JOHN 17 (2)
JOHN 17 (2)
FER From verse 6 and onwards for a few verses we get an account of the service which Christ had carried out with regard to the disciples, it is all in relation to the Father, “I have manifested thy name”, and “they have kept thy word”. It is a kind of commendation, in that way, of the disciples — “I am glorified in them”.
Ques You do not think this part of it, “I have manifested thy name”, is anticipative, do you?
FER Oh, no, I think He had manifested the Father’s name, “I have declared unto them thy name”.
Rem You would say that that was the object for which they were given to Him of the Father?
FER I think so, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me”. Then the Lord, in a certain sense, commends them (though I do not quite like that expression); He says, “They have kept thy word”, etc.
Rem He gives them credit for a great deal more than they apparently apprehended.
FER Yes, I think He credits them apart from their apprehension.
Rem The foundation was laid in them, and then the Spirit came and built upon that which was there.
FER Yes; if they did not reject His word, then they accepted it; there is no intermediate course, they either kept His word or rejected it.
Rem They had stood the great test, which was the acceptance [p. 402] of Himself.
FER Yes, and that gives them full credit before the Father. It is very remarkable how the Lord speaks of everything as from the Father; He does not speak of anything as having its source in Himself; it is the Father’s name, and the Father’s word, and “all things whatsoever thou hast given me”, and then even of Himself He says, “they ... have known surely that I came out from thee”. The Father is regarded as being the source of everything.
Rem “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”.
FER Yes; but you get the statement in the epistle of John, “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world”. I think that, in the highest sense of it, Scripture itself is the word of the Father — all that we get in Scripture is the Father’s word. Of course it is the word of God, but, looked at in the highest sense of it, it is the word of the Father.
Rem It is spoken of, is it not, as the holy writing?
FER Yes, both as “holy writings” and “sacred letters”. You see, the world, as such, has failed — man has failed, but then comes to light another thing, and that is the Father’s counsel. The world has failed under every possible kind of test, it has become manifest beyond all question that man has failed; and man will not have the grace of God. One thing is certain, that grace is more unpalatable to man than law. You see that in the present day in the mass of people, the natural man would sooner have law than grace. You go and talk to a man of the world about the forgiveness of sins, he would much rather you should talk to him about law, that he should love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself. He would rather that you should tell him that than about the forgiveness of sins.
Rem On the same principle as with the children of Israel when they said, “All that the Lord hath said will we do”?
FER [p. 403] Yes; if you present to man anything that recognises competency in man he will accept it, but when you come to him with the wisdom of God, it is to the Jew a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness.
Rem And yet there is no other ground for me at all than grace.
FER No; you see, the grace of God could not come in until there had been the perfect demonstration before God of man’s true position in regard to God, and it is in that way that the cross comes in; the cross was the demonstration of man’s true position with regard to God. In relation to God, man was under the curse of a broken law, and God brought about in the cross the perfect demonstration of man’s position, so that by that way the grace of God might come in. Judgment came in because Christ took that place vicariously, and He was dealt with according to the place which He had taken; but at the same time, there was the triumph of grace over judgment, the full measure of judgment was there, but grace comes in by it. But we were only speaking of that in connection with the thought that grace was unpalatable to the natural man. In spite of all that, God continues to present His grace to man although it is true, I am sure, that the natural man rejects it. It came out in the presence of Christ here, He came to man “full of grace and truth”, and they rejected grace — they rejected Christ.
Ques They murmured at Him?
FER Yes, and they did their very best to discredit His miracles — just like the rationalists today, they try to account for the miracles in some natural way. But do away with the miracles, and you have done away with Christ.
Ques There are a great many Sadducees today.
FER Yes, and a great many Pharisees too. He came here with the power to relieve man of every [p. 404] disability under which he was, and if it were not so, then I say He was not an expression of the grace of God — I think that is just.
Rem It would have been ineffectual to man.
