F.E.R. I am rather inclined to think "The Word" was a recognised appellative as applied to Christ. When the apostle speaks thus of that Person, it was in a way known and recognised by Christians. This gospel was written late.

I suppose the reference to "eye-witnesses" in Luke 1:2 would refer more to miracles, and that sort of thing. It is "eye-witnesses of". The Word was His personal name. I think it helps in the understanding of this gospel to see that John, speaking of "The Word", speaks of a thought that was current among Christians -- known among them.

If you talk about the testimony of God -- Christ Himself is the testimony; not simply certain facts, but Christ Himself is the testimony from John's point of view. Death and resurrection are certain facts, and they form a testimony in a certain way, but in John, Christ Himself is the testimony. These things are all parts of the testimony.

Ques. Would you regard the title as an adaptation of a thought that was in man's mind?

F.E.R. Well, that is, after all, a matter of small moment to us. If it comes to that, all words are taken up in man's literature, and no doubt the thought may have been familiar to men. The thing is, Christ Himself is the testimony -- He is "The Word".

Ques. Is it right to say, "The eternal Word"?

F.E.R. Scripture does not so speak. The expression is used here in connection with His presentation in manhood. It is He who is "The Word" who was "in the beginning".

Ques. What is the meaning of "in the beginning" here?

F.E.R. It carries you back to the farthest point of time. No human mind can take in a period previous to "the beginning" in John. "All things received being" by that Person, and "without him not one thing received being which has received being". The full thought in the title "The Word" belongs to Him as become flesh. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", and afterwards we have, "We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father". He came out as the testimony of God -- all the thought and heart of God find their expression in Him. Resurrection may witness God's power, but it would not, in that way, be the expression of His love. His giving His only-begotten Son is the witness of His love. No one who was not all He is said to be in these verses could be the expression of God.

Ques. What is the difference between "the beginning" here and in the epistle?

F.E.R. "From the beginning" in the epistle is "from the outset". You remember it says, "The devil sinneth from the beginning" -- that is, from the outset of sin. It is the beginning of the thing spoken of to which the writer refers. In the epistle John is speaking of Christianity, and so he speaks of what was from the outset of that. Christ was the beginning of Christianity from John's point of view -- all that preceded that was completely ignored. It is peculiar to John.

Ques. I suppose that Christianity does not properly begin until resurrection and ascension?

F.E.R. It is one feature of John's gospel that he speaks of what Christ brings in -- he carries you back, even in the epistle, to what, in a certain sense, was from the very beginning of Christ. It connects itself

with the peculiar line of John's testimony -- it presents Christ coming in after a completely new order.

Rem. The "corn of wheat" which fell into the ground and died, that it might not abide alone.

F.E.R. Yes; it is all after that kind.

Rem. John speaks of Christ because failure had come in.

F.E.R. Yes. The church may fail, but Christ can never fail. It is a great point that there is no failure about Christ, and all this was written when everything was broken down. It is supposed to be the last book written in the New Testament. John is altogether different from every other gospel. What I mean is this -- he brings to light what is in the Godhead. No other gospel does that.

Ques. I suppose you would say there is abundant proof in the others of His being God's Son come down here?

F.E.R. Oh, yes. But there is no other gospel which takes quite the ground of His being the Son here to reveal the Father -- that is not the line which they pursue. Matthew, for instance, presents Him as men knew Him here on earth, but John gives you what lies behind -- the relationships of divine persons -- if I might say so, the inner life of the Godhead. You do not get that developed in any other gospel. Then, in the latter part of this gospel, you get the coming of the Holy Spirit; it is the truth as to the Godhead which is brought out in John, which is totally different, in that way, from any other gospel.

Ques. What do you understand by the "Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father"?

F.E.R. The Father is the source of all -- the source of divine counsels, but then the Son comes to carry those counsels into effect. The Son and the Spirit both come forth from the Father in that way. The Holy Spirit came on that line, in connection with the counsels of the Father. Then, too, you find that the

Son is the centre of those counsels; the Spirit is the bond, if I may so speak, between the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son are one in the unity of the Spirit.

Ques. The Spirit is a distinct Person in the Godhead?

F.E.R. Yes, of course. It is in the same way that the Spirit is the bond that binds all Christians together. The Father and the Son are One, but they must be One in the unity of the Spirit -- you cannot leave the Spirit out -- it is the Spirit of the Father, but then He is spoken of too as the Spirit of Christ.

Ques. Do you take "The Word" to be that which expresses God?

