JOHN 17 (1)
JOHN 17 (1)
FER I think one thing comes out in verse 1, and that is, how completely the Son is identified with the condition which He had taken, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son”; it proves very distinctly how completely the Person was identified with the condition which He had assumed.
Ques It proves the glory of the Person, too, does it not?
FER Yes, the answer to the prayer proves that. It is only from His being in the condition and position of a man down here in humiliation that there could be such utterances.
Ques You mean such as “Glorify thy Son”?
FER Yes, “Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee”.
Ques. In resurrection?
FER Yes, I think so. I think that in order that the Father might be glorified the truth of the Son must be declared, and resurrection, in that sense, was the showing forth — the declaration — of the truth of the Son, that He was the Son, and one with the Father. “That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” — but He had to be declared and set forth as the Son, one with the Father.
Ques In what sense has He glorified the Father?
FER By the accomplishment of the Father’s will; by giving effect to the will and counsel of the Father, He glorified the Father. His being glorified is, I suppose, in contrast to His being in humiliation here. He had become man in the position of humiliation [p. 386] and weakness here, and in contrast to that He is glorified, but then it shows, too, how completely the Son was identified with the position He had taken, He even prays that He may be glorified.
Rem Though He prays for it, yet He only gets what is His own, and of His own right.
FER Yes.
Ques But He receives it as given to Him of the Father, in the position which He had taken?
FER Yes, He was in the position of humiliation and weakness down here, but His present position is the greatest contrast to that — I mean His position as Man at the right hand of God; the glorious position He is in now is in contrast to all that He had down here, that is certain.
Ques Here, then, it is not so much the Son of man that is glorified as God’s Son?
FER That is it, “Glorify thy Son”.
Ques And that Son was seen in humiliation by men?
FER Yes. He took manhood in that way in humiliation, and as in that position there was the possibility of His being glorified.
Rem It is very beautiful, His prayer that He might be glorified in order that He might glorify the Father.
FER Yes.
Rem And He goes on to say, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh”.
FER He only takes up that position in resurrection, it is resurrection that sets Him in that position. It is quite clear that one Man, who is risen, is above every other man who is not risen. “To this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living” — it is resurrection that puts Him in a position suitable to that, having “authority over all flesh”.
Rem If it had been His as Man, it would almost have seemed like sanctioning [p. 387] the first man.
FER Yes, but in no sense was that the case, or could be the case. Of course, you could not limit grace, but it would not have been outside death if He had not taken it up in resurrection. If He had not taken up the position in resurrection of giving [p. 388] eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him, it would not have been outside death. Eternal life is in contrast to death.
Ques “The hour is come” — is that the hour of Christ’s being glorified, or the hour of the cross?
FER Well, I should think it is the hour of Christ’s being glorified.
Rem “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”.
FER I think the Lord prays in anticipation. It is like, “Thou hast given him power over all flesh”. It is over all flesh, it is not limited at all.
Rem It is universal dominion?
FER I think it is more on the line of headship, Christ is the head of every man.
Rem But with a view to the carrying out of counsel?
FER Yes, it is evidently so here.
Rem It was pointed out here a few weeks back how constantly you get in John such expressions as in chapter 10, He giveth His life “for the sheep”, and here it is that He should give eternal life “to as many as thou hast given him”.
FER Yes, I think that in redemption Christ claims a right over all, but with the object that He might carry out the counsel of the Father — that is the thing.
Rem There is a secret purpose in it all.
FER Yes, quite so. You get the statement with regard to Christ that “the head of every man is Christ”, not just of the elect, or of the church, but of every man.
Rem The Son would glorify the Father by giving eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him, and everything is put under Him so that He could do it.
FER I think so. He is given authority over all flesh that He might give eternal life to as many as the Father had chosen; but, in another point of view, He is given title over all flesh through redemption. “He died for all”, 2 Corinthians 5: 15.
Rem Even there it comes in “that they which live”, etc.
FER Yes, quite so. Here they are given to Him of the Father. Throughout the whole of John’s gospel there is never once the idea presented of any kind of competency in man, but just the contrary. The Lord will not trust man, He did not trust those who believed on Him when they saw the miracles that He did. Then it says, “No one can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him”. You see, it all goes, from the very outset, on the ground of the world having rejected Christ.