FER Yes, the grace of God, allied with power, must relieve man of every disability which was on man by reason of sin. And therefore if Christ did not work miracles, He was not an expression of the grace of God. When I speak of miracles, I see them as the expression of the power that could relieve man of every pressure that sin had brought upon him. He could heal the leper.
Ques All the sign-miracles were of that character?
FER Yes.
Ques Virtue went out of Him?
FER Yes, that was the principle of it, and it healed them all.
Rem It is very instructive to see the way the Lord touches people, and they Him.
FER Yes; no two miracles are exactly the same, there is a peculiarity about each one. The point to me is that God still presents grace to man. The gospel is just a continuation of the ministry of Christ. God will continue on that line, and yet with the perfect knowledge that the heart of man will not have grace. But then another thing comes in in connection with Christ, and that is the revelation of the Father’s counsels. The great public testimony to the world is grace, and yet God knows perfectly well that the heart of man refuses it, but underneath there is another line of truth, and that is the Father’s counsels.
Rem There is no excuse for man, so that God can righteously judge the world, though He still presents grace to man; it delivers the man that receives it, but those who reject it are left without excuse.
FER Yes; the hindrance is on man’s side to receiving the grace of God, for God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”, and “The grace of God that carries with it salvation for all men has appeared”. It is most important to apprehend that.
Ques Is it not pride that hinders man?
FER I think so. And I think that, except where God is working, you really stumble people greatly by talking to them about the forgiveness of sins.
Rem They do not need it — or rather they have no sense of their need of it.
FER No sense of it, they do not see that sin has disqualified them for God — they are lepers without knowing it, and paralytics, too.
Rem And they are not aware of their need because they are under the power of Satan.
FER Well, I think the world has a good bit to do with it; the world, and sin, and Satan.
Ques The world has more reference, has it not, to the system of things set up on the earth?
FER Quite so, but the world is the great system that Satan uses to blind people — he is the god of this world, and he uses this world to blind people. I think I can remember it of myself, that I had a sense that, if I accepted the grace of God, God would have a certain claim over me; and I do not think that people want to recognise that claim, they do not want to answer to that claim. You see, if you receive forgiveness of sins by the grace of God, God must have a certain claim upon you; anyone who does receive the grace of God recognises the claim of Christ upon him. Then, too, you get grace’s teaching, “Teaching us that, denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world”. You have to change your ways if you come under the sway of grace, and the mass of people are not anxious to change their ways, the world has a great attraction for them. But the world, as it is, is not agreeable to God; “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride [p. 406] of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world”. It is not agreeable to God, but, on the contrary, it is hateful to Him. There is a willingness to be carried on in the course of this world — the mass of people like the gratification of the eye; either the man of taste or the gross man likes the gratification of the flesh, and the man of mind likes the pride of life, he wants to go on in that direction, anyway.
Rem But the love of the Father is not in such?
FER No, because he loves the very things that are abominable to the Father.
Ques In reference to what you said as to the law, it really did not make such a demand upon men as grace did, that is, in their own estimation?
FER No, because it recognised competency in man. You see, in churches they repeat the ten commandments, and in connection with each commandment there is a prayer, “Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law”. Well, if the Lord inclines your heart, you can keep that law; but then, if your heart is inclined to keep God’s law, that is not grace, but law. Grace comes in on the ground that you have no claim whatever upon God, and that if you go on as you are you will come under judgment; but then you find that God does not condemn but He forgives, there is full remission; that is how grace comes in. Law is the recognition of man.
But I was only speaking of that in connection with the line that comes out previously in John; then here you get the Father’s counsel, the Father’s word and counsel, and in connection with that you get the Son. The Son is the Centre and Object of all the counsels of the Father, and the Father draws to the Son. And so here, in speaking of the disciples, He says, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me” — they were drawn to the Son. The moment the Son came here, He came as the End and Object of the Father’s counsels,
[p. 407] and the activity of the Father came in to lead to the Son, He draws to the Son.