F.E.R. Yes. It is that in which God is expressed -- you get all the heart of God coming out. A prophet could not make known to you the heart of God; he might make known a great deal about God, but there could be no testimony like the testimony of a divine Person. The Lord said, "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen". A prophet very often did not know at all what he was speaking about. Christ was altogether what He said He was. In Him there was One down here in this world who could tell you what was in the heart of God. It is most wonderful.

If you want to get all about the divine nature, and love, you have to go to John for it. He presents to you the One in whom it was all manifested. No one but Himself was equal to the manifestation of it. I do not see how you could have love presented except in a Person. You could not get at the reality of it except in a Person. Think of a Man being here -- there was a Man here -- the exact expression of God, and who knew all that was in the heart of God. What a moment for earth!

Then you get, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (verse 4). All things came into

existence by Him, and in Him was life. I think "life", as here, involves the power to quicken, it is a divine Person who could make others alive. You could not speak of life being in a creature, because he is simply made alive by an act of power. You are quickened, but it can only be said of a divine Person that life was "in him". "The life was the light of men". "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life". When man saw this "life", he really saw what the life of God was, that is, love; love is properly the life of God. I have no doubt that Christ was as strange to man as man was strange to Him. If you could conceive such a thing, I really think that the Lord must have been surprised at the motives which actuated man -- the way he sets to work to gratify himself, and to make himself happy here. It must all have been so strange in His sight to see man pursuing happiness, as he thought, and yet to know that it was not that, but just the opposite. We too ought to learn to look at things morally, and not as they appear. It must have been a strange path for the Lord through this world; things must have looked strange to Him here, and I have no doubt He appeared equally strange to them. The Christian ought to be as strange to the world as Christ was. You get the principle in the verse, "The spiritual man discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man".

Rem. Selfishness cannot understand love, and love cannot understand selfishness.

F.E.R. Still, the life was the light of men; it came into the world as the light of men, although, I quite own, it needed a work of God for them to receive the light, but the life was the light.

Ques. How does this verse fit in with what we have in John 5:26, "As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself"?

F.E.R. You get what is proper to divine Persons

spoken of here, but in John 5 it is developing what was between the Father and Himself as a Man down here -- that which He takes up as "given" to Him, all that was His as Man. When you look at that Person abstractly, He has life in Himself; but in the other case, viewed as in His ministry here on earth, He received it from the Father.

Ques. The "last Adam, a life-giving Spirit"?

F.E.R. Well, He became that -- He was made that. Until resurrection He could not give life to men. It was in resurrection that He is spoken of as the "last Adam". He cannot be a "life-giving Spirit" until resurrection, until the judgment of God had been met. As a matter of fact, in John 5 He is speaking of Himself all through as the "last Adam", but the "last Adam" is the Son of God.

I think the idea in verse 4 is that there was no other light for man -- He was the only light for man. "The life was the light of men". There is no record of any quickening here. "The darkness comprehended it not"; it was impenetrable darkness, even as regards divine light. Man was not capable of taking in the light, it just proved his perfect incapability. It is like those wonderful rays we hear of now, that can penetrate solid bodies. They can penetrate to the bone, but they cannot make alive. They can discover the bit of dead bone, if it is there, but they cannot make it alive. They leave the dead bone just what it was before.

Rem. It brings the two things very markedly together -- life and light.

F.E.R. It is as plain to me as daylight, because, as far as man is concerned, he cannot live if God does not reveal Himself. The fact of man's living depends on God revealing Himself. Life must depend upon light.

I do not suppose Adam wanted much in the way of "light". He, as far as I can understand his experience,

knew God in everything -- every created thing was to him an evidence of the goodness and beneficence of God, and before he fell, I suppose he was filled with gratitude and thankfulness. He could have known nothing about the righteousness of God, or the holiness, or love, of God, although everything witnessed to the goodness of God. It was in that that Adam lived. Now we, in God's ways, know a very great deal about God; we know His righteousness and His holiness and His love. All these things have come out to us now as "light", and in that light we live. "The Son of God has come ... that we should know him that is true".

Rem. And in that way He undoes the work of the devil.

F.E.R. Yes. You want light to enlighten you, but how are you going to live, or where? God begins a work in you, but that is not life in the true sense of it. There must be a work of God in you, but living is quite a different idea in Scripture. We commonly speak of a man having "life", but life really is living in certain relationships -- that is really begun when the heart has appreciated the light of God. There is, of course, a starting-point, and that is when God is known. When there is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we arrive at the starting-point of life. What makes me say that is this -- "The letter kills, but the Spirit quickens", 2 Corinthians 3:6. Then a little later in the chapter you have, "Now the Lord is the Spirit". When your soul apprehends the Lord in resurrection, you have got hold of the quickening Spirit.

