JOHN 20
FER The death of Christ as seen in Luke is distinctly in view of resurrection. Death was on man, therefore all must be on the ground of resurrection. God could not touch man in grace except on the ground of resurrection. In John’s gospel it is more the setting aside of the whole state of man after the flesh, like the brazen serpent lifted up. The garment was not rent; this shows how everything was held within bounds. It is humiliating to man that he cannot go beyond what God allows, while on the other hand it is very beautiful to see the care and pity of those godly men, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, who were in the line of God’s pleasure. They came out with courage when things arrived at their crisis. They had been timid before, but it is beautiful to see how they come out now.
The Lord could not have been laid in a tomb ever occupied by another, God took care that all should be suitable. When Mary Magdalene came and found the stone rolled away she went and told Peter, and he and another disciple came, and saw, and believed. They believed the fact, but they did not know the scripture (verse 9). It was most important to know the scripture. Scripture recognises throughout the necessity of resurrection. Scripture has no meaning from end to end apart from resurrection. I doubt sometimes if they even believed the fact of resurrection, though they believed He was not in the tomb, for they afterwards went to their own homes.
Lazarus came out of the tomb with the grave clothes about him, but in the case of the Lord, He left them behind; not a shred of the old came out of the tomb. People cling to relics of the old order, instead of seeing that resurrection is a new point of departure. The Papists claim to have these grave clothes. For God there is nothing left, but a Person risen from the dead.
It is exceedingly beautiful to see that when there is the least evidence of affection, the Lord is at hand. “Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping”, and when she had turned herself back, she saw Jesus standing — it was affection that called Him into presence.
[p. 436] The Lord is always on the look-out for affection from His people, and here immediately He is at hand. Almost the first word He spoke in resurrection was “Mary”. He knew her by name.
The whole purpose of the chapter is to bring into view the great truth of association with Christ in resurrection outside of all here. The Lord is not to be brought into the present order. Christianity carries us out to Him. Mary seems to be the link here in the early part of the chapter.
Ques Do you mean between the disciples and the Lord?
FER Yes; in verse 10 we read that they went away again to their own homes, but “Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping”. I think she represents the link between the disciples and the Lord. Their state was morally poor, they did not as yet know the scripture that He should rise again from the dead, and all that remained was Mary. If she was the link between them and the Lord, she was their link also with God in that way. The Lord was the testimony in resurrection, He was the light of God.
Ques Is she the link as expressive of affection?
FER I should suppose so, she appears to be the only one who was weeping. She was “without at the sepulchre weeping”.
Ques Like a widow, she was bereft of everything.
FER Yes; it looked, for the moment, as if everything was broken. Even the disciples had gone away to their own homes.
Rem As if all was over; so that Mary is the only link, just the one weak link which kept the thing going.
FER Apparently they see that the tomb is empty, but they go away to their own homes, and their own things. In contrast to that, Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping. What comes out is the extreme weakness of everything at the moment. Mary was the only link. I think it is a divine principle that in all God’s ways down here everything begins small; the kingdom begins as a grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all seeds — Christ Himself was born into the world as a Babe. The disciples were the heralds of Christianity, and here we find them all more or less disheartened, and the link between them and the Lord was Mary. It is she who tells them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him”. Then Peter comes and he saw and believed, though it goes on to say, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” — so they go again to their own homes, and for the moment everything seems broken up.
Rem Their thoughts do not go on to resurrection.
FER No.
Ques What would you say is the difference between Mary and the disciples? She did not know the resurrection either, is it just her affection for the Lord?
FER She is certainly the connecting link, and it is she who bears the testimony. You see, she had affection for the Lord, and she was the first with whom the Lord established relations in resurrection. As regards the disciples, she had a place before them.
Rem They had their interests here, they went to their own homes, Mary had none.
FER No; and she had more sense of deliverance and grace than they had, I should judge. The Lord had cast out of her seven devils; she had experienced His power, and I should say had more sense of deliverance than they had.
One point that is exceedingly important is how very personal it all is. It is not a question of doctrine, but everything is so extremely personal. Everything starts in that way from the Lord, from what He says to Mary in resurrection. He establishes relations with her in resurrection, everything had to be on a new footing, it could not be on the old footing. He was no longer [p. 438] known after the flesh, but the starting-point is the Lord Himself. He takes the initiative, and sets to work to establish spiritual relations on the basis of resurrection — but it is so entirely personal.
Rem And her affection gains for her a kind of prominence at the moment.
FER Yes, I think so. She had become the vessel of testimony, the disciples were not. You see, if the disciples failed, the Lord finds a suited vessel, even though it be a woman.
