READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN (3)
[p. 282] READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN (3)
WM Is doing righteousness presented here as the test as to whether one is born of Him or not?
FER Yes.
OO'B What is the difference between born of Him, or born of God, in the epistle of John, and born again in the third chapter of the gospel of John?
FER I think being born of God supposes that you are a partaker of His nature. Being “born again” does not go so far as that, but is connected with the ability to see. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see”. In one born of God, as John says, His seed abides, that is His nature. It is the divine nature, of which one is partaker.
OO'B Is it the same as in the epistle of Peter?
FER In Peter it is connected with unfeigned love of the brethren. “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth ... unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible”. That again is the divine nature.
RSS Is it much the same in Peter as in the epistle of John?
FER I think so, the reason is intelligible, both John and Peter are addressing themselves to christians. The Lord is not doing that in John 3. He is addressing Himself to a Jew. The proper connection of new birth in Scripture is with the Jew, as in Ezekiel; the Lord brings out what was necessary for a Jew, he could not see the kingdom of God without being born again, but the Lord does not go beyond the kingdom of God, and that cannot be identical with what John is writing of to christians.
RSS In the fourth chapter there is a striking statement where it says, he “that loveth is born of God”.
FER Yes. I think being born of God is descriptive [p. 283] of christians; they are children of God, partakers of God’s nature by the Spirit.
JSA “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”.
JP Does not the expression “born of God” presuppose the revelation of God in Christ, and that revelation made good in the soul by the work of the Spirit of God?
FER I think so.
Ques “Born of water and of the Spirit”, is that the same thing, being a little advance on being born again?
FER Yes, because it is the condition of entering. First is seeing, then entering.
OO'B My difficulty has been in connection with he that “believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”. In connection with the passage in Acts 2, they believed that Jesus was the Christ, did they not?
FER Then they were born of God.
OO'B I thought I understood you that in John’s epistle they had forgiveness and the Spirit.
FER The point in Acts was that they should receive the gift of the Spirit, and they did, then they are looked upon as being born of God.
OO'B Did they not believe that Jesus was the Christ before they got the Spirit?
FER Yes. Jesus being the Christ was what was presented for their faith, and they believed, and were baptised for the forgiveness of sins, and received the gift of the Spirit; but you could not have said of them they were born of God till they had received the gift of the Spirit.
OO'B That is what I wanted to know, but you can say they believed that Jesus was the Christ before.
FER It was the believing that Jesus was the Christ which was the ground of receiving the Spirit.
JSA Something like what you were saying the other day about forgiveness of sins. It is presented in testimony, but a person must receive the Spirit to get the good of it.
WM Being born of God describes [p. 284] a christian.
FER Just the same as “If any man love God”. You get moral descriptions of a christian in the New Testament. Loving the appearing of Christ is a moral description of a christian.
WM That is John’s way of presenting it.
JP And being born of God you are brought into the family.
FER “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God”. It goes on to say they were born, but the point is that receiving Christ became the title to be brought into the family of God.
WM The Father gives the calling and the Son gives the title to take the place of children.
FER And the Spirit bears witness.
Ques Is “partakers of the divine nature” something of the same thought?
FER Yes. Now to come to the epistle. The first two chapters are introductory. The first chapter and the beginning of the second give us the ground of fellowship. We have not come yet to the substance of the teaching. In the latter part of chapter 2 we get apostolic care. Being in the light of necessity becomes a ground of fellowship, and we come in that way under apostolic care. All that is important. Then we arrive in chapter 3 at the substance of the epistle. Chapters 3 and 4 give us that, for the point of the epistle is to declare “that eternal life”. We see the way God has taken to bring about recovery of man. We get the centre and a circle. That is in chapter 3, and the centre of the circle is the divine method of recovery. There may be many circles with one common centre, but you cannot have a circle without a centre.
JP Because it is the centre in that way that forms the circle and gives character to it.
FER And every part of the circle is equally related to the centre.
JP So that even in the most simple way if a person is going to describe a circle the first thing is the centre.
FER Now, if you are going to apply it, the point in [p. 285] recovery is that it must bear some relation to departure. And the point of recovery is the introduction of the centre, and in result you get many circles. We are concerned particularly with one circle, but there is one centre and many circles.
JP Like in the end of Psalm 22, there are many circles.