Rem. That is, across the Red Sea.

F.E.R. Yes, exactly, that is just it. Now, until that point is reached, there is no deliverance from the judgment of death; but when you come across the Red Sea, and apprehend the Lord risen, you apprehend life -- "the Spirit makes alive". You know the life of God -- you get an insight into life.

Ques. Is that the beginning of light as well as life?

F.E.R. Not exactly. The first light that comes in is as to the blood; a person gets a sense of divine righteousness, and of being under judgment; but if you are going to live to God, you must get outside the flesh. You are landed outside the flesh when you apprehend the Lord Jesus Christ as outside the flesh. Your faith has taken you outside the range of flesh. The cleverest man cannot enter into the idea of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is impossible -- naturally man cannot go beyond the flesh.

As a matter of fact, people do not know what faith is. They give you an illustration of it, a story something like this: "You have heard there is such a place as, say, Canton. You have received it upon trustworthy authority, and you believe it. Well, that is faith". And people want you to believe that that is faith. There is not a bit of faith in it! Why, I could go and verify that statement to-morrow if I had ways and means. Now, the thing is, faith is what you cannot verify, but you take it upon the testimony of God. Before God comes out in a public way, I accept His testimony, and that is the link between my soul and God. "The just shall live by faith". "Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen". The heart is interested in that scene -- it is with the heart you believe. How do you know that God raised Christ from the dead? You say you are sure of it, you know it upon God's testimony -- it is God's testimony that enables you to know Him risen from the dead. I do not think that, even with the disciples, it was simply upon the testimony of their eyesight that they believed in the resurrection. I believe they accepted the testimony of God's word -- the testimony of the scripture. Man has to learn to accept God's testimony. How could you be happy through eternity if you could not trust God's word? That is a very much greater thing that just believing the historical facts.

I feel sure that the resurrection is the true test of faith. The human mind can take in death in a certain way -- it is familiar with that -- but it cannot take in resurrection. God had before Him in the cross a true demonstration of man's state and place, and that is why the apostle pressed so much the testimony of the cross; but you cannot believe in the cross unless you believe in the resurrection. The resurrection is the great proof that the One who died on that cross was the Son of God.

You see, if there is to be universal blessing, God must come in and establish a link between man's soul and Himself. To introduce blessings into this world, to heal ills, and all that sort of thing, would not be sufficient. He must have a link established between Himself and the heart of man. What is to accomplish this? Why, nothing but His word -- making Himself known, and getting a place in the heart of man.

Ques. Would not that produce repentance?

F.E.R. In one sense it would -- "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance". The principle was the same with Israel: "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart". The word is the link between them and God. It was the same with Abraham -- "he believed God". If God sends light into the world, man's heart is tested by it -- the gospel comes in, a great testing process, in order to bring to light the elect of God. It is like the woman in the parable that lighted the candle in order to find the lost piece of silver. It is the light of God testing every man. Some reject and some receive, but the great purpose of the gospel is to bring to light the elect of God.

Returning to the chapter, it is noticeable that you do not get any sort of detail here, either in regard to the Lord or to John the Baptist. John is simply introduced as "a man sent from God". We have nothing of the connection between him and what

preceded. Luke presents this -- in Luke we get his parentage and all the details of his birth, but in the gospel of John everything is viewed quite abstractly. He says, "There was a man sent from God.... He came for witness", a testimony. So, too, in speaking of the Lord, he introduces Him abruptly, simply as "The Word".

Ques. I suppose that in Matthew, where you get John preaching the kingdom, it was what a Jew would naturally expect?

F.E.R. Quite so. But here he comes to bear witness to something which was entirely fresh. He comes to "witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him". That was the bearing of his testimony.

Ques. It is not, of course, that men coming into the world were enlightened?

F.E.R. Oh, no; it, that is, the true Light, "coming into the world, lightens every man". There was the complete exposure of man, the light made manifest every man, it found man out. Not only did it reveal God to them, but He was revealed really according to the truth of man's condition. The Light came in revealing God, but, at the same time, exposing man. Men did not know their need of forgiveness any more than they do now. What they really needed was something deeper, even new birth. What people prefer is to be told what they ought to do, provided, of course, it is not too irksome; but the Light coming in exposed man's state. It was so in John 8, but those who were exposed took care to get out of the Light -- they all went out.