Rem It is remarkable that here the Lord announces His own resurrection to Mary. In the other three gospels it is the angels who announce it. Is it because the great point here is the intense personality of it?
FER The real starting-point is the Lord’s own Person, everything starts from Him. Nobody who had known the Lord could have had any doubt as to the resurrection. I think you see that at the beginning. Mary Magdalene had no doubt as soon as it was announced to her; she knew Christ, and therefore the resurrection was no difficulty to her.
Rem She knew He must rise.
FER All the scepticism and infidelity that are abroad only arise on the part of those who lack the knowledge of divine Persons. Christianity has become a matter of doctrine; they talk about the “doctrine of the atonement”, and the “doctrine of the resurrection”, and so on; they spend their time on doctrine, but they do not know the Persons, and therefore they are likely to be turned about by all kinds of things.
The Lord Himself, even when He spoke to the Pharisees, does not ask them what they thought of this doctrine, or of that doctrine, but His question is, “What think ye of Christ?” Doctrine, to my mind, is totally subordinate to Persons.
Rem And His asking them that question [p. 439] silences them.
FER Yes; they durst not ask Him any more questions.
Ques Would you not say that that is the great lack in our souls, that we have so little personal acquaintance with Him?
FER Yes, I think so. Every one here would be free to admit that it is acquaintance with the Person that he lacks — with Christ. The apostle says in Philippians, “that I may know him”. The point is to know Him, that is the first thing. Mary knew Christ — that is quite certain.
Rem And if the Father is seeking a bride for His Son, the first thing must be affection.
FER If we know Persons, we have no difficulty about doctrine, but what you find is that people are deficient in the first elements of Christianity, they do not know divine Persons. And the Scriptures present no difficulty at all to a person who knows Christ. I believe it is true that, whenever people have questions and doubts about Scripture, it only proves this much, that they have no personal acquaintance with Christ. It is my firm conviction, and in regard to myself too; I know it in myself.
Rem Mary knew Him as the One who had delivered her from the power of the devil, and no one less than Himself could have helped her.
FER Yes; and then, too, she had been in the Lord’s company, she was one of those who ministered to Him.
Ques In her case it was a question of affection without intelligence?
FER Well, at all events, she has been put in contrast to Mary of Bethany. Mary of Bethany had apparently faith in the resurrection, and she was not at the tomb. Mary Magdalene was not so intelligent, but she had very great attachment of heart to Christ.
Ques And that Person was everything to her?
FER Yes; she appropriates Him in the most wonderful way, “They have taken away my Lord”, and then, “Tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away”. She had expected to find Him in the tomb, and she was surprised to find Him removed. I think it is a beautiful expression, “They have taken away my Lord” — He who had been crucified as a malefactor, yet He was her Lord. I fancy that the real starting-point in her history, as with us all, was the consciousness that Christ knew her by name, He knows us personally. That is the real starting-point in Christian experience.
What you get in this chapter is the inauguration of everything, and so [p. 441] He calls His own sheep by name, He knew Mary’s name.
Rem And she had the consciousness of it, the experience of it.
FER Yes; “He calleth his own sheep by name” — that is the word. That is the first great principle here. Then the next great step is that He was going to represent them with God, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father”, etc. It is very much like Hebrews, He was going to be their representative. He was going up to appear in the presence of God for them, but, then, before you can understand that you must know the High Priest — you must know the grace of the High Priest. He knows you down here, succours you, and the next step is that He appears in the presence of God for you — that is the divine order. You see, “Mary” was the name by which she was commonly known, it was her natural name, not a name given to her of the Lord, like “Peter”, but her natural name. I think it indicates that the Lord knew her in what she was down here, that is the character of the knowledge of the High Priest. He does not, in that special way, know them in company, but He knows the individual, He knows each individually.
Rem Only a personal love could beget a personal love.
FER Yes; He calls His own sheep by name, that is the first principle. Then I think you learn the next lesson, it came out here in Mary’s testimony to the disciples. He is gone into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us — that is the next great step. And He bears their names there; just as the high priest in Israel bore the names of the tribes on the breast-plate, so Christ bears our names in the presence of God. “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” — that is the way it comes out in the Hebrews. In the first few chapters He succours and sympathises, and then in chapter 7, “He ever liveth to make intercession” — He is at the right hand of God, and makes intercession for us there.
Rem You look upon that as individual, and the “Minister of the sanctuary” as referring to the company?
FER Ah, but you have not come to that yet; it is all individual up to chapter 8. He succours and sympathises, and then He goes to God and makes intercession — that is for the individual; the intercession He makes for you is not the intercession He makes for me. He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him. You have passed on in chapter 8 to another thought, He is the Minister of the sanctuary there.