FER Yes, it does not matter how many circles there are.
WM So every family in heaven and on earth is named of the Father.
FER The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. All have one centre.
Ques What do you mean by recovery? Do you mean the gathering of everything back in the universe of God?
FER Yes.
RSS I suppose there are quite a few who are wondering what you mean by the circles and the one centre, and the circle in which we are particularly interested.
FER At the outset God, appointed a centre, but there was no circle. But then the centre lost its bearing, man became lawless; if the centre got out of relation to God it lost its bearing. That is what came to pass at the beginning. Adam was the centre and he stood, as God created him, in relation to God; but in becoming lawless he lost his bearing; he was no longer morally the centre; then hatred came in in Cain, and then you could not have a circle, because hatred is that each pushes another away; that is what came out in the case of Cain, he would be violent. You could not have a circle with the principle of hatred, so the whole thing was vitiated.
JSA And the point of departure is lawlessness.
FER That is, man got out of his bearing, just like any bit of complex machinery. If any part of it is out of its bearing, the whole thing gets out of working order.
Rem I suppose if there is one centre and many circles there must be one circle that is within all the circles.
FER Yes, one centre will serve for any number of [p. 286] circles, like a stone thrown into the water, you have one centre but you may have any number of circles.
Ques Will you tell us what is the first circle?
FER You get here first the centre, then the circle. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (children) of God”. The centre and what you may call the inmost circle; that is the divine way of recovery. God has brought in the principles of recovery — it is an important point to my mind that the centre and the circle existed before ever the gospel was preached. It was brought to pass in connection with Christ and the little company that Christ gathered to Himself; and on the day of Pentecost it was manifest. The “righteous One” was preached as centre and at the same time there were the children of God and they loved one another. They were the circle, all equally related to the centre.
WM So that God and man had a place there.
FER Yes, the centre was in relation to God. All was in gear, the centre was in relation to God at the right hand of God, and there was the circle by the Spirit, that is, they were the children of God.
JSA In Revelation 5, you have a kind of figure of it, the Lamb in the midst of the throne and then the elders round the throne, and then another circle angelic and then you have all creation; different circles.
Rem It seems to me the illustration that you use of the sun and the planets in their orbits is quite an important point. We can all grasp it, and it is a very helpful figure. If any one gets out of its orbit it is lawlessness.
JWP And so Christ being the centre will draw every circle to Him.
FER And every part of every circle is equally related to the centre. You see, the world got into confusion from the outset because there was not a centre. They were moved away from one another, like people without a head, and were distributed into nations, and their tongues [p. 287] confounded, and there was nation against nation, no centre. At the same time the universal principle of hatred was there. Men were hateful and hating one another. The two principles which came in by the fall were lawlessness and hatred. Lawlessness came in by Adam, and hatred by Cain.
JP Now God has brought in righteousness and love by Christ.
FER Yes. He is the righteous On; and He is pure; in Him is no sin. These three things are said about Him, that is your centre. And another point connected with Him, that He is really divine. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him”. The centre though a Man is divine, but as a Man He is the righteous One, and pure, and in Him is no sin. He is the divinely appointed centre of a moral universe, and we get the inmost circle, that is, the children of God.
JSA And then, to clear the ground, God brings in, “he was manifested to take away our sins”.
FER Yes, lawlessness and hatred have come to an end with man in the death of Christ. If He had not been manifested to take away our sins by accomplishing redemption, and in that way discharging the liabilities under which we were, the circle could not have been there.
WM The relationship takes here a peculiar form. It is not recognisable by the world, so it forms no part of our testimony whatever.
FER I think it is very important to see that recovery was there before the gospel was preached. Christ brought in recovery; He is the righteous One who fulfilled righteousness, and He gave the Spirit to those who were gathered. Christianity was introduced by Christ Himself. He is the centre and He gave the promise of the Father to those whom he Himself had gathered. The introduction of christianity did not involve the responsibility of anybody.
JSA [p. 288] So, too, the point of reconciliation was there, although the work was not yet accomplished.
WM And it was all the work of Christ as the last Adam.
FER Quite so. He came in as Man, to accomplish redemption. That is, to discharge every liability according to the mercy of God. Christ is the centre in the very fact of His becoming Man; and having accomplished redemption He has gone up on high and communicated the gift of the Spirit to those whom He had gathered. There we have the two principles of lawlessness and hatred completely met in Christ, and in the little circle that Christ gathered.
