JOHN 17 (3)
JOHN 17 (3)
FER It is very remarkable how completely the Lord puts the disciples into His own position here, I mean that He puts them in the place which He had occupied, “I have given them thy word”; and then, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”; and then, too, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world”. They had the Father’s word — that is, He puts the testimony, as it were, into their hands; they were not of the world, and they were sent of Him, even as He had been sent by the Father. It is a very remarkable placing of them in His own position, the position which He had occupied. Then the prayer is that they might be maintained in it, consciously maintained in it.
Rem In the testimony of the Father.
FER I mean in what was suited to that testimony. Anyone who was of the world could not bear testimony to the Father; “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world”. If a man is of the world, he speaks of the world, he could not bear testimony to the Father, and therefore it is He says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”.
Ques What is the difference between the “words” which He had given them and verse 14, “I have given them thy word”?
FER I think the “words” are more the details. Whatever “words” the Father had made known to Him, He had given them, He kept nothing back from them in that way; and what He got from the Father was given to Him for communication. Whatever Christ received of the Father was for that end.
Rem He had given to them the Father’s word, and the world had hated them.
FER Yes, because “they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”; the world loves what is of itself and it cannot, and does not, love what is not of itself. If we begin to learn of Christ, you come to Him and learn of Him. In that way you become like Him, and you will very soon become conscious that the world is in antagonism to you. What is of the Father is not likely to find favour in the world, just because it is not of the world-system. I think the [p. 417] world naturally likes what is of itself — what is akin to it, and what answers to it — but it is scarcely conceivable that the world would like what is opposed to it.
Ques How does that fit in with the verse in Galatians which says, “Against such there is no law”?
FER Well, I think you can understand that if a man is bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, he is entirely outside the application of law. If he is bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, such as “love, joy, peace”, well, the law has no application there. The law could not apply in such a case, you could not have a law against what is of God.
Ques You take it to be the law of God, not man’s law?
FER It is the divine law, and you could not have that against what is of God; it is impossible, in the very nature of it, that any commandments of God should be against what is of God. You see how the working of things would be if you got the love of Christ in a person, the desire of that person would be to bring the testimony of Christ into this world; well, if you unfold that you will very soon bring yourself into antagonism with the world. The Lord Himself was sent in divine love by the Father, but then He could not acquiesce in the state of things here, and love was therefore brought into antagonism with men. It is impossible that divine love should acquiesce in what was here, and that makes good what the Lord says, “They have both seen and hated both me and my Father”. A great many people fancy that love would lead a man to acquiesce in what he finds here, to accept what is here, but divine love could not accept it. The Lord would perform an act of mercy on the Sabbath day, for instance, for mercy could not be bound by the Sabbath day, but then that brings Him into collision with the Jews. The secret comes out in His answer, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”.
[p. 418] Rem And now the cross has come in and separated us from the world, and put everything, too, into its place.
FER Yes. You see, a Christian might be amiable, and, as far as he could, anxious to go on in peace, and desirous not to offend, but that is not love. There might be every possible desire to go on with men, and not offend, he might do all that, and people would admire one’s amiability and all that, but what I think is, love would carry you further than that, it would prevent your acquiescence in things here. People like Christians well enough as long as they do not interfere, or come forward in testimony; it is the testimony that stirs up the opposition and enmity. What the world says very generally is, “Let every man alone, let a man act according to his conscientious convictions — let a Jew be a Jew, and let a Christian be a Christian, let every man act according to his conscience” and so on; but there is no divine love in that, and, too, it involves the giving up the idea that there is such a thing here as divine truth. Love must be faithful, and if the testimony comes in — “Thy word” — I am very well convinced it will very soon bring a person into collision with the world. The apostles were bound to recognise this, on the word of the Lord, that they were not of the world, even as He was not of the world. They had another origin altogether, and the world hated them because they were not of the world. The word was given them for testimony, as I understand it, not simply for their own intelligence and comfort; and then really, to be effective in testimony, at all events in the word of the Father, they had to know that they were not of the world, even as He was not of the world.