Rem. It starts with it?
FER Yes; I do not think that anyone could understand John’s gospel apart from seeing that. The thing is hopeless, it is all gone as far as the competency of man is concerned.
Rem It is really what you were saying last Friday, God is one, there is perfect unity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
FER Yes, perfect oneness of mind and purpose; I think that is the idea in God being one. The point in the Old Testament was, there is one God, but the point in the New Testament is God is one, because in the New Testament the light of divine Persons comes out, and therefore the teaching is that God is one.
Ques Then you would read it that way, “God is one” (1 Timothy 2)?
FER Yes; I believe that is the only correct way of reading it. God is one. There is one God,
[p. 389] there can be no doubt about that; but when the Mediator comes in it has to be emphasised that God is one, that is, as before stated, there is perfect oneness of mind and purpose.
Ques What is 1 Corinthians 8: 6, “To us there is one God, the Father”?
FER Well, the thought is different there; I think it is in contrast to many gods, and many lords. It says, “There be gods many, and lords many, but to us one God, the Father”. There would be no use in the statement there that God is one, it is in contrast to the many gods and many lords.
Rem I suppose John 17: 2 refers to those in Christianity, but does not go further?
FER No, I do not think so. I do not think the prayer goes beyond the church. The prayer is limited to those who are given to Him of the Father all through. Then you see when the Lord comes to speak in verse 3 of eternal life, it is not from Mount Zion where He “commanded the blessing, even life for evermore”, but something entirely new. I think the Lord gives the character of eternal life; no one could speak of this verse being a definition of eternal life, but the Lord gives us the character of it.
Rem And it is the knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ, His sent One.
FER Yes, I think so. It is the knowledge of the Father as the only true God, and of Jesus Christ. It is the sense that the only true God is presented to us in the Father, and the Son is presented to us as the sent One; the point in the passage is how divine Persons are presented to us.
Ques And we are to know God in the relationship of the Father?
FER Precisely. The Unitarians take up this verse, you see it posted up on their churches, too.
Rem Of course, because taking it out of its context [p. 390] you would make Jesus Christ just the sent One and no more.
FER But I do not see why, because, after all, it is the Father who is presented as the only true God in that way. It is not only one God, but the Father who is the only true God. They refuse the idea of the Father and Son and Spirit; but if they once admit the Father they give up the position.
Ques If there is a Father, there must be a Son?
FER Yes; there is no meaning otherwise in the relationship.
Rem But then what they hold is the universal Fatherhood of God.
F.E.R. Oh, is that it?
Rem But they do not profess to see the characteristic name of Father.
FER But it is a curious thing, if you come to take up that position, that Christ was here as a Man. It is a curious thing that He should pray to be glorified, so that He might have authority over all flesh. They could hardly conceive that that belonged to a mere man.
Ques Not even an unfallen creature could ask to be glorified?
FER No; and think of any creature having authority to give eternal life; imagine the Father drawing to a man, and that man giving to men eternal life! I think I could understand them if they repudiated the whole of the Scriptures, but to attempt to found their theory upon this scripture is downright wickedness.
Rem I do not think that modern Unitarians gave any authority to the word of God.
FER Perhaps not, but they quote it, you know, and they put it up on their churches.
Rem No one could ever say before, “I have glorified thee on the earth”.
FER No, indeed, exactly the opposite. If they had said, “I have dishonoured Thee on the earth”, it would have been true.
Ques Is verse a like the end of Matthew, where the Lord says, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”
FER I think that is more dispensational, and that He comes to them there more administratively, so He sends them forth to all nations to baptise. You get there, not “all flesh”, but the distinction between Jew and Gentile; here it is simply, “Thou hast given him power over all flesh”. Jew and Gentile are merged in “all flesh”; and then He has power over all flesh, “that he should give eternal life to as many as thou has given him”. I think the great importance of the way eternal life is spoken of here is that it is presented objectively.
Ques As something outside your life altogether?
FER Yes, outside yourself altogether, something that really is apprehended.
Ques If we have eternal life it is in Him?
FER Yes, it is the gift of God, and it is in Him; but to us it is an objective thought, one that the mind apprehends.