Ques Is it in His priestly character that He makes Himself known to Mary?
FER I think it is more as the Shepherd; He had not taken up the place of Priest until He was at the right hand of God. I think, however, you get the thing in principle, you have the patterns, as has been said. I think it is by priesthood that Christ makes us conscious that He knows us personally.
Ques Is the intercession connected with failure?
FER No; rather that you may not fail, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”. That is [p. 442] just the difference between advocacy and priesthood. Advocacy comes in when you have failed, priesthood is in exercise that you may not fail.
Rem It is rather remarkable that Peter should disbelieve the testimony of resurrection.
FER Quite so. Resurrection was his great testimony afterwards. The fact is this, it just shows the terrible state, the perversity, of people who have not the Holy Spirit. You cannot conceive a greater contrast than between Peter here and Peter after he had received the Holy Spirit — he was a man of power then.
Rem A similar contrast is discernible amongst people now.
FER Well, perhaps it is so; and yet you may have a mighty power and still be unable to use it, but the power is there to use. I think that describes the state of a large proportion of Christians today; they have got the power, but they do not know how to use it.
Rem Here they had neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit.
FER No; so for the moment they were weakness itself. I think it is very interesting here to see how the truth comes out step by step, and it is all so intensely personal, not doctrinal at all, but entirely personal, it is all so bound up with Persons.
Ques Do you mean with the Person of the Lord?
FER Yes; it is Mary, and the Lord, and the Father, and the disciples, it is a question of Persons all through.
Rem And the doctrine is really derived from the knowledge of the Persons?
FER Yes.
Rem The experimental knowledge of the Lord enjoyed by Mary stood her in good stead here.
FER It did indeed; and I think it must be the same with everybody as with her, that the faith of Christ has broken the power of the devil. It is the [p. 443] faith of Christ that has broken the power of sin; you have believed in the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto you, and that has broken the power of sin, and therefore of Satan; you are really under the control of Christ.
The Lord bids Mary not to touch Him; He says, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended”.
Rem She was not to renew the acquaintance on the old terms.
FER Well, the starting-point of things now must be the Father. Christ would not be touched until He had ascended to the Father, everything now starts from the Father. It is a spiritual touch now, if you touch Christ at all; but there could be no spiritual touch until He had ascended to the Father. The Lord would not have things renewed on the old footing at all. In the eye of Christ the Father was the starting-point of everything. He Himself was to send the Spirit from the Father when He had gone to the Father, and therefore nothing could be really established until Christ went to the Father.
Rem And it was to make known the Father that He came down.
FER Yes; and in all the things which Christ was about to establish, the starting-point was the Father. You could not touch Christ except and only as He had gone back to the Father.
Rem His having been sent of the Father, the first thing was He must go back to the Father.
FER Yes; as He prays in chapter 17, “Father glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee” — the Father was to be the starting-point of everything.
Ques Is there not an implied contrast here to what we get in Matthew, where they held Him by the feet?
FER I think so; but the great interest of the matter to me is that you cannot know Christ now by sight or sense, but it is, “I ... know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father”, and what I understand by that is that you know Christ outside of sight and sense — that is the idea of it to me. You do not know any person outside of sight and sense naturally; a person might write you thousands of letters, but you will never know that person until you know him by sight and sense. Peter takes up the thought where he says, “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory”. It is the most wonderful thing that can possibly be, that you can know a Person whom yet you have never seen, and be devotedly attached to that Person; it is outside the whole range of seen things, of sight and sense. That is the way we know Christ now. To touch Him was to know Him by sense, but it is no longer to be in that way. It is a wonderful expression, “Whom having not seen, ye love” — and “rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” — it is wonderful to me.
Rem Mary did not even recognise Him by sight.
FER No, quite so. Then He makes Himself known to her, and then she wants to touch Him, that is, to know Him by sense.
Rem But all recognition was to be spiritual.
FER Yes; and so it must be with us, for we have never had the opportunity of touching Christ by sight or sense, and yet He says, “I ... know my sheep, and am known of mine”. It is not as in the case of the Jew; Israel is a flock, in one way, and will be a flock, and they will know Him when they see Him. He will be made known then, in a certain way, to sight and sense, just as to Thomas at the end of the chapter, but until He had gone to the Father, you could not know Him spiritually. In the end of the chapter the Holy Spirit is implied, and He gives you the capability of knowing what it is impossible to know [p. 445] otherwise. The spiritual man knows all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man; so the Lord went to the Father to send down the promise of the Father. You know, I do not believe in the “double procession” of the Spirit; it is an ecclesiastical term, but I do not believe in it. I believe that Christ sent the Spirit from the Father — all the language of John’s gospel teaches us that.