JSA And all those who are brought under the Head are brought into the circle.
FER Because they are brought in relation to the centre and hence come into the circle.
WM And the gospel never went out till these two things were established — the centre and the circle.
FER Till the great principles of recovery were there. The disciples were forbidden to preach till they were endued with power from on high.
Rem And the effect of the gospel was to bring into the circle.
FER To bring into relation to the centre. They did not preach the circle. They preached the centre, and the effect was that those who believed were brought into relation to the centre. They were brought into attachment, and being brought into attachment were brought into the circle.
WM And would you say that being attached to the centre they got righteousness, and being brought into the circle they got salvation?
FER They were brought into the circle where salvation was.
JP If persons are brought in relation to the centre they must be brought into that of which He is centre.
GR I suppose for us as christians there is no other [p. 289] circle but that.
FER None.
Rem I suppose when the second circle comes in it will be dependent on the first circle, in the centre.
FER I think it will be dependent on the centre. Every circle will be related to every other circle. It is very much like a stone when thrown into the water produces a great many circles, and all these circles are related to one another.
Rem I understood you to say Israel would be dependent on the church for intelligence in the world to come.
FER There may be that, but you must maintain that every circle is brought into direct relation with the centre. The shining in the church will be beneficial for Israel, and the shining of Israel will be beneficial for the nations. “Arise, shine; for thy light is come”. But then Israel stands in direct relation to Christ. We have had the principle before us, in regard to the New Testament, that in every epistle there is some particular presentation of Christ, which gives character to the epistle; and the same is true in the prophets. In Isaiah, the thought is, Immanuel. In Jeremiah, Jehovah our righteousness. In Ezekiel, it is the Son of man, and the same in Daniel. And that is that Israel may know Christ in that way. It is in relation to Israel.
JP “They are they which testify of me”.
FER I think it is one of the greatest delights to find out the particular light in which Christ is presented in every book.
JP I am almost out of patience with myself to think how slow I am to see it.
FER When you get it, it is a clue to the book.
JSA There must have been a very wonderful exposition of that very thing on the way to Emmaus.
FER “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”. He gave them the light in which He was presented in every [p. 290] scripture.
WM Does that seventh verse mean that the christian is righteous relatively or in nature?
FER Always relatively. You become in bondage to righteousness. It is relative.
WM He is in his proper position in regard to Christ.
FER In relation to the centre, and if he is in relation to the centre he is righteous as Christ is righteous, and the doing righteousness is the expression that we are in relation to the centre.
JP That is the reason why the lines are so sharp and the statements so absolute.
RSS Holiness is rather a question of nature, is it not?
FER I connect holiness with love. That is, we are partakers of the divine nature, and as we advance in love we advance in holiness. Righteousness is another point. It must be in the being in attachment to the righteous One. You cannot have righteousness otherwise, else man would be like God. God is righteous apart from any question of attachment. He is the righteous Jehovah.
JSA Man being a creature, his true place is in attachment.
FER Just as in the universe. And the proof that every planet is in attachment is that it travels in its own orbit.
JP So in verses 6 and 7 you get both sides, the negative and the positive.
FER Go a point beyond the first circle. Children of God are righteous, because they are in relation to the centre, but you get, “the spirits of just men made perfect”, because they are in relation to the centre. In regard to Israel, Jehovah is their righteousness. They are in relation to the centre. Each circle being in relation to the centre there is righteousness. Whatever there may be in Christ’s day which will not be in relation to the centre, will be outside entirely. There is no righteousness in what we get at the end of Isaiah. They shall look on the carcasses of those who have transgressed. So, too, in regard to the [p. 291] lake of fire. It is not in relation to the centre, and there is no righteousness.
JSA In the new heavens and the new earth it dwells.
JP The judgment of God comes in to remove them from the sphere of blessing.
FER They are outside of the moral universe in that sense, but lawlessness will be limited. That is the idea, I suppose, of the lake of fire; they will not stand in relation to righteousness.
GWH Would you say the two things which mark the circle are righteousness and love?
FER I think that which marks the circle is love. Righteousness comes out in the way of love, as lawlessness comes out in the way of hatred. Hatred is a necessary consequence of lawlessness, because man has become a centre to himself, and hates anything that opposes his will. I know it in myself. That is what Cain was in regard to Abel, and he killed him.
