; His commandment is that they should love one another, and then He speaks these things that their joy might be full. I think one has to remember this, that things are not altered in that way either above or below. The Lord is still at the right hand of God, and the Spirit is still here.
Ques And man still is the same?
FER Yes; it is painful to think of the continued tendency there is to obscure the truth by putting some kind of human setting to it, or putting it in a mould. You see that coming out even in the Reformation: what truth they had was soon spoiled by trying to put it in some human form or setting, so that it should become defined; but the moment you try to [p. 331] deal with moral things in that way you spoil them, they are incapable of such treatment.
Rem The life goes out of them directly.
FER Yes; very many people have a great idea of things being put into a hard-and-fast form; they think it gives them a kind of security, but creeds have never been a security for man yet. It is not that which the Lord looks for all through John’s gospel. What the Lord looks for in this chapter is really testimony from them, their fruit was the testimony, and fruit is a very living thing. Now you cannot define life, or the workings of life, because life, if it is in activity, will burst all moulds. No one could attempt to define life, it is without limit. “That your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you”. There is no doubt the apostles had this; I think it was all made good to them, and one would certainly gather that they had the greatest sense of freedom in asking.
Ques After the descent of the Spirit?
FER Yes; I do not think that they had any doubt at all as to getting what they asked for. I think the apostles and the others were so simply in the reality of things, they were so perfectly in the reality of it all, that there was no restraint with them. It seems to me that the opening of the first epistle of John, “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”, just expresses the sense of what the apostles had as to things. It was the sense they had of the testimony, they had part in it in company with the Father and the Son, and the practical result of that was they had the most complete liberty in going to the Father.
Ques Do you get any reference to the Father in the Acts?
FER No, you do not; their petitions were simply addressed to the Lord or to God.
[p. 332] Rem But there is a great definiteness in their asking, they asked quite simply.
Rem You get one remarkable expression in the Acts, “They were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit”.
Rem I was thinking of what you were saying as to their being so in the reality of things, the things really came of which the Lord had spoken to them.
FER Quite so. I think you might attribute everything to the apostles; even if there is fruit from us now, it is really the result of the apostles’ labours. I only spoke of that passage in 1 John 1 because it marks the peculiar place the apostles had in connection with their testimony, a place which only the apostles could have. One can understand the very great force with which the Lord enjoined them to love one another. He does not tell them to hate the world, though He tells them to expect that the world will hate them; but He does command them that they should love one another. He was only enjoining on them what they had seen in Him.
Rem And the natural effect of the manifestation of love inside would bring out the hatred of the world.
FER Yes; the truth is that man hates God, and so it is folly to attempt to discuss these things with him. The more you know of the natural man the more you know that the natural man hates God. You find that in everyday life, however pleasantly you may appear to get on, and I am sure I always try to do that, and naturally would, but, after all, you feel it is all there, you feel it in coming into contact with men.
Rem It struck me that the more we realised that, the more we, as Christians, would love one another.
FER Yes; the Lord looks upon the disciples in that light, as a little company in the midst of a very troubled scene, but they were to love one another. I think Christians in system have none of the benefits [p. 333] of it all, they go on with certain civilities, and with certain good works, and so on, but they do not come out properly into the good of the Christian circle.
Rem And John, who brings out more about love than anybody, is the one who brings out most clearly the sharp line between the two things.
FER Yes; on the one hand He commands us to love one another, and on the other we must not be surprised if the world hates us. It was only this morning I was thinking how very little, if at all, we appreciate the love of the Lord to us. We often think that, if we make mistakes, the Lord looks severely upon us; but it is the other way round — if we get things just a little bit more clearly the Lord is really delighted. Just think what a pleasure it is to our teachers to see one getting hold of things a little bit, it is a real pleasure to them. Well, do you not think the Lord is pleased too? Have not they, after all, the same kind of thought as the Lord?
Rem When Solomon asked for an understanding heart, it is said, “It pleased the Lord”.
FER Yes; when the Lord sees one going on with purpose of heart, or if He sees one getting anything a little more clearly, my impression is it is a pleasure to Him. You do not get these things in a kind of miraculous way, you get them when you are prepared for them. And if a spiritual man is pleased because one seems to be making a little advance in spiritual things, I think the Lord must be too. And what a thing it is to think of the Lord in that way, He has got His eye upon me, and He sees if I have got hold of something that is a help to me, and He is pleased at it.
Rem It is a very precious thing.
FER Yes, I think so; but people have got an idea the other way, that the Lord is severe upon their defects, and so on.
[p. 334] Rem The natural thought of man is that God will judge him.
FER Yes; but what is really God’s greatest pleasure with regard to man? Why, to give him light, that is really the supreme delight of God. He knows that man is in darkness, and under pressure, and the supreme pleasure of God is to give him light; but then the instant the man gets a little bit of light, the natural tendency is to begin to reason instead of accepting the light, as though indeed he was capable of judging.