Ques What is meant by the “dual procession”?
FER Well, it is a vexed question between the Eastern and the Western churches, it is the “Filioque”; but what I believe is, that Christ went to the Father, and sent the Spirit from the Father. The Father sends Him, Christ sends Him from the Father. He is sent, of course, in Christ’s name, and He is the Spirit of God’s Son, but as to the actual sending of the Spirit, it says in the beginning of the Acts, “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear”. And I very much prefer the words of Scripture to the creeds of men.
Rem It is formally stated in John 15 and 16 in that way.
FER Yes; and yet the “Filioque” divided Eastern and Western churches. The fact is, you never see truth cast into moulds, or put into a creed, without the most egregious blunders being made. All creeds are alike in that respect — the Apostles’ creed, or the Athanasian creed. God would not have truth — though it be truth — cast into moulds of that description. It is like any Act of Parliament, you can drive a coach-and-six through it.
Then there is another point, that is, that creeds go on the principle that you can hold everything as doctrine without the knowledge of Persons, and that is the fatal mistake into which Christendom has fallen. They have the doctrine of the Persons without the Persons themselves. It is fatal to attempt to hold [p. 446] the doctrine apart from knowing the Persons. Look even at the Old Testament, and the knowledge the saints had of Persons. Look at Abraham’s knowledge of God — he knew a Person, he had a personal God. Theology is just a science, a doctrine.
Rem And taught to unconverted men like any other science.
FER Quite so. If I do not know the Father and the Son, I do not know the doctrine; but if I do know the Father and the Son, I shall very soon know of the doctrine.
I think you get a sort of progress here. He knew His own sheep by name — Mary is typical in that way; then He goes up representatively for them; and then you get the assembly, that is the divine order. Now until Christ is known personally, and until you know that He is appearing in the presence of God for you, you are not prepared for the assembly.
Ques You must have all your own affairs settled?
FER Yes, and then you get the assembly. Here you see it all worked out in Persons, not in doctrine.
Ques There are two points, are there not, “My Father, and your Father”, and “My God, and your God”?
FER Well, the great point was to bring them into the consciousness of association with Himself; had it been simply “My Father”, it would not have been enough; it contemplates Him both as Son and as Man, that is the thought. He has a place not only in reference to the Father, but as Man He has a place in reference to His God. John always gives prominence to the Father, while Paul would give more prominence to God. John gives prominence to the Father because it is the name of relationship.
Rem And the Lord would begin at the highest point?
FER Yes, with what the Father was to Himself. You see, He was going up — “I ascend” — and in a [p. 447] certain sense it was natural to Him to go up; but the great point here is that He is going to the Father representatively. He is going to ascend, in that way, representatively for them, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”.
Ques. For their sakes?
FER Well, really to take up a position for them, to appear in the presence of God for them.
Rem And always maintaining the dignity of His own Person.
FER It could not be otherwise; He is Head. I do not think He would quite speak of “My Father”, as the Son; I think it is only as Man He is speaking of “My Father”. In eternity the simple terms were “the Father” and “the Son”.
Rem And so God could speak of Him as “My Son”.
FER “My Son” is as born into the world, “Thou art my Son”.
Ques “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”, how is He speaking there?
FER He takes up a position as the “sent One” down here; that is the position Christ had taken up here as a Man. But it would not have been true if He had not been the eternal Son. Everything in Him as Man down here takes its character from what He was in eternity. In eternity He could not say, “My Father is greater than I”, but when He becomes Man the relative position is altered, modified, so He can say, “My Father is greater than I”.
Well, the third point here is the assembly, I mean in type, at all events. The disciples are gathered together, and they are shut in for fear of the Jews, and then He comes into their midst and says, “Peace”; and He shows unto them His hands and His side. We get what corresponds with this in the Lord’s supper. The Supper answers, in our case, to His showing to them His hands and His side, you get identification [p. 448] there. I think it is death that brings Him into presence, that is the character of the Lord’s supper. It sets forth His death, and brings Him into presence, He was known of them in that way. He showed to them His hands and His side, and He is identified before them as the One who had died for them.
Ques And the proper effect of that was joy?
FER Yes, not sorrow; the true character of the assembly is gladness, it is impossible to be conscious of the presence of the Lord without being conscious of joy. Do you mean to tell me that you could be in His presence without being glad?