It is a revelation of God to man, suited to his state. If God were revealed in judgment, it would not be light; there would have been no light for the woman in John 8 if God had come out in the way of legislation. It is what God is in relation to man, in suitability to

man. Nothing is more important than to see the way in which men were exposed in the presence of Christ. If the Lord comes in in the way of forgiveness, then it proves that man needs forgiveness. If He comes in to raise man from the dead, then it proves this much -- that man is under death. If He heals man of leprosy, well, man is morally leprous. The Light coming into the world really proved what the state of man was, and it proved him to be in darkness. "The light appears in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not".

The Lord never did anything but what was really necessary for the relief of man. I do not think there was any superfluity in that way; the secret of all that He did was to make God known, but it was all in relation to the necessity of man. For instance, He would not call fire down from heaven, neither would He command the stones to become bread. Such things were not called forth by the condition of man. There may be, no doubt, an occasional exception, such as the cursing of the fig tree, but that is quite understandable. There was a necessity for the fig tree to be removed out of the way.

There is nothing more wonderful than the way of the Lord down here in the world. There is one verse which expresses it exactly -- "He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him". It is all summed up in that verse.

Ques. Does "light" carry the thought of blessing as well as exposure?

F.E.R. "Light" is the revelation of God, and that, of course, is blessing. If the light comes out, God reveals Himself according to man's need. It is not a legislator that man wants, but One who can make Himself known, as God has done, according to the truth of man's condition; and the fact is that man, on his side, has to accept the exposure. The very

fact of its being light must needs expose you. God does not accommodate Himself to man's condition -- He exposes it, and if man accepts that, he gets blessed; but if, on the other hand, he refuses the light, it proves that he does not accept the exposure.

Ques. You would say that light was a necessity for man's blessing?

F.E.R. How else is man to know God? I cannot conceive how a man is to be made acquainted with God if He does not make Himself known, and that is light. If there had never been light, we should be just like the poor degraded people of Central Africa or India -- shut up in darkness. It is pretty certain that the moral atmosphere of Greece or Rome was not much better than that of Africa or India.

Ques. What was the necessity for a witness to the light?

F.E.R. When God comes in with a testimony to man, He takes care to bring it within the cognisance of man. He orders it so that it may be within man's cognisance, and in that way He does accommodate Himself to man. John came and pointed to the Christ, so that He should be, in that way, brought effectively within the knowledge of man. It increased man's responsibility, but it is the divine way. God takes good care that if He addressed a testimony to man, it should be within man's full cognisance. That is the force of the expression in verse 31, "That he might be manifested to Israel, therefore have I come baptising with water". People have not, I am sure, apprehended the force of it.

It would be a very interesting study, especially in this gospel of John, to trace in what way people were exposed by the light. There were very many cases in which people were brought into the light, and exposed by it. Take Nicodemus, for instance, he was brought into, and exposed by, the light, and virtually it put him into the same position as the woman at Sychar's

well. Man would not have thought of their equality, but, as a matter of fact, directly they get into the presence of the Lord, they are both found to be in the same boat. Nicodemus could no more understand the kingdom of God than the woman. The woman, really, was quicker to take in the light than Nicodemus was -- "Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?" You might take up everybody you find in John's gospel -- Nathanael, Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the blind man, and the rest -- they are a curious company, but you could put them into the same boat.

Ques. They come out in different colours, I suppose?

F.E.R. No, I do not think so -- they are all of one colour. They are totally unable to apprehend the kingdom of God. Nathanael -- perhaps the best of them all -- said, in answer to Philip's testimony, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" This was right, so far as it went, for "good" can only come out of heaven, but the thought in Nathanael's mind was merely contrasting Nazareth -- outside the pale, as he thought, of religious privilege -- with Jerusalem, which, according to his reckoning, was the centre of everything for God here upon the earth. It only proved what man's state really was.

In regard to the gospel of John generally, it does not deal with the question of man's responsibility, but almost exclusively with man's state and the way it is met. No doubt that is why the question of new birth is brought in. It is John alone who gives us the truth as to the new birth, just because he takes up the question of state. You see, the Lord does not say to a poor Gentile, "Ye must be born again", neither does He say it to an ignorant Jew, but it is to a teacher of Israel. If a teacher of Israel needed to be born again, then most assuredly it is a necessity for a poor Gentile. If a man of the very best type needs it, then

certainly it must be a necessity for one of the very worst. The light "coming into the world, sheds its light upon every man". Coming into the world, every man is exposed by it.