Rem I have thought sometimes that it is when you get the idea of separation coming in that you get hatred, as here in verse 19.
FER Yes; when the Lord Himself began His ministry, you do not find the same kind of hatred coming out; but when He brings out separation, when He goes up into a mountain and chooses twelve disciples, His friends say He is mad, and the Pharisees say that He has a devil, they could not bear that sort of thing. The Lord here does not lead them to anticipate any better treatment than He Himself had had; the world remained what it ever was, only that it was put into a much more awful position than it had been in before. You do not get the idea of sin in the Old Testament, there it is a question of sins; but in the New Testament, especially in John, you get the principle of sin coming out.
Ques God must be presented perfectly, and man reject Him, to fully discover what sin is?
FER Yes.
Ques One needs, too, to see the way in which God has dealt with sin in the cross?
FER Yes; but it was not dealt with in that way until it had been fully proved. The world is convicted of sin “because they believe not on me”. The ground that the Lord takes at the close of the chapter is,
“[p. 335] They have both seen and hated both me and my Father”. God had put Himself in the presence of man, in the Person of His Son, and they had both seen and hated both the Father and the Son; they hated the Lord without a cause — they hated Him gratuitously.
Ques Is lawlessness the rejection of God?
FER Yes; is it not a solemn thing that a fallen creature should attempt to judge God, and not only that, but he repudiates the idea of God coming into His own creation.
Rem Man’s moral state has been fully proved in that he rejected God when He was here.
FER Yes, I think so. I think I can perfectly well understand it; my conviction is that if it were possible for Christ to come into the world as He came before, He would not find much better treatment now than He found then. It is certain that He would not touch Christianity as it exists now, He must be outside of that just as He was outside Judaism then.
Ques You mean outside Christianity as it exists in the world?
FER It has become the world, it embodies all the principles of the world, and when you come to Babylon, in her is found all the blood of the saints and the martyrs. I think the point is that God came — God Himself came.
Ques And displayed Himself in affection?
FER Yes; when you think of all the things the Lord did, they were all works in blessing to man; you find that all through this gospel, but God was not at all according to man’s mind. Even the very grace which came out in Christ was repugnant to man, because the effect and principle of grace was to put every man upon the same level, else it is not grace at all, and men were not at all prepared for that. Every man, even though he be a Christian of growth, stands [p. 336] in need of grace; man was under death — death reigned, and everybody was equal in the presence of grace; that was what was so exceedingly repugnant to man, and still is to the feelings of many. If the Son came in grace, there could be no admixture of law and grace.
Ques “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my word, they will keep also yours”, what about that?
FER I think it is put in that way so that they were not to anticipate to be differently treated from what He Himself had been. Then, at the close of the chapter, you come to the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Rem Here it is, “whom I will send to you”.
FER Yes.
Rem It is a different testimony from what we get in chapter 14.
FER Yes; I think the great point in chapter 14 is that everything that Christ had communicated was to be maintained, it was the maintenance of everything that had been brought by Christ. Everything was to be made good that Christ had taught them. But the point in this chapter is that you have Christ in glory — “He shall testify of me”. I think the revelation of the Father, and all that, was complete; there was nothing to be added to that, but there was the position which He was to take, and the Holy Spirit came down as the witness of that position. Christ did not leave anything unrevealed, but He Himself was going to take a certain position, and the Holy Spirit was the witness of that glory. That is the witness of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it — it was to the position taken by the One who had made the revelation when down here; the Holy Spirit came as testimony to the place He had taken at the right hand of God. Then witness comes out also from the disciples; they were looked at as testifying, because they had been with Him from [p. 337] the outset. They bore witness by the Spirit to the exaltation of Christ, that was the burden of Peter’s preaching. The Holy Spirit bore witness through them, but He witnessed to what they could not of themselves have borne witness to, they could not witness to the glory. They bore witness to the death and resurrection, but they could not witness to the glory. It is important to notice that they were to bear witness of Him as having been with Him from the outset; that is a very characteristic expression with John, and a very important one too.
Ques What is the force of “from the beginning”?
FER It is what I should call the beginning of a new departure, that is the principle of John. It was not in any way maintaining a connection with what went before, but the introduction of what was entirely and wholly new. The testimony was something entirely new, not linking up what had been — God bringing in the kingdom and establishing the promises, and so on — but a wholly new departure. The new takes precedence of the old; the old comes in and has its own place, but the new takes precedence; and what comes out in John takes the pre-eminent place, and everything that has to do with the establishment of the promises, and so on, comes under it. The expression “from the outset” is a very great and characteristic expression in John’s writings. It is a new start entirely.
Rem Luke speaks of their being, from the outset, “eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word”.
FER Yes, he does, “on the Word”, it is God Himself in testimony.
Rem It is not the side of man’s responsibilities.
FER That is all closed; it is not even on the line of things which come in in connection with God’s faithfulness, but a new departure entirely. It is all according to the counsels of His love.