Ques What about the hymn, “With joy and sorrow mingling”?
FER Well, what really happened was that their sorrow had been turned into joy, and He says, “Your joy no man taketh from you”.
Rem He says to Mary here, “Why weepest thou?” but He Himself had wept on the other side.
FER Yes; but she would not have wept if she had known what the Lord knew, it was ignorant affection in that way.
Ques Had peace ever been announced to them before now?
FER No; but after that, I should not think they felt much more of the fear of the Jews. Fancy what it must have been to have the risen Man in their presence. I think if we had the consciousness of it we would not be troubled much about man. It is certain that one Man risen is worth a thousand million of dying men, a world full of dying men.
Rem Peace is the footing on which they were to be down here.
FER Yes; He identifies Himself to them by the marks of His death, and then they are glad. The greatest gladness we can know is the consciousness of the presence of the Lord, it is incomparable joy.
[p. 449] Ques Would it not have a very subduing effect upon us?
FER Yes; but I think we should be very free in it, you get true liberty in the presence of the Lord.
Then what follows on the presence of the Lord is testimony; all must follow in that order. You know Christ first as Mediator, then as Son of God, then as Priest, then as Head, and then as last Adam for testimony. You cannot meet Satan except by the last Adam, that is evident. If you attempt to meet Satan by putting forward the first Adam, or man, you will see what must come of it. But the only power to meet Satan is divine purpose in Christ — that is the only weapon to meet Satan with. You are to be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might”, because you are on ground that nothing can touch. That is Ephesians. You are on the platform of divine purpose in the last Adam, because all is set forth in Him. You are rooted in it, and now you can come out and meet all the power of the enemy. Any other way of meeting Satan is not worth considering to a person who has his feet on the reality of the last Adam.
It is as last Adam that He is a quickening Spirit, and so He breathes on them here, but that is all connected with testimony. It is not the communication of the Holy Spirit as on the day of Pentecost.
Ques Would you mind repeating those steps again?
FER Well, you begin with Mediator, then you go on to the Son of God — declaring God; then Lord, and the kingdom in connection with Him as such; then I think you come to the Priest — that is quite different from Lord, but you must know Him as such, and as Minister of the holy places; then, next, you know Him as Head, the One who gives impulse and movement to the assembly here; and then you know Him as last Adam; but in all these it is but one Person. As regards the testimony, there is no [p. 450] hope for man except in the last Adam. People attempt to accommodate the truth to this science and that science, but it is all nonsense. It is only by the last Adam that the truth can be maintained down here, and the truth is just as good as it was two thousand years ago.
Rem So it is the sense of purpose that gives us force.
FER Yes, it does; you do not get real power on any other ground, but that is sufficient to overturn all else. If you are going to take any other ground, you had better make a compromise with Satan at once, because he has got twenty thousand, and you have only ten thousand. The fact is, you had better give it all up — “Whosoever ... forsaketh not all that he hath” — you must give up your ten thousand. The truth is, people are loth to give up their ten thousand.
Rem Perhaps you would say a word as to forgiveness of sins (verse 23).
FER But they had administration before this. What you get here is, in that way, the assembly set upon its feet, so to speak, but administration comes before this.
Ques But how is it exercised?
FER Well, there was the letting-in of the Jew, and then of the Gentile, and you see how it worked in discipline in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. It was set up first in connection with the apostles, but I should think it was only the inauguration of things. He gives the pattern of things before He goes away.
Ques Would not Ananias (Acts 22: 16) be an example of one exercising this administration when he said to Paul, “Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins”?
FER I should think so. The great idea is that a man might act in perfect concert with the mind of Christ in heaven, and that could only be in the power [p. 451] of the Holy Spirit — man acting for Him in His absence, representative of Him. You could not have testimony going out without the assembly — testimony is all out of gear without the assembly, all out of place. The Lord established the assembly first, and they are all gathered together, and the Lord is with them in their midst, the actual thing is there. As to the doctrine, Paul lays it all down in detail in Corinthians. I think it is very beautiful to see John, the latest writer in Scripture, writing in a way so perfectly confirmatory of Paul. John was not the one employed to set things up here, but he comes in to confirm it all by his own personal knowledge of Christ, and of what He had done and said. The gospel of John is supposed to be the last book written, at least that is what learned people say.
Ques Would His first appearing to the company cover the present period typically?
FER I think it is characteristic of the present time. What takes place with regard to Thomas seems to be different altogether. The Lord says to him, “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”.
Ques Our period would be covered by the words, “Whom having not seen, ye love”?
FER Yes; as it says here, “They that have not seen, and yet have believed”.