GWH So you become self-centred instead of God centred.
FER Exactly. Man set himself as a kind of rival to God with a will of his own, and he hated what opposed his will, and violence comes in upon hatred. The steps are undoubtedly lawlessness, hatred, violence. You see that even in a family. Children hate one another, and violence sometimes ensues, because they are lawless. In contrast to that the principles of recovery are righteousness and love. We love because we are righteous, that is the secret of love. Why do we love one another? Because we stand in equal relation to Christ, who is the centre.
JP Hence the secret of our going on in love with one another is our abiding in Christ.
FER That is it. “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not”. And the commandment is that we shall believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another.
WM In a certain sense there is not much difference between [p. 292] righteousness and love.
FER No. What was the righteousness of the law? That man should love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself. You get the thought here. “Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither be that loveth not his brother”.
Rem The extremes are seen in both sides, that he that hates is regarded as a murderer, and be that loves is one who lays down his life for his brethren.
JP That is righteousness. Righteousness has a twofold bearing, like lawlessness. In righteousness, as to God, there is the doing of righteousness, and as to the brethren, there is love.
FER It comes out in this way, he that doeth righteousness proves that he is righteous by the practice of righteousness, that is, that he is related to the centre.
JSA And in a way righteousness comes before salvation.
FER Quite so.
WB Would you connect responsibility with the circle?
FER Yes. But I would connect it very much more with the centre. Our responsibility in regard to the centre is to abide in Him. In the physical universe, we get the earth in relation to the sun, because there is no will at work in the earth, and the moon does not get out of relation to the earth for the same reason; but in regard of us, it is only too true that there is will, and if there is will unjudged we may get out of relation to the centre.
JP So the loving one another is put in the way of a commandment. “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment”. It is clearly responsibility in relation to the One who gives the commandment.
FER I think so.
WN I suppose to abide in Him and love one another is a pretty good compendium [p. 293] of christianity.
FER You could scarcely get anything more concise or comprehensive. But then on the other hand, connected with it, is that everything is in order.
WM There would not be a lawless body in the moral universe if that were true.
FER No, if christians were all abiding in Christ and loving one another.
Ques It says in verse 6, “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not”. Is that characteristic?
FER It is what is habitual. If a man sins it is what he does habitually, and if a man does righteousness it is what he does habitually.
JA And if we abide in Him and love one another, as these things have weight with us we enter more into them.
FER I think we enter more into the sense of relationship to the centre and to one another.
Rem I suppose the circle is christian fellowship?
FER I think it is christian affection. Fellowship in the first chapter is in the light. I would not make the christian circle and fellowship exactly the same thing. In the Colossians, where you get the christian circle, it is affection; so you get in Philippians, “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons (children) of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life”. That is a great deal more than fellowship to my mind. It is affection. It is a mistake to confound the two.
GW What is the difference?
FER Fellowship is in a common bond. It is not a question of affection. We are true to the bond like partners in a business. It is more a question of fidelity, but the circle involves affection. It would work in this way, that if we were true in the christian circle in affection for one another, we should better guard our fellowship. We should be more careful.
WM Fellowship would not be a formal [p. 294] thing.
FER No. We should see more in it and be more careful of it.
GWH It would be rather remarkable to speak of fellowship in a family.
FER Yes, there is not fellowship in a family, but affection. So here you get the thought of children. “Now are we children of God”. What is proper in them is affection. This is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another. The character of the love is that it is the love of Christ.
WM I suppose verse 16 presents the obligation of affection. We should lay down our lives for the brethren.
FER The truth is this, not simply that you are in attachment, like the earth to the sun, which is external, but being in relation to Christ, the centre, we draw from the centre and hence what comes out in us in relation to one another is from thence.
WM It is more like sheep and the Shepherd.
FER Yes.
GWH It is love which gives the completeness to the circle.
FER I think so. We would never love one another by looking at one another. The fact is, the more that we look at one another the more we see one another’s peculiarities, but if we are to walk according to God’s mind our eyes must be upon Christ. It is a great thing to get away from looking at one another. “By this we know that [p. 295] we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments”.
JP One way Scripture will allow us to consider one another is to provoke to love and to good works.