Ques Was it in view of testimony that He said, “In the world ye shall have tribulation”?
FER Yes, I think so; there is a great world-system here upon earth, and I think that great system [p. 419] will only hear what is of itself — it will only tolerate what is of itself. Many people have a difficulty in taking in the idea of a great world-system, but Scripture contemplates it, and speaks of it continually, and I think, too, we become conscious that there is this great world-system, and the principle that lies at the root of it is that of opposing anything that is not of itself. If you can contribute to it it will tolerate you, but not otherwise. You could not come into contact with the world and not find that out; “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world” — the source of them is the world; and if you come to tell people that everything that supports the world-system, and characterises it, is about to pass away, but that the word of God abides for ever — well, I do not think the world would care much about that testimony.
Ques And that is to be a living testimony?
FER Yes; people think you very peculiar if you do not answer to the lust of the flesh, and of the eye, and to the pride of life, but your answer is they are all to pass away, God does not intend to improve the world. He waters the word of truth in secret, but the divine idea is to set the world aside altogether.
Rem That is what marked the Lord’s pathway all along, He was not trying to improve the world or anything of that sort.
FER No. Here He says, “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”. They were sent into the world even as He was sent into it; no one in the present day could say he was sent into the world as Christ was, at least not in the sense that is brought out here.
Ques It is restricted to the apostles?
FER I think so. They were sent into the world for the introduction of the testimony; it began in the Lord, but it had to be maintained in that way in the [p. 420] power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit was sent in His name to bear witness to Him.
Ques The testimony is still here?
FER Yes; the testimony is here, but it has really come to us by the apostles — we have not got it through Christ, but it has reached us through the apostles. All that we know about Christ has been communicated to us by the apostles, and whatever we know of the ministry of the Lord we learn through them.
Rem You get that in Hebrews 2, “which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him”.
FER Yes.
Ques What do you understand by “Sanctify them by the truth: thy word is truth”?
FER I think He makes ample provision for their sanctification, complete provision for it. The idea of the word ‘sanctify’ does not carry the thought generally connected with it; it is not a progressive thing at all, but they were set apart by the truth; the truth set them apart once for all, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth”.
Ques And it was the truth that was opposed to the world, and therefore it, of itself set them apart?
FER Yes; I think that, by the very truth, they were of another colour.
Ques They were of a new order?
FER Yes, I think so. You have to see that the primary application of it is to the apostles. The early part of the chapter is all connected with their place in testimony up to verse 19; then you get the prayer of the Lord widening out to all those who should believe on Him through their word, for we are all the fruit of the apostle’s testimony, in one sense. “Sanctify them through thy truth” — He does not say “through thy word”.
Ques What is “thy word” there, is it the Father’s counsels?
FER [p. 421] I think it is the testimony, their testimony characterised them.
Rem It is not the word, but the truth that sanctified them.
FER Yes; that is its character. The truth is that by which you can test everything; it is a standard, you have got a touchstone by which you can test everything, and what does not answer to that test you reject. If you know what is characteristic of the Father, it is a touchstone, it is truth, and therefore you reject what is not in accord with the Father; all that is in the world you reject, the lust of the flesh, and of the eye, and the pride of life, because it is not in accord with the Father. The word of the Father becomes, in that way, a touchstone, and you test all by it, and what does not answer to the test you reject. I fancy that is the force of it. It is “thy word” in that character as truth. I have no doubt the apostles applied the test, and a great many things were presented to them in their day, in the world, and the point with them was as to whether it was in accordance with what they had.
Rem John brings that out very strongly in his second epistle.
FER I think so, exactly. The great truths were of the Father, and of the Son; they had those two great truths, and they tested all by them. That Jesus was “Christ come in flesh” was the great touchstone then.
Ques Is not the true meaning of “sanctified” “made holy”?
FER I do not think so. The literal meaning of the word is “to set apart”, or, at all events, it is a meaning of the word, a form in which the word is used. You get the idea in 2 Timothy in connection with the vessels. The vessels are not made holy, but set apart, “He shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master’s use”.