Rem I suppose we get the truth as to the assembly first, and then as to the Jew afterwards?
FER Yes; Thomas represents something different, in a way. Then, again, the next chapter widens out, and you get there a millennial picture in every feature of it.
Ques But Thomas is more the remnant character of the Jews?
FER I think so. Thomas is representative, in that way. Thomas was defective because he did not [p. 452] believe the testimony of the others; he evidently thought that they might have been deceived, and therefore he says, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails”, etc., “I will not believe”. He says, “I will in no wise believe” — it is a very strong negative. I suppose he thought they had been deceived by a kind of apparition. I think there are two kinds of unbelief; there is the unbelief of will and the unbelief of weakness — you must make a distinction between the two.
Ques I suppose that “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief”, was the unbelief of weakness?
FER Yes. I think it was the fear that it might not be true which made Thomas doubt. He would willingly have believed it, but he wanted very good evidence of it.
Rem It is a very common kind of weakness, but it has to be recognised as such.
FER Yes; the test of it is whether or not you would be glad if it were really so. Would you like to be sure that He is risen? That is the test, and I think Thomas would have answered to that.
Rem I suppose it was allowed so that he might be a typical case?
FER I think so, I think you are taught in Scripture by what is recorded, the teaching of Scripture is positive, you are taught by what is there.
Rem And the more interest a thing has to you, the more difficult it often is to you to believe.
FER Yes, and I think with people of that description they would only be too glad to be assured of it.
Rem They fear lest it is too good to be true?
FER Well, lest they should be deceived. The twelve disciples are not infrequently looked at as typical of the remnant, a kind of Jewish remnant, but, after the resurrection, the Lord does not address them all in that way. Thomas, by his own difficulties,
[p. 453] occupies that ground. In all the prophetic part of Luke’s gospel He seems to address them all as in the character of a remnant, because it refers morally to the future. Then there is that expression, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come”; you could only apply that to them by virtue of their occupying a kind of remnant character, a remnant ground. I think it would solve a difficulty in the understanding of the gospels to see the double character that the disciples had; that they had given to them the promulgating of Christianity, and yet, at the same time, a kind of typical position as representing the Israel of the future. This has often been a difficulty to people in understanding the gospels.
Rem The way in which Thomas speaks to the Lord is totally different from what comes out in the other part of the chapter, “My Lord and my God”.
FER Yes; and the faith of Thomas is grounded on what he had seen. The earlier appearance refers really to Christians, and He shows to His disciples who were then gathered His hands and His side, and it says, “Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord”. Thomas was apparently not in the commission then given to the disciples. I think the great interest in all this is found in the Lord Himself; the way in which the Lord deals with each individual case, that is the beauty of it to me, because, after all, the people He dealt with were poor things at the best. But the great interest in the passage is in the dealings, and the words, of Christ Himself, the wonderful way in which He deals with each individual soul, the way He dealt with Mary, and then with the disciples, and then with Thomas — I think it gives you a great deal of insight into what Christ Himself was. Then another important feature of it is that it is a risen Christ, it is not simply what He had been in the flesh. You might associate tenderness, and all that kind of [p. 454] thing, with Christ after the flesh, but here it is a risen Christ, we cannot know Him now after the flesh.
Rem He takes each up in a distinctive way.
FER Yes; He takes account of their different conditions, and meets each according to that condition. Mary is weeping, the disciples are in fear of the Jews, Thomas unbelieving. His word to Mary was simply “Mary”, then the word to the disciples is, “Peace”, and then as regards Thomas, there is a kind of reproof. My impression is this, that the Lord can bear with anything on our part but unbelief. What tries Him most, if one might use such an expression, is unbelief. It was so with the disciples, that which tried Him most in them was unbelief: He calls them an unbelieving, faithless generation.
Rem And that was because it showed their lack of affection, because it is “faith which worketh by love”.
FER Yes, I think so. I very much doubt if Thomas ever touched Him; of course, you could not prove that he did not, but I doubt it very much.
Ques John speaks of handling “the word of life”. That would be in resurrection, would it not?
FER Yes, I think it is in resurrection there; the Lord gave them that assurance of the resurrection, that He was a real Man in resurrection; He brought that home to them, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”.
Rem And there is nothing inconsistent with the fact of the disciples having touched Him, because it was with quite another object.
FER Yes; each gospel must be taken by itself. For example, in Mark everything depended on the testimony, and everything now depends, in that way, on believing the testimony. You see it was very grave if, as we see in Mark 16, they disbelieved the testimony, because they not only had the Scriptures, and the Lord’s own words, but they had also the testimony of those who had seen Him after His [p. 455] resurrection, and if in spite of all, they did not believe, it was a very grave case. The disciples were to promulgate the testimony, and everything depended on the reception of that testimony. I think I can understand the Lord chiding them for their unbelief.