Ques Only we may have the consciousness of having reached it?
FER Oh, yes; but that is the other side; the thing itself is an objective thought, though there is the work of God that fits us for the apprehension of it.
Ques So the point in the first epistle is that we “might know”?
FER Yes, the point there is that we might be conscious; the subjective thought is that you might be conscious, but then you are conscious that you have something objectively. You are brought into a certain position and relationship, and there it is that you have eternal life, the knowledge of the only true God — the Father, and the Son as Jesus Christ the sent One; being brought into the light of that, you are conscious [p. 392] that you have eternal life. What is it makes you conscious? What makes you conscious is that you have the power to enjoy what is presented to you, that is the way the consciousness comes. Certain things are presented to me, and they are such a reality to me, that I am conscious that I have eternal life. Certain divine realities are so presented to the soul — they become such a reality to me, that I am conscious that I have eternal life, but the consciousness springs from what is presented to me.
Rem I suppose you would say they are apprehended by the Spirit?
FER They are apprehended by the work of the Spirit. They would not come to you as realities except by the work of the Spirit. These things come to us so as realities that we are conscious that we have come to eternal life.
Rem As formed in the divine nature one is conscious of eternal life.
FER Yes.
Ques What makes a man conscious of natural life?
FER Well, it is natural relationships; intelligent natural life flows from being in certain natural relationships; you are in the affection that flows from these relationships, and the man is occupied with the objects of his affections.
Rem They make life worth living, as we say?
FER Yes; a man is made conscious of life by the objects by which he is surrounded. Now the reality of eternal life lies in the reality to you of the Persons who are presented to you, whatever may be the preparation that enables you to enter into it.
Rem You are pressing that thought to correct the thought that we used to have that eternal life was in us?
FER Yes.
Ques What is the force of “Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”?
[p. 393] FER You have not got the full declaration of His being the sent One except as glorified; it is His being glorified that testifies to it. It is His place at the right hand of God, it is His having gone back to the Father, that is the proof and declaration that He is the sent One of the Father.
Rem He is declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.
FER Exactly. It was expedient for them that He went away, because He would send the Comforter to them; then in the coming of the Comforter you get the plain declaration that He is the sent One of the Father. Of course you can easily understand that only faith could know the Father as the only true God, because, without faith, you could know nothing about the Father. It is only faith in those who have got the Holy Spirit that enables them to know the Son as the sent One; otherwise you could not know that He is with the Father.
Ques Why is it the only “true God”?
FER I suppose there are many pretensions to deity in the world; the great idea of “true” in John’s writings is that whatever is spoken of as “true” is genuine. He is proved to be genuine in the fact that He is revealed.
Ques It would be impossible to speak of knowing the Father apart from knowing the Son?
FER Quite so.
Ques In connection with what you said just now as to relationships with the Persons, how do we stand in regard to Christ?
FER We stand in relationship to the Father in the place of sons; and in relationship to Christ as His companions, “As he is, so are we in this world” — you stand in companionship to Christ; as He says here, “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them”. Then, too, He says, “I will come to you”, and “The Father himself loveth you”. I [p. 394] think the Lord appears to take the utmost possible pains to let them understand that He identifies Himself with them, takes their side, in a sense.
Rem “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”.
FER Quite so.
Rem There is a very interesting verse in the epistle giving the connection, “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” — the two things come out here, the Spirit, and then the fact of the Father having sent the Son.
FER Yes. Other beings do assume authority over men, but the apostle says to them, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols”. There are plenty of other things and other beings that claim the heart of man, that seek a place of authority in the heart of man.
Rem You get it in the Thessalonians, “Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God”.
FER Yes, the true God is proved to be the true God when He reveals Himself.
Rem It was not really the true God that the Pharisees worshipped, they knew nothing of grace or of mercy.
FER No; and people today who talk about the Almighty God do not know God, they do not know the Father. I think that, if you do not know the Father, you do not really know the only true God; you could not be said to know God at all really if you did not know the Father.
Rem That is the way in which He is to be known today.