Ques And I suppose, too, that the idea of the [p. 422] passage you quote was taken from the vessels in the temple, which were actually set apart for the Lord’s use?
FER Yes. Then there is another scripture that gives you the idea where it speaks of an “unbelieving wife” being “sanctified” by a believing husband.
Rem And yet the thought of “made holy” is frequently considered the true meaning of the word?
FER Yes; but you could not render the word “holy” in the case quoted of the wife.
Rem In verse 19 the Lord Himself is set apart.
FER Yes; He sets Himself apart to give opportunity in them for the truth to have effect. “For their sakes I sanctify myself” — He sets Himself apart for their sakes in order that the truth might have its full effect in them. If there had not been this interval, there would not have been the opportunity for the truth to have its effect with them. It gives opportunity for us to be “sanctified ones” by the truth; it is not quite “sanctified by the truth”, but the real idea is that they might be characteristically those, sanctified ones in the power of the truth. There is one expression that makes it clear with regard to the Lord, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world”. He was set apart for that; and so here, too, He sets Himself apart for them. It is “set apart” for some particular office or function; Christ is set apart now as Priest; He has not yet come into His rights, and what belongs to Him, but He is set apart for the priestly office.
What is looked for in the verse is the power of sanctification in the truth, “that they also might be sanctified [ones] through the truth”, and the Lord gives additional force to the thing by sanctifying Himself.
Ques Does it imply that they might be maintained in the truth?
FER Well, I think it is more that they might be [p. 423] characterised by it; it is very practical in that way, not simply that you are separate, but that you are of another colour. It was a very favourite illustration of Mr. Stoney’s, that you are a white crow among black ones.
Rem And that would give the idea that you are of another order.
FER Yes; the fact is, you cannot have the sanctification otherwise, or else you would have it in the flesh.
Ques And does it not involve His death, too, “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth”?
FER Yes, it does, as you get it in Hebrews, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” — that must be the means of it. You see, it is impossible for the new order to be brought in if the old order had not been closed up to the glory of God.
Ques And was not that, in a way, the making good of the Father’s counsels?
FER Yes, I think so. He had come to do the Father’s will, and that part of it was done. It is not now the offering part, though He is still active, it is the sanctifying part that goes on now.
Ques Do you get that in the second sanctification (verse 19)?
FER I think so. He sanctifies Himself that the truth might do its full work in the saints.
Rem Mr. Stoney used to speak of the first as “constitutional sanctification” and the next as “circumstantial sanctification”.
FER It is the same thought continued, in a way. I think it is a very important thing that the word of the Father should be in us, and be the truth; you not only want the testimony of the word, but you want it in you; it is the first element of the armour, “having your loins girt about with truth”. Many have the [p. 424] word, in a way, in whom it is not in the form of truth; if it has that place in you as truth, you then have a standard by which you judge everything. The effect would be to make you very sensitive about things; you would stand apart from things from which, otherwise, you would not have stood apart, because they do not suit the truth.
Rem People often demand a passage of scripture for everything, it is not quite like that.
FER No, not quite. There may be many things that I feel are not in accordance with the truth, and in having the truth, I have got a touchstone by which I can judge them. There are a great many things — associations and so on — in the world for which I have not a “word” exactly, but I do not think you can always expect a person to give an exact reason for his refusal of certain things.
Rem You get a sense of what would suit the Father.
FER Yes, the testimony becomes truth in us, it identifies itself with us. You begin by accepting it, you believe it, and then you are characterised by it, so that you have got “truth in the inward parts”, “your loins girt about with truth”. I think, you know, that Christianity is not much understood — the Christianity of Scripture — it is very poorly understood. I think very few people understand the true character of what the Lord put the disciples into here. Except in connection with divine power, they could not have carried it out for even a single instant.
Ques What do “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”, and I have “sent them into the world”, mean?