Rem They could only speak on the principle of “We also believe, and therefore speak”.
FER Exactly, and I think that is what the Lord meant. He upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after His resurrection. Then afterwards He sends them forth — “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel”. “He that believeth not shall be damned”. Everything depended and turned on faith, and therefore it was of all moment that they themselves should believe. You see, the testimony of those who had seen Him after His resurrection, and the Lord’s own words, all went to confirm the previous testimony of Scripture. What you have got to see is this, that the demand of the Old Testament, what the Old Testament must have, is the resurrection of Christ — without this, it is all a dead letter. Now the New Testament supplies what the Old Testament demands, and is the complete answer to everything in the Old Testament. Everything in the Old Testament, from the very beginning, demanded the resurrection of Christ. “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his head”, and all the promises, and everything else, depended on the resurrection of Christ. “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?” I think it is a very interesting point — a very interesting study — to see how every part of the Old Testament demands the resurrection of Christ.
Rem And the faith of the Old Testament saints would have no reward except for that.
FER No; everything depended upon it.
Rem “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied”, that [p. 456] is in resurrection.
FER Yes; and He is to instruct many by His knowledge. How does Christ come, if He is not risen, with the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, as in Isaiah 59? I think Christ is represented in the saints down here in a twofold way; one is according to what He was in His first coming, and the other is according to what He will be at His coming again. If you put on the whole armour of God, you represent Christ as He will be when He comes again to meet the enemy, but when it is a question of the gifts, they represent Christ according to what He was when He came the first time. All the gifts that are displayed in the saints, in the power of the Holy Spirit, are with a view to this. To me it is exceedingly beautiful to see Christ, in this two-fold way, coming out in the saints down here, ministry and gift all representing Christ as He was here; and again, when it is a question of standing against the enemy, you are to put on the whole armour of God, a representation of Christ as He will be at His coming again. You want the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, to stand your ground against the enemy, and not be afraid.
Rem I think it is a most interesting point, and opens up a great deal as to the Christian position.
FER Yes, it does; everything of Christ as He was at His first coming, and as He will be at His coming the second time, is all to come out in the church now. The church is to withstand all the influences of Satan, like Israel when they got into the land, they had to stand. The church has to withstand in the evil day, meeting the influences of the world, and standing in the presence of them. That comes about, and did come about, in the fact of saints standing in the truth of God’s purpose. If they stand to that, they very soon find themselves exposed to the opposition of the enemy. I am perfectly confident of this, that the world and Satan will not suffer the maintenance of God’s purpose, neither man nor Satan will stand that.
Ques Would you say that that was why the resurrection was so opposed?
FER Well, you see, the line that man goes on is that he does not believe anything that does not come within the cognisance of man. Anything that cannot be ascertained or recognised by man is not to be accepted. It really means that man’s mind is the limit of what you are to know.
Rem A certain professor told us that only yesterday.
FER Well, I can quite believe it. Now if I had the courage, the way I should meet that would be to say, Well, it is quite clear to me that you have no faith, because faith means that you believe what you cannot verify. There is no faith in believing what you can verify, but faith comes in when you believe what you cannot verify, just because it is the word of God.
Rem The faith of the Old Testament saints was never verified.
FER No; look at Abraham, he could not verify the promises made to him. He came forth into the land given to him when he had no inheritance in it, “no, not so much as to set his foot on”. Then look at Moses, he could not verify what he believed, he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. And so you might go on all through. You know, the assertions of men, clever men too, are astounding to me. They make assertions which really rest upon nothing but their own dictum. Why should they go and set aside Christianity? And why should I believe in the dictum of a man more than in Christianity? Christianity is all built upon the testimony of resurrection. Resurrection does not belong to history. As far as I know, history has never given testimony to resurrection, and yet Christianity is all built up on the testimony of the resurrection of Christ. But what I ask is, why [p. 458] should I be expected to believe in the dictum of a man, or men, more than on the existence of Christianity, apart altogether from the testimony of Scripture? No, with all man’s greatness, and all that it is possible for him to carry out, yet it remains true of a man that he returns to his dust. It is most humiliating, you know, and his testimony is worth nothing at all. Now the great thing to which the Lord appeals is, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. After all, the Lord only came in on the line of Old Testament scriptures, He did not come in at variance with them, but it was as the answer to them. “He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”. Then, too, the apostles come on the scene and bear witness to the scripture, but with this additional fact, that the Holy Spirit was with them. Well, am I going to put all that aside in order to believe the dictum of a man? All I can say is that the man is a madman who does such a thing. What are you going to get by losing Christ? This scene would be a scene of darkness, utter darkness, apart from Christ — utter moral darkness. Think of my soul being left to some of these men of science or literature!