Ques And He brings them to the Father?
FER Quite so. I think you get the full force of it in the verse we often sing
“Thou gav’st us, in eternal love,
To Him to bring us home, to Thee,
Suited to Thine own thoughts above,
As sons like Him, with Him to be”. (88:1)
I think that is a most beautiful expression of it.
Ques And I suppose that, in this chapter, it is that company that He is occupied with?
FER Yes, exactly. The Lord here takes up the disciples, if one might use such an expression, in order to commend them to the Father; He commends not Himself; but them to the Father.
Rem How the glory of the Person comes out here, in the way He can demand for them of the Father.
FER Yes, He takes up the place of Object and Centre of the Father’s counsels; the new system of things originated entirely in the Father.
Rem And He was one in life and relationship with the Father.
FER Yes; and in the previous chapter He has shown them that they are loved of the Father.
Ques And that comes in entirely outside the question of responsibility, and so on?
FER Yes; these are all entirely subordinate questions; even the presentation of the gospel to man is subordinate to the great question of the Father’s counsels. That is my impression.
Rem God would not keep on with man as He does unless He had some end in view.
FER No, it is out of the question. God just goes on in that way until He brings things to a close.
Ques In looking at those whom the Father had drawn to Him, would you bring in the question of their previous history at [p. 408] all?
FER Oh, no; it is a question of the sovereignty of divine counsels that gave them to the Son. It is rather the thought of being “chosen in him before the foundation of the world” that comes in there. He says of them, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me”. They were the Father’s in eternal counsel, and they were given to the Son in time; when the Son became man, they were given to Him.
Ques Would what is here stated be applicable to others than apostles?
FER “They have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee”, and “They have believed that thou didst send me”. There is nothing in the passage that I see, that might not be applicable to others.
Rem And it is essential that we should believe what they believed.
FER Yes. The apostle, in his first epistle, speaks of writing “that ye also may have fellowship with us”. He fully recognises the place of the apostles, but he desires that the saints should have fellowship with them. He quite takes that place, “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”.
Ques Is the “kept thy word” here the same as in the address to the church of Philadelphia, “For thou hast ... kept my word, and hast not denied my name”?
FER Well, here it is the Father’s word, it is looked at in that light; whereas in Philadelphia it is more the word of Christ, and from where He now is; it is the expression of Himself where He now is. Both the “word” and the “name” there represent Christ, not as upon earth, but as in heaven. When here upon earth He was making known the Father’s name. His name in Revelation 3 includes all that is set forth in Him.
Ques What is the difference between keeping the Father’s word and receiving the Father’s words (verses 6 and 8)?
FER Well, the Father’s word is John’s idea of the Father’s testimony, which the Son brought here, that is the general idea of it; but “words” give me more the idea of communications in detail. For example, the ten commandments were called the ten words.
Rem So, in verse 14, it brought down the hatred of the world.
FER Yes; but that is in connection with the kingdom; He gave the word there to the disciples for testimony, and it was that that brought them into collision with the world. Here the Lord first commends them, and then He prays for them, but He sets to work to commend them to the Father first, and the commendation really amounts to this, that, whatever amount of intelligence they might have, at all events they had recognised in principle the Father as being the source of all that came out by the Son — that is the Lord’s commendation of them. I do not believe that any of us will be really established if we do not first see that the great principle of Scripture is the Father’s word. The indefinite idea that Scripture is the word of God is not, to my mind, really strong enough — you want to make it stronger and more definite. The great first principle and predominating idea of Scripture is that it is the Father’s word.
Ques You are speaking now of the whole of Scripture?