It is a great thing to apprehend how thoroughly God does His work. All has come out, the whole state of man has been completely exposed. See how man exposes himself in this gospel with regard to Christ! We get the effect of the light coming in, it just proves man's utter incapability to receive it, and his insensibility to what is good. Man was completely out of touch with God. What an awful thing! God created the world, and then He came into the world, and man does not know Him! "He came to his own, and his own received him not". It is exactly the same, in principle, in the world as it is today. It is a very terrible testimony to come out in a couple of verses, "His own" refers, of course, to the Jews, and "the world" to everybody.

"As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God" (verse 12), refers to what was the effect of the light being here; it is a summary, an epitome. These verses give you, in a short and concise way, the effect of its being here. "As many as received him" received him as the Light of the world, I think. Now we receive the testimony of God, but not quite in the same sense. We believe in the Son of God on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but in the gospel it is more that they believed on Him as the Light of the world. We believe in Christ at the right hand of God, and not as the Light of the world here. We believe that the Son of God has come. The rejection of Christ by the world has changed the whole position of everything. If there is to be anything of blessing for man now, it must be outside of this world -- it cannot be in connection with the world which has rejected Christ. The testimony of God addresses itself to every one in the world, but really

with a view to taking them out of the world. You get a figure of it in baptism.

There are a vast number of things which God owned, in a certain way, but which now He can no longer recognise. God owned the flesh, for instance, to a large extent until Christ was rejected, and worldly motives, and that sort of thing, but He cannot sanction anything of that sort now. Even in what you get in these words, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God", He gave them a place outside this world; they belonged to God, and not to the world. It was not a natural place for them at all, but He gave them the title to take it.

Ques. Is not that what the blind man got in chapter 9?

F.E.R. Yes. As has been often said, in chapter 8 they refuse His word, and in chapter 9 they would not have His work. They try to stone Him in chapter 8, and in chapter 9 they cast out the blind man, and it is then that God meets him.

Ques. "Power" has the sense of "authority", has it not?

F.E.R. Yes -- title, or authority. I think it refers to chapter 20, "Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". It was the declaration of the Father's name, as the title of relationship; it was then that He gave them title to become the children of God when redemption was accomplished. While He was with them, they had no authority to take the place of children -- He gave it to them in the declaration of the Father's name. A child of God does not belong to the first man, and until the first man was ended he could not be put into that place. If otherwise, it would have involved putting something on to the first man, which was an impossibility.

The point is to see that everything depends upon Christ's taking up the place of "last Adam" in

subsisting righteousness. He is the living Head, and under Him all will come out according to God. When He took that place before God in subsisting righteousness, it was then that God was completely glorified. He had the Man before Him. But then another thing comes out, the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. It was true there was only one Man before God, but then that One was a life-giving Spirit. He could quicken, and so you may have any number of men there. That is the meaning of what the Lord did in John 20. He was "last Adam", and He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye Holy Spirit". The first man dragged his posterity down with him under death, and he had no power to quicken; but Christ is a life-giving Spirit.

Ques. He is that as a divine Person?

F.E.R. Yes; and that is a point of the very last moment; He could not quicken unless He was a divine Person.

Ques. What do you mean by "subsisting righteousness"?

F.E.R. It is that there is nothing left to be effected -- not like the high priest who had to go in year by year with the blood of others. This is not the case with Christ, who accomplished eternal redemption. The question of sin can never be raised again, because in Him there is subsisting righteousness, the value of which can in no wise be diminished. He is the Head in subsisting righteousness; the old thing is gone, and the righteousness of God is met, and He is the Witness to it. But then He takes up the position of last Adam, a life-giving Spirit, the Head of every man, and He takes up that place in subsisting righteousness, it is eternally established. "He was delivered for our offences", but then He was also "raised again for our justification". The question of sin is settled, because the question of righteousness is settled. Christ is our righteousness. It is not simply that we are

purged. We are that, but more than that, we are before God in Christ our righteousness. "He has obtained eternal redemption for us". The great point, to my mind, is that, in that position, He is a life-giving Spirit. It is only a question now as to whom He will give it, and all is done in perfect accordance with the Father. It is to whom the Father wills, but the One who did the work is the One who also has the right to quicken. It is, "as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself", and "as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will".

All this shows how perfect the recovery has been. The first man dragged his posterity through the mire, but when Christ quickens, it is after His own order. It is not in the order that failed, but it is a new Man. I believe that nothing has been more prejudicial than the talk about "nature". It is a new man -- a man after a new order, with a whole system of affections suited to him.