Rem The moral world would be left without its Sun.
FER Yes; the moral world would be as dark as the natural or physical world would be without the sun.
Rem They take away all the hope and comfort from the miserable.
FER Yes; and all that is bright, and pure, and holy, and blessed; the whole scene is left in darkness.
Now, in the record of this gospel you have only a selection of the signs; there are many that are not written in this book, “but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”. I think that is a very important point in connection with John’s gospel, that the written signs [p. 459] are selected by the Spirit of God; selected, too, and recorded, that we might believe, not simply that Jesus is the Christ, but that He is the Son of God, so that, believing, we might have life through His name. His name refers you to Himself “This life is in his Son”; if you have life in His name, then you have lost your own. It is all on the principle of “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me”. That is how it is you lose your own name. It is life in His Son, that is His name, and you have surrendered your own name. “I am crucified with Christ” — well, what name has that man got? Even Christ has not got a name here, “Who shall declare his generation?” — He has got no generation.
Rem Except a spiritual one.
FER Well, quite so; but the world does not know much about that. He has got a great name at the right hand of God, and, believing, you may have life through His name, not in your own name. I think that is the mistake, to a large extent, with a great number of people. Too many have been bent upon having life in their own name, having life in themselves. But the very essence of the thing is that you have life in the Son, you live in His circle. He has not got any name here, and neither have you; but He is known in His own sphere. Paul always coincides with John, so you get from Paul, “Your life is hid with Christ in God” — it is where Christ is, in God, and “This life is in his Son”, as John expresses it, exactly coincides. You must first learn where His name is great, that is the first thing, where He has got renown, and that is not here. He has no renown here, but where He has got renown, you have got life, because it is in His name.
Ques “Where two or three are gathered together in my name”, that is outside?
FER Outside the world; you are gathered where He is known, and He says, “There am I in the midst”.
Ques Is it not the Spirit that leads us there?
FER It is the Spirit of Christ; but I think there is another thing, and that is the work of the Spirit, the new man, the Spirit’s work in the believer; I think it is that which brings you into the sphere where Christ is. It is what Scripture speaks of as the “renewing of the Holy Spirit”, that is the moral link that connects you with the place where Christ is, the mind is set on things above — your purpose of mind. We must bear in mind that you cannot apply every Scripture to every converted person — for instance, you cannot apply the statements of Colossians to every person, you can only apply them to those who are prepared for them. You cannot speak of them as applicable to every Christian, it is a very dangerous thing, though you do not in any way unchristianise anybody.
Ques What would it involve to believe “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”?
FER I think it is just where John comes in to corroborate Paul. You see, the testimony of the twelve was to the exalted Man, that is, the Christ, that is what they bore witness to. But now John comes in to corroborate Paul, and goes back to the Lord’s own teaching and works, in order to prove that this is the Son of God. There was ample testimony as to who He was in the Lord’s own words and works down here, and all is brought to John’s remembrance by the Holy Spirit, and comes out really as corroborative of Paul’s testimony.
Ques It does not say you are to believe He is the Son; you might almost expect it to say that?
FER No; it is as the “Son of God” that He is presented to faith today. It is the “Son of God” as become Man, “made of a woman, made under the law” — “God sent forth his Son” (Galatians 4: 4) presented to faith, not exactly as the eternal Son, but the “Son of God”, “that ye may know that ye have [p. 461] eternal life who believe on the name of the Son of God”, 1 John 5: 13.
Rem I was thinking of the last verse of chapter 3, “He that believeth on the Son”, etc.
FER Well, “the Son” is used there as a test, in that way, but what is presented to faith is the “Son of God”. Paul preached immediately, in the synagogue, Christ as the Son of God. It is so here. “That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name”.
Rem And the truth of His being Son of God is connected with the incarnation. Luke speaks of it, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”.
FER Yes; and it is a question here of what is to be presented to man in testimony. The twelve presented the exalted Man, whom they had known in the flesh; then Paul comes in and preaches that He is the Son of God, that He came forth from God. He does not tell them about His eternal Sonship, but shows them One sent forth from God. “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”.
Rem In the epistle it is, “that ye may know”, who believe on the name of the Son of God; here it is “that ye might believe”.
FER Yes; in the epistle he goes on to consciousness.