FER Yes; and when Christ came, what He brought out accomplished everything. For instance, take Genesis 1, it opens with “In the beginning God”, but in John 1 you get, “In the beginning was the Word”. All that the unbeliever allows is a creation of certain laws; he says that everything in nature is the product of certain laws. The great crucial question of the day is, have we a revelation from God? Now if I [p. 410] were asked on what I pin my faith I would say, On two things, one is the Lordship of Christ, and the other is the presence of the Holy Spirit; and for this reason, that if you do allow those two things, everything in Scripture will stand; but on the contrary, if you let them go, everything is gone.
Rem That brings in resurrection, because He could only be Lord in resurrection.
FER Yes. He could only be Lord in manhood and resurrection. If the Son had remained a divine Person simply — as a divine Person He could not have been Lord, it would have had no application to Him; but as becoming Lord it involves His manhood and resurrection. His becoming Man simply was not large enough, because it put Him in touch with only a limited class of people, but resurrection gave Him a ground in regard of all — He “rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living”. It gives Him a kind of universal place. If you allow the Lordship of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit, every bit of Scripture will stand, because the One who is Lord has put His sanction on the whole of Scripture; and if you do not allow that, then I have nothing more to say to you, but I am prepared for death if it became a question of life and death; I think it is a great thing to apprehend the crucial point where you take your place, and are prepared to suffer for it. Of course, Scripture contains a solution of every difficulty, although I am not speaking of that, but it is a very great point to find a ground on which you can take your stand, whatever the consequences may be. You may lose the world, or your friends, or relatives, or anything else, but I take my stand there, that Christ is Lord, and that the Holy Spirit is here. Revelation is founded on that. The secret of all infidelity is that people have not got the Lord. If they had the real foundation of Christ as Lord they would not be shaken at all; and people ought not [p. 411] to be shaken, they ought to have the assurance of everything in themselves. The defect in people is that they have not this assurance — they are not rooted and grounded in these blessed facts and realities.
Rem If the scripture stands, people are responsible.
FER Yes.
Rem The fact of the revelation of God leaves man without excuse.
FER Quite so; because God has given man the opportunity of walking in the light, and man will most surely be judged by the light. If God has given light to man, man must be judged by that light; he is not left without responsibility, that is an absurd thought. The Lord says, “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”. And then again it is, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak”, chapter 12: 48, 49.
Now you see the Lord prays for them. He says, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world” — He is not glorified in the world, but in them.
Rem Is it that He was to be seen in them?
FER Yes; the place to which He was entitled was that He should have been seen and glorified in the world, but that has not yet come about. The world has failed, but He is glorified in those who were given to Him out of the world.
Ques Does it at all refer to the psalm, “I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance”?
FER No, I do not think that is the idea at all.
Ques It is limited to His own here?
FER Quite so. The grace of God comes out to the world, but, at the same time, I do not think that Christ occupies Himself with the world — He is occupied with His own. You do get the idea of the love of God being towards the world, but not that of the love of Christ for the world. I think that the love of Christ,
[p. 412] the mind of Christ, is towards His own, to those whom the Father has given Him out of the world. There was no hope for the world when Christ died, so the gospel comes into the world to save men out of it; the object of the gospel is not to recognise the world as it is, but to draw men out of it. You find the question has been raised as to whether the gospel has benefited the world or not; well, I would not pursue that question. It never was intended to act in that way; it was intended as a light to lead men out of the world. The parable of the woman with the candle, sweeping the house, shows us that clearly enough.
Rem So that the gospel has not failed of its intent?
FER Not at all. At the same time, it is certain that whatever there is of mercy and philanthropy in the world is owing to Christianity, it is a matter that is undeniable.
Rem In Romans 11 it speaks of the stumbling of the Jews being for the riches of the world, and their diminishing being for the riches of the Gentiles.
FER Yes, it was the riches of the Gentiles and of the world, because it brought them within the reach of God’s testimony.
Ques So the world has in that way profited by it?
FER Yes; take for example hospitals. They are all the result of Christianity. Where would you have found one among the Romans or the Greeks? Neither one nor the other was a merciful people at all. The exposure of children was a common thing among the Romans, you certainly would not have found hospitals among them; it was hard times for the weaklings, anyway.