What is Christ's mother to Him now? A saint, of course, but all that she was to Him has gone. Mary Magdalene is just as much to Him as His mother. That shows at once the difference between what ends and what subsists. Many seem incapable of taking in the thought of the new order, but, for all that, there is no trace of the old line left. He confided His mother to John -- that line is closed. At the same time, when He comes in resurrection, you do not find His affection for His disciples one whit abated. His affection for Mary Magdalene was just the same. All the natural is gone, but all that is divine remains, and will last for ever. You hear nothing about His natural kindred after His resurrection.

Ques. These things are not yet in actuality?

F.E.R. We are formed in them in the divine nature. It seems to me like a dissolving view -- another

view is coming on the sheet while the old is passing off. The day will come when the old will be completely gone, and there will be nothing seen but the new.

Rem. At present there is a mixed condition of things.

F.E.R. The new is obscured by the old, but no doubt Scripture is right, which indicates that as long as you are in the scene of God's institutions, you are not to make light of them. As a man down here I have my part in them. In the Christian circle, as in Christ, there is neither male nor female; neither is there Jew nor Greek, and I come out of my natural relationships for the time. There is a new system and framework of affections, the start and power of which lie in the divine nature. We are "born of God", not by the will of man, or of the flesh, but of God. It is the divine nature. "Born of God" carries the thought of being partakers of His nature; "born again" is by the Spirit, it is of that character. "Born of God" is what is properly descriptive of the Christian. You could hardly consider a cry of helplessness as properly Christian.

The fact of a man having "blue blood" in his veins does not avail much in divine things, for you are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. It might give a certain amount of refinement and that sort of thing, although it is often the case that the highest born are the most worldly and offensive.

Ques. Why does it say, "To them gave he the right to be children of God" if they did not reach it until John 20?

F.E.R. Well, it is only the statement of the fact, it is not historic. Those who received Him were "born ... of God".

What we see here in connection with John the Baptist is that he takes no place, he disclaims being

the Christ, or Elias, or "that prophet", but speaks of himself merely as a "voice". He was no more than a voice. "I baptise with water", but the Christ was preferred before him, for He was before him. You can scarcely take a less place than that of being but a "voice".

Ques. What would you say was the idea in their minds in asking him whether he was the prophet, or Elias?

F.E.R. They thought he was making himself a rallying-point. Baptism was the end of an old order, and they thought he was making himself the rallying-point for the new departure. If he was neither the Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet, he was scarcely entitled to take up such a position.

Ques. Baptism would mean the ending of the old state?

F.E.R. Yes; and then you must have some kind of rallying-point.

Ques. What is the distinctive character of John's testimony, would you say?

F.E.R. Well, his testimony here is negative. He himself is nothing -- merely a voice. He was making straight the paths of the Lord. When they asked him who he was, he "confessed and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ". It just confirms what was said before, "There was a man sent from God" who was not the light, but was sent to bear witness concerning the light.

Ques. Did he baptise them to the One who was coming?

F.E.R. Yes. His baptism was in view of the coming Messiah. John baptised to One who was coming, and the disciples to One who was actually present, but both had the same moral force.

Ques. Repentance?

F.E.R. Yes. The principle which comes out in baptism is dissociation, cleansing. You are cleansed

from associations in which you have been before. "Save yourselves from this untoward generation". Then they were baptised to answer to that. It appears to me that it is what God claims down here. There is no virtue in it -- nothing communicated in it -- but it has its value as cleansing. "The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth also now save us". Then, too, "Arise ... and wash away thy sins". I think the force of "Save yourselves" is -- cleanse yourselves from them.

Rem. Cut your connection.

F.E.R. Just so. Now suppose a Jew or a Jewess in the present day were to be baptised, that would mean a very great deal to them. In all probability it would expose them to bitter persecution. They would be despised by all their relatives. What is involved in baptism is dissociation -- and it includes even dissociation from oneself. John refuses all place, and even name. He was a "voice" and nothing more. The Lord speaks of him as the greatest of the prophets, but he himself takes the simple place in which Scripture puts him, that is, "to bear witness of the light". If he had not taken that place, he would have nullified his mission, he would himself have become a gathering-point. He testifies to the Lord in new characters and aspects -- "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him", he testifies to that, and then he says, "This is the Son of God". He first of all introduces Him as the Lamb of God, and adds, "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me". It is not that John is speaking from any knowledge that he might have had of Christ naturally, but as any true Jew might have had knowledge of Him. All through the passage He is spoken of as entirely outside the natural thoughts of men -- of the Jew. He comes to "take away the sin of the world" -- not of the Jew simply, but of the world. Then, too, He baptises with the Holy Spirit, and He