WM I suppose it is our brother that we love. I must see my brother in order to love him.
OO'B Do you mean you do not love the children of God everywhere, if you have not seen them?
FER I mean the opposite. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments”.
WM Do you think the point of that passage is, that you must see your brother? You do not love one that is not your brother. You must see the divine nature.
OO'B I do not understand it now, if that is the case. Do I understand we are not to love the brethren we have not seen?
FER No. The point is if you love God you will love the children of God, no matter where they are. There is a great number of them I have never met, but I know I love them because I love God and keep His commandments.
WM It is pretty hard to love a man individually that you have never seen.
FER But I know that I love him. Wherever I find a christian I love him. So you get the affection of the apostle going out to those who had not seen his face in the flesh.
TA Then it comes in that we do not know any man after the flesh.
FER I only know people who stand in relation to Christ. I do not cultivate acquaintance with people after the flesh. I have often said I have no friends. I do not try to cultivate them. The spring of everything with us is that we stand in relation to the centre and we love those who stand in relation to the centre. We have no cliques. We love one another, because every one in the circle stands equally related to the centre. That is the ground of affection.
Rem Anything else is natural affection.
FER I do not care to go into a house where there is a clique. It is a thing to be avoided among us. It is not according to the truth of the circle. In a circle every part of the circle is equidistant to the centre.
JP There is one thing certain, if a christian has no friends in the world his worldly friends will not trouble him.
FER They give you up after [p. 296] a time.
RSS What is our responsibility to those who are outside the circle in the way of love?
FER You want to introduce the centre to them, because the centre is Head to them, not centre to them, but Head to them. He is centre to the divinely appointed circle. You want to introduce the Head to everybody. That is where preaching comes in.
RSS What would you say is the distinction between the centre and the Head?
FER I think that Christ is the Head of every man, but every man is not in the circle.
JP Because the circle involves attachment.
FER There is a great deal of lawlessness in the world that does not take account of the Head; that does not like the thought that Christ is the divinely appointed Head.
WM So our relation to every man is the gospel.
FER Yes.
RSS Under the law we were to love our neighbours as ourselves.
FER Could you love him better than by trying to bring the Head to him, and him to the Head?
RSS We are to bring the gospel to him.
FER You cannot do a greater service than that.
JP The rights and claims of Christ.
WB-t Would you make any difference between human love and divine love in ourselves as a principle?
FER I think human love never comes from Christ. Christ never loved any one with human love, and if He is the spring of our affection to one another, He is the spring of divine affection.
JSA I think there is a point in connection with Mr. M.’s remark, that is, it sometimes seems a little more difficult to love those that we do see and whose weaknesses we know than it is to love the children of God whose weaknesses we do not see.
FER But you must keep your eye away from the saints and on Christ. You must get to Christ the spring.
JSA [p. 297] What I mean is that you have to look at what is of Christ in them.
FER But if you are looking at Christ you are looking at the Christ that is in them.
WM And I suppose even in loving your natural relations you take your guidance from the love of Christ.
FER I think Christ governs in regard of even natural relations.
Ques How does natural affection come in?
FER If you stand in relation to Christ, and love Christ, it makes a difference, because you love Christ more than your relations.
Rem I was thinking of your remark that the Lord did not love with a natural love.
FER But you love the saints more than you love your own children, do you not?
Rem I think I do.
FER You do love your children, but your love to your children is modified by your love for the saints, and I have no doubt that your love to your children is more pure; when a person is converted all his affections have to be readjusted, because Christ and the saints come in, and the saints take priority of the natural affections.
Ques Is that why in Colossians and Ephesians all relationships are brought in in connection with the Lord?
FER But you get the saints first. Your natural affections are purified by the introduction of spiritual affections.
GWH So I suppose you learn to maintain all those relations from Christ.
GR How about the young man of whom it was said the Lord loved him? Is there any difference between that love and the Lord’s love to us?
FER His love to us is the love of relationship. To him it was divine love.
RSS Does love, whether human or divine, always spring from relationship?
FER Not [p. 298] with God.
R.S.S. With us?
FER I think it does. It is a consequence with us, but with God it is the spring. You get that in the passage, “We love him, because he first loved us”. “God is love”. You never could say of a saint, he is love, but God is love.
JP God does not love “because”.
FER No.