Rem But now the world wants to cast off that which proved for their benefit.
FER Yes, retaining all the benefits. The principle of the whole thing in men’s minds is that everything which has come in is merely a step in the education of the world, and when that process is completed [p. 413] they will break away from their leading-strings; they only wait until man has arrived at full age, and then he will arrange for himself — that is the kind of thought that is abroad today.
Ques And therefore the only thing for us is the Father’s counsels?
FER I think so; and I would repeat what I said just now, that you have got to take your stand, and you are to be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might”. The armour of God is everything of Christ, put on as a panoply — a covering of truth, and righteousness, and faith.
Everything that Christ has brought in is to be put on as a covering; not just believed, but you are to be clothed in it, and then you are able to meet the devil. Everything that Christ brought in is to characterise you. What would the devil present in contrast to truth and righteousness and faith? But these are what Christ has brought, and if I have put them on I have got the whole panoply of God. And truly salvation is better than infidelity. I think that when you are “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might”, that is final; it is a point at which you arrive, you have put on the whole armour of God.
Now the Lord’s prayer for the apostles is contained in one single petition: “that they may be one, as we are one”, that is the object of the petition. “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name”.
Ques They were to be one in the same bond as between the Father and the Son?
FER Yes, I think so. And the object — the effect of it — was to bring them into direct connection with the Father’s name; they were already in a kind of indirect connection with the Father’s name through Him, but the object of the prayer is to bring them [p. 414] into direct touch with, and contact with, the Father’s name, that is, in relationship with the Father; and the result of it would be that, if they were kept in that way, there would be unity, “that they may be one, as we are”. The testimony was unity, the having one common interest, just as the Father and the Son are one in counsel and purpose and working; so everything is to be of the same character of unity as between the Father and the Son, as it says, “The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth”, and these things “doeth the Son likewise”, chapter 5: 19, 20. This, too, was to be effected as between the apostles, and it was effected. For even when Paul comes in, and he presents a difficulty, in a way, as being outside the twelve, yet, even then, the unity was maintained. He had a distinctive presentation of the gospel, and preached it, and worked among the Gentiles, but you find that whenever any great question arose, he comes up to Jerusalem that the question might be settled at Jerusalem.
“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name” — think of the tender care of the Lord for the apostles — “and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition”, and he perished because of apostasy.
Ques Is it the same word there as in chapter 10, “shall never perish”?
FER Yes; the connection of the words here is between perish and perdition. Only two men are called “the son of perdition”, Judas and Antichrist. You get the “Sons of Belial” in the Old Testament, but in the whole of Scripture you only get these two individual men marked out as sons of perdition. Judas perished by apostasy. I should suppose he had been attracted to Christ in the first instance, but he became apostate from Christ and betrayed Him.
Ques And there is no recovery for apostasy?
FER Well, what could there be? If a man [p. 415] turns away from God, and what God gives him, if he refuses Christ, and the full light of God, there is nothing more for him, it is impossible to form a link between that man and Christ.
Judas must have seen everything that the Lord did; he had been in the company of the Lord for three and a half years, heard His words, and seen His works, and I have no doubt had even performed miracles himself, and yet, in spite of all that, you get the man ruled by covetousness. It only shows what the heart of man is. You have to be exceedingly careful of the principles that dominate in the heart; even the Christian has to watch what his heart is covering up, evil motives are very insidious, and they may work in a very subtle sort of way. With Judas it was no sudden thing, he began with covetousness, then Satan tempts him, and then Satan enters into him, but it was all step by step. No one knows how very strong in the heart of man is the love of possession, it is a principle of immense power. When the devil came to the Lord he said, “Command that these stones be made bread”. Well, the Lord could have turned those stones into bread, or into gold, if He had liked, but His answer is, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. You might get plenty of bread to eat, and no life at all morally, but it is by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” that we are to live.