who does that is the Son of God. It is a great expression that -- He "takes away the sin of the world". I think the first part of the expression -- "Behold the Lamb of God" -- is sacrificial, but "takes away the sin of the world" is not so, as I understand it. Of course, had there been no sacrifice, the gravity of sin would not have been known, and on the other hand, if the sin of the world had been taken away without sacrifice, it would have looked as if God condoned the sin; but He takes away the sin of the world really by revealing God. If He brings God into the world, it must take away the sin of the world -- the very fact of God coming in breaks the whole thing down. Sin all depends upon God not being there. The existence of sin depends upon that, but if God comes in, then sin cannot be there. That is true of ourselves individually -- sin is really taken away by God being revealed to us. "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested". The manifestation of God, the light of God, coming into the soul of a man, takes sin away practically. And so it is in that way that the light of God coming into the world takes away the sin of the world. But all this would not have been possible except for the sacrifice -- hence the immense importance of the first part of the expression.

Ques. Is it an equivalent thought to what we have in the end of Hebrews 9?

F.E.R. Yes. He has been manifested for the setting aside of sin.

Rem. But even there it goes far beyond the instrumental act. When He is manifested to any one it is then, and not till then, that the power of sin is broken, and the same thing will be true when He comes again.

Rem. "When it pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me".

F.E.R. Yes. It was that which broke the power of sin in Paul; sin was set aside; it is the manifestation of Christ that sets sin aside. The dealing with

sin sacrificially is one thing, and the setting aside of the principle is another; the one depends upon the other, but they are two distinct things.

Rem. Then really a deepening acquaintance with Christ is the true way of deliverance?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. He brings in what is completely and morally of God -- He baptises with the Holy Spirit. I think there are two things involved in that, first, the complete setting aside of sin in the universe, and then, with that, it is that "God may be all in all".

"Lamb of God" is not simply a title in which He stands in regard to Israel, but it is more general. When you come to Revelation, you get the thought more in connection with the world. The Lamb is "in the midst of the throne", and all that is in connection with the world. Then, too, the baptising with the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Jew. The promise is, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh". Then the "Son of God" has authority over the nations -- it is a title which has universal application.

Ques. Would you say that it is right for us to worship Him under the title of "Lamb of God"?

F.E.R. Well, you find the whole company in heaven worshipping the Lamb -- you have that fact to face. In the presence of that, it is very difficult to say we must not do homage to the Lamb. I do not think it is what is peculiar to the church -- the other heavenly saints are there; but what I should rather object to is the idea of excluding the worship of the Lamb. I cannot think that what we shall do in heaven can be very wrong upon earth. There may be something higher and nearer, but I should not like to call that wrong for us, when the whole twenty-four elders -- the whole priestly company in heaven -- are engaged in it.

Ques. "He was before me" -- is that pre-existence?

F.E.R. It is, I think, pre-eminence. It is His pre-eminence

as a divine Person. What marked Him out to John the Baptist was the fact of the Spirit descending and remaining on Him. It was not merely the announcement that the Spirit should descend upon Him -- the thought of the Spirit of God coming upon a man was a familiar one -- but it was that He should "abide" upon Him. John knew Him as the One who Himself should baptise with the Holy Spirit. You can scarcely have a more distinct testimony to the greatness of Christ than that He should baptise with the Holy Spirit. For that, a divine Person was needed.

Ques. Does it involve death and resurrection?

F.E.R. Well, yes. It is He who gives the Holy Spirit -- He sends Him, and for that He must be more than a mere man. No man can receive the Holy Spirit and send Him. The Holy Spirit takes the place of being "sent". He is content to take that place, and it is Christ who sends Him.

Rem. John repeats twice over, "I knew him not" (verses 31, 33).

F.E.R. Well, it is emphatic. I think it is the refusal on his part to acknowledge any natural knowledge of the Lord, from the fact of their being cousins, or anything of that sort. I think there is one principle which pervades the whole of the gospel -- that all was completely outside the flesh. It is an emphatic "I" -- it means "myself" personally. If you look at John naturally, he was a distinguished kind of man. His father and mother were both godly people, too. He was connected with the Lord by the ties of kindred, but, for the knowledge of God, all did not avail him. It appears to me he disclaims anything which might not have been true to any true Israelite.

Ques. Is it like 2 Corinthians 5 at all?

F.E.R. I think that passage looks at Christ as having passed out of the condition in which He had been. Those who were godly would have known Him

after the flesh, and that is how He was revealed to John the Baptist.