FER Quite so. I think that, at any particular moment, God must be known in the way in which He presents Himself, and if you do not know Him as He has been pleased to reveal Himself at that particular [p. 395] moment, it is clear that you do not know God. I may believe that God is Almighty, and I may believe that He is a Judge, but I do not know Him in that way; it is impossible that God should be known to me as Lawgiver, or Judge, today, and yet both are true of Him, but no one could know Him as such.
Rem And the particular testimony given to the saints forms and fashions them.
FER Yes; the only way in which you can know God today is as a Saviour God, and if you do not know Him as that, you do not know Him at all; if you know Him now, you must know Him as He presents Himself now, and anyone who knows Him as a Saviour God must have salvation.
Rem “Saviour God” is characteristic of the present testimony.
FER Exactly. You know He is willing for “all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”. He would have all men to be saved, that is what is characteristic of Him.
Rem It is a very great thing to have the present truth.
FER Yes; you see people have not got the idea of salvation in the present; it must hang on the knowledge of God in the way in which He presents Himself; if you know Him as a Saviour God, you must be saved, that is certain.
Ques It is incontrovertible, but what about when He comes out as a Judge?
FER But the great point for me is the present testimony that God is a Saviour God. The fact is this, I have no need to be troubled about coming into judgment if I know God now as a Saviour; if you would know God you must know Him as He presents Himself at this moment, not as He will do in the future, nor has done in the past, but as He presents Himself now. Abraham’s blessing all hangs on the revelation of God as Almighty; and Israel’s on the [p. 396] revelation of God as Jehovah, and ours depends upon the revelation of God as Saviour, and if you know Him as a Saviour you must be saved, and if you are not, you do not know Him at all. People who go through great exercises have not apprehended the light in which God presents Himself to men today; their exercises would all come to an end if they apprehended Him as a Saviour.
Ques And you learn that He is a Justifier?
FER Yes; and justification is not an act of God; you learn than justification is His attitude towards men. He is “just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus” — that is His attitude towards men; and if you apprehend Him in that attitude, you must be justified.
Rem It shows us how it all depends upon the knowledge of God.
FER Yes, and in the character and attitude in which He is revealed at any given moment; it is not that God changes, God never changes, but He may change His attitude.
Rem That necessarily must be so, because God could not have the same attitude towards a fallen being as towards an unfallen.
FER No. The fact is, God has come out in the Son, and He has come out as a Saviour God, and there is one Mediator, Christ Jesus. It is the same thing in principle as “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world”. But now when it is a question of a soul coming back to God, returning to God, what he finds is that it is the Father who is presented to him as God, and the Son as the sent One of the Father; but that is not exactly the attitude in which God presents Himself to man; that is what you find out when you have returned. “Saviour” is God’s attitude universally to man, but when the light has taken effect, and I have returned to God, I find that the Father is presented to me as God, and that Jesus Christ is His [p. 397] sent One. I feel that passage in 1 Timothy is the finest gospel passage in Scripture. God’s attitude towards man is that of Saviour God.
Ques Why do you say justification is not an “act” of God?
FER The act of God was the resurrection of Christ, but then that act makes known His mind in regard of all men; you have to learn God’s mind in the resurrection of Christ; Romans 4: 24, 25.
Rem It is not that when a person really believes then God does a certain act to justify that man — if that were so, it would be no longer faith.
Ques Would you read “justification” or “justifying” in that verse (Romans 4: 24)?
FER Well, you could not exactly render it “justifying”. The moment when a person believes is the moment that he is justified; you come then into the light of God; but God has not altered. It is the justification of him that believes in Jesus, only that, until that moment he had not come into it. It is, of course, individual as far as you are concerned, it is good for you; you are justified.
Rem You come into the benefit of the act of God, but that took place more than eighteen hundred years ago.
FER Yes, but you come into it believing on Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord.
Ques What is the work here, “the work which thou gavest me to do” (verse 4)?
FER Well, I think the work — as far as I understand it — was completely maintaining the glory of God where it had been called in question — in the very place where God had been dishonoured, and where every attribute of God had been dragged in the dust.
Ques Is it like Psalm 40?