FER That is the sort of ordination you want; human ordination is a very poor sort of thing after all. If any bishop were to offer to ordain me, I should say, “Your ordination is not good enough”. I want a better ordination than that; the only ordination that I know of is, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them”. It is sad to see men struggling about such things as poor empty Anglican orders, and all that sort of thing; I can hardly understand men, even of common sense, struggling about such things. It only proves what I said a few minutes ago, how very little Christianity is known in the full power of it. There is one thing we may allow, that if the Lord is going to employ a man in His service, that man will have to go to college, that is certain; but it is not man’s college. Paul went to it for fourteen years. That man must get a training, and a pretty long one, too. I will undertake to say this much, if you have got any man qualified to be a servant of the Lord you will find that he has gone through a very long training, no mere matter of two or three years, but of twenty, thirty, or even forty years. There is a training, but the only One who can teach is the Lord Himself. You need divine teaching to fit you for the Lord’s service, but that is what man does not understand. You get here the consciousness that you are sanctified, you are set apart from the course of things down here; you do not expect countenance from the world. The apostles did not look for the world to accept them, so it was no good adopting worldly methods in their service, because they were not of the world.
Ques Does not what you say come out in Mark 3 when He chose twelve disciples, and it says, “and they went into an house”, but you do not get them sent out until chapter 6 — the training was with Himself in the house?
FER Yes, with Himself in the house. You see, the important point is this, a man is only effective in that of which he has the assurance; and man can only be effective in what he is conscious of, and not simply in what he believes. Now suppose, for example, I have never been in Paris, yet, for all that, I have not the faintest doubt of the existence of Paris, for I have [p. 426] often heard of it; but I cannot talk freely about it, for I have never been there. But supposing I went to Paris for a month, I should be able to talk freely enough about the place, for then I should have an idea of the ordering of it, and of the position of the streets, and so on. You could not talk freely about a thing until you have been in it. I think the point that came up recently was very helpful as to 2 Corinthians 3: 8. In that scripture it is not righteousness that comes first, but the Spirit, and it is the Spirit, I have no doubt whatever, shedding abroad in our hearts the love of God. But it is then that you get the consciousness that you are outside all imputation; you have got consciousness then, and when you come into life, it is the “justification of life”, and when you touch that, it is that you are conscious of being outside absolutely and entirely of all imputation. You really begin to enter into what is for God, and then it is that you get the consciousness of what is for man.
Rem I feel how important this is at the present moment, because we have so confused the two things.
FER Yes. If a man is to be effective, he must be conscious of what he talks about.
Ques And unless he is, it is impossible for him to be really set apart or “sanctified”?
FER Well, I think so. If, for instance, a man is conscious of having reached eternal life, that man will be able to give you an account of eternal life, as in the illustration just used of a man having been to Paris, and being thus qualified to speak of it.
Ques In what way do you mean a servant would be effective?
FER Well, he could not be resisted or contradicted, except by positive opposition. I think you see it in the early days: everything was so real to the apostles, and they maintained the testimony in such power, that nobody could gainsay it.
[p. 427] Ques What would you say is the secret of progress in divine things?
FER I think it is getting to the Lord, that is the beginning of the way. I think the great defect with all of us is, the Lord has not place enough with us.
Ques Would you say Stephen was effective?
FER I think so; they could not gainsay him or resist him.
Ques But there was no apparent result in the hearers?
FER Ah, but there was a mighty result in Christianity.
Rem It does not necessarily follow that all who hear are saved.
FER No; the great thing is that you make a mark; that is what I understand by the Lord stooping down and writing on the ground in chapter 8. You make a mark.
Rem Paul is sometimes spoken of as one of Stephen’s converts.
FER I would not quite say that; the testimony by Stephen was, to all appearance, blotted out, but what it really meant was the setting aside of Judaism to bring in Christianity, it was in order really to make full room for the church. I think it is a very feeble thing to judge by the mere outward presentation of testimony, because you cannot tell at all how Christ is going to use it. You might get five thousand converted, or what not, but God may have other things to effect by the testimony.
In verse 20 you get the prayer opening out, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one”, etc. I think there are two things which come out in this: one is unity, but the unity is to be manifested in complete separation from, and in complete independence of, the world. The moment they [p. 428] began to mingle with the world they lost their power in the testimony. It was unity in complete separation from the world.