FER It is not exactly the work there, but the will, “Lo, I come to do thy will”. What is more [p. 398] analogous to that is that He takes away the whole system of sacrifices; but the “work” was the glorifying of God, of every attribute of God which had been dishonoured down here. What testimony was there down here to the righteousness of God, or to His holiness, or His grace, or even to His love? The effect of sin was to dishonour every attribute of God, in a certain sense. Look at the beginnings of things here — God makes a man on the earth, and that man flies in the face of God; then God sets up a man to govern the world, and that man gets drunk — and what was all that in the presence of the universe? Why, that every attribute of God was dishonoured. Man was no testimony to God’s righteousness, or holiness, or to His skill, or anything else, but just the contrary. Well then, the Son comes and He glorifies God in regard of everything that had dishonoured Him. But if you take all the dispensations of man — God makes an innocent man, and the man sins; He sets up a kingdom, and the king falls into sin; then He sets up a Gentile as head, and that man calls upon all men to fall down and worship an image that he himself had made — and all that.
Rem And all the more serious because man had been made in God’s image.
FER Yes, much more serious.
Rem I suppose that all the universe should have seen God’s representative in man!
FER Yes; and the universe does see it in Christ; He first makes it evident that He is the righteous One — that is made evident in the whole way and path of the Lord here on the earth — it is evident that He is the righteous One; then He glorifies God in regard of every question that had been raised; every question is taken up in the cross.
Ques Is it God that makes it evident?
FER No, I think it is made evident in the pathway [p. 399] of the Lord here, and He could say, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”
Ques Giving God His due is righteousness?
FER Yes.
Ques Do both statements in verse 4 apply to the path and the cross?
FER “I have glorified thee on the earth” is one statement, and “finished the work” is another — that is more the cross; because the cross was not exactly upon the earth, He was lifted up from the earth; I think at the cross the position of Christ — it is most important to take it in — the position of Christ on the cross was altogether peculiar, because it was vicarious. He occupied a position not His own, but the position of others. The position of Christ on the cross was not representative — that is not the true idea — He was there vicariously. He appears in the presence of God for us — that is representatively, but He is not vicariously there.
Ques How would you define “vicarious”?
FER “Vicarious” describes the position of One who occupies the place of another in contrast with what is representative.
Ques Why do you quote “lifted up from the earth” in connection with “vicarious”?
FER Because He glorified God on the earth, and so it was not morally just that He should suffer upon the earth, and therefore it is that He is lifted up between heaven and earth, really to take the place of man.
Ques And therefore, too, He draws our hearts away from the earth?
FER Yes, I think so.
Ques Do you mean taking man’s place as a curse?
FER Yes, man’s place in the presence of God; and now Christ is representative [p. 400] for His people.
Ques And He will bring them where He is?
FER Yes; but when He was on the cross He was not representative of His people but there vicariously for all men — He gave Himself a ransom for all men.
Ques And, lifted up from the earth, He became an object for faith?
FER Quite so.
Ques Is it as the righteous One that He is there representatively in the presence of the Father?
FER Yes, I think so. I think the Lord takes up verses 4 and 5 in connection with the thought in verse 3, “Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”.
He glorifies Him on the earth as the sent One; I think that flows out of verse 3.
Ques Then verse 4 is that the sent One came that God might have full scope to effect His will?
FER Yes; He first speaks from the position of man down here, and then in verse 4 He speaks as a sent One who had glorified God on the earth. That is the difference between the two expressions. First, as to His actual position down here, He was a Man in humiliation, and so He could pray, “Glorify thy Son”, but when He comes to verse 3 He is the sent One of the Father — the two expressions are perfectly suitable. It is the sent One who is in that place, not at all the idea of the union of God and man, but the One who comes out from the Father that He might accomplish the will of the Father.
Rem It is very wonderful how irresistibly we are drawn back to the One who was in the heart of the Father. Our only resource is in Him.
FER Yes. No human being can tell why it is so, but counsel belongs to the Father, as we have it. “All the Father’s counsels claiming”, etc. They are centred in the Son, but evidently counsels in Scripture are connected with the name of the Father, and if it were not for that the condition of the world would be [p. 401] completely hopeless. Man has rejected every overture of God; no overture that God ever made but they rejected — what then remains? Why, nothing whatever but the Father’s counsels. And then in connection with that comes out the principle, which everyone must allow — the principle of sovereignty.