Ques Was that prayer answered, would you say?
FER I think so; look at the early days of the church, and even in the bringing in of the Gentiles. The testimony was maintained in their complete separation from the world. The passage, to my mind, contemplates two spheres — the Father and the Son, and “one in us” — that is unity in life, the unity of the Father and the Son, “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”. Then the other sphere is the world, and if you are in the one — the divine sphere, the Father and the Son — you are in entire separation from the other, from the world — it is unity of life in that way.
Rem This last clause of the verse, “that the world may believe”, does not necessarily come to pass?
FER No, quite so.
Ques Would the New Jerusalem be the fulfilment of it?
FER Well, I think the New Jerusalem is an answer to the further prayer, it has the glory of God, and so on; but I do not think it is exactly an answer to this prayer.
Rem I suppose that, strictly speaking, the prayer had its application to those converted through the word of the apostles, and having had its fulfilment, it left the world that then was, the Jewish world, without excuse?
FER Yes; the world trembled, but the direct result was that they refused the testimony. I think it is a wonderful thing that we can leave this side, that is, the present order of things, to get to that side, that is, the side of hope, “to lay hold of the hope set before us”. Every desire, every hope of the Christian is bound up with Christ, and you really want to get to [p. 429] that side, where your hope is, where Christ is. You are going on to the hope, we all are going on to it, because none of us have reached Christ yet, but we have reached Him in mind; and I think it is in that way that the Lord speaks here, that in mind you have got to that side.
Rem And the apostle Paul, too, speaks as one whose mind is there, though he had not reached it yet?
FER Yes.
Rem And that is the force of a living hope.
FER Yes. Then you come to the closing idea (verse 22), “The glory which thou gavest me I have given them”. That is a very interesting point to me; the moment the work was done — “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” — then it is that the glory side came in, everything from that point was for the glory of Christ. He was laid in the grave, He had to come to the lowest point, in that way, but then resurrection was glory; and then His being taken up to the right hand of God was glory; and then, as there, He is invested with all authority — it is all glory. It is glory, too, in contrast to humiliation. Everything on this side was humiliation. He went down lower and lower, it was all going down, but when the work was accomplished, the work of the cross, then it is that glory begins.
Ques Would this take us in, too?
FER Yes, I think it included us, “that they may be made perfect in one”. I think we come in under those who believe on Him through their word. It is “their word” that is the link. The Lord’s prayer at the beginning of the chapter was, “Father ... glorify thy Son”, but then what glorified the Son in a certain sense glorified the Father. I do not think you could for a moment think that the Father had remained passive, if I might so say, during all the time that the Lord was doing His will. When the householder [p. 430] in the parable had sent his only son, and they cast him out, it says, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men”. It is impossible to conceive that the Father remained passive. I could not speak of the Father suffering, that would be irreverent, but when everything is finished, then it is that everything is for Christ’s glory, is for the Father’s glory. You cannot separate the two in that way.
Ques Is glorifying the Father a further thought than glorifying God?
FER Well, it may be so; but “God” is a more inclusive term. “Father” is in relation to the Son, but “God” is a more general idea.
Then the Lord prays that they may be with Him to behold His glory. I do not know that I have any other thought than that which is generally held, that it is the glory which it is impossible for others to share, His own glory, but it is possible for them to behold.
Ques The glory peculiar to the Son?
FER Yes, “my glory”, it is emphatic, “that they may behold my glory”; and therefore He brings us to the Father’s house, and there brings forward what had existed between the Father and the Son through all eternity.
Ques And yet it was given Him here?
FER Yes; He takes it up in that way. All that belongs to Him He takes up as given to Him. It is just the contrast between Colossians and Ephesians. In Ephesians everything is given to Him, but in Colossians He is everything. In Ephesians He is given to be Head over all things to the church, He has become Man, and takes up everything as given to Him. But in Colossians He is Head of the body, the church, the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead; He is Firstborn of all creation — it is what He is and not what is given to Him.