Ques. Would it include the intimacy in which John knew Him after the flesh?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so; and the disciples knew Him after the flesh -- He came in that order. But now even the Christ is no longer known in that order; what comes out now is "If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation". But there was the manifestation of Christ after the flesh -- "God was in Christ". It conveys to me the great importance of maintaining the unchangeability of the Person. The One who came after the flesh is the same One we know now as raised from the dead. The apostle Paul knew the very same Christ that Peter and John had known -- though Paul knew Him in resurrection.

Ques. What about the Spirit descending in the "form of a dove"? Somebody has said that it is in contrast to the "tongues of fire".

F.E.R. You see, the presence of the Spirit in us really involves self-judgment, but it was not in that way that He came upon Christ. Fire speaks of God's testing. I think that in early days they were not long in losing the moral effect or sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit. They wanted licence for the flesh, and the sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit soon died out. "They all slumbered and slept".

Ques. And then, I suppose, setting up a human ministry was a further result of that?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. I do not believe that any of us have any idea of what the church was at the very beginning. We cannot conceive for a moment what the power was when the Spirit was free, nor have we any idea of the holiness which the Spirit maintained. To set up anything again seems to me so presumptuous; it means that we think we can do better than any of those who have gone before us were able to do. The thing has failed once, and the probability is that

it would fail again, and, for my part, I do not want to be involved in any second failure. The presence of the Spirit must always demand self-judgment. If God is there, flesh must go. The Spirit will not tolerate the flesh.

Ques. That is the idea, is it not, in "The Spirit against the flesh"?

F.E.R. Yes. Neither one will tolerate the other. Now there was no need of self-judgment in Christ. The Spirit comes upon Him in the form of a dove, and it remains upon Him. It is a kind of figure -- the Spirit descending in that way -- to bring within the cognisance of men what God thought of His beloved Son. God took that way to do it.

Rem. In the sovereignty of His grace, would you say?

F.E.R. Well, the gospel of John is not so much characterised by the sovereignty of grace as by the sovereignty of love. God claims to be sovereign in love, but I think the grace of God is toward all men.

Ques. What about John 3:16?

F.E.R. That is His nature, in a certain sense, but even there, there is the element of purpose in it. God "gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

Ques. But is not that verse often used to prove God's nature -- One who cannot judge, and all that sort of thing, because He is love?

F.E.R. Yes. But then the love of God has come into the world in order to lead out of the world. Goodness comes to them to lead them out of prison. Man is shut up in prison, and God has opened a door out of it, but if people do not care to avail themselves of the door of escape out of the world, they come under the wrath.

Rem. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us". What is that?

F.E.R. Well, that is the greatness of the love, the style and character of it. It is the love of a Father to His children. We are in that place to God so that "we should be called children of God". If you are to be in the enjoyment of eternal life, it involves leaving the world, that is certain. What person in his senses could say he has eternal life in this world? If you are to find eternal life, you must find it outside this world. The love of God opens a door out of this world, and you really leave this world in spirit, and enter into relationship with God outside of it. I am a child of God, and an object of His love, although in the world everything may be against me, and I may have to meet the power of Satan and the persecution of men. In the millennium, it will not be a question of leaving the world, for God will have come into the world, but today we have to find God outside of the world. Christ has been into this world to draw our hearts out of it -- He is outside it, and God is outside it. If the Father draws to the Son, it must be to where the Son is.

John the Baptist puts great prominence to the thought of Christ being the "Lamb of God". It seems to be his one thought in regard of Christ. The latter part of the chapter takes in the three titles or glories of Christ -- Son of God, King of Israel, and Son of man -- but John seems to keep to the way in which Christ had been made known to him. This was his apprehension of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Everything had to begin with death, with sacrifice. The term could have no meaning save as viewed sacrificially, and He was God's Lamb, God's providing.

Verse 37 shows the immediate and proper effect of all true ministry and testimony, that is, to put the soul in direct relation with the Lord. Every system -- like the popish or high church system -- which does not effect this is a false one. John's testimony put the two disciples in direct relation to Christ. The Lord

turned and said, "What seek ye?" They say, "Where dwellest thou?" and the answer is, "Come and see", and they came and saw where He abode, and remained with Him that day. It is all very beautiful. It is an immense thing for the soul to get where the Lord abides. We never thoroughly know a person until we see where he abides, and his surroundings. By a merely casual visit we do not know a person.

"Our hearts resort to where Thou liv'st
In heaven's unclouded rays". (Hymn 25)

Heaven is His abiding place -- while He visits this world in the assembly, amongst His own.

It is a great question for each of us, Do we know where He abides? The words are really typical -- they indicate a question which has to be raised and answered in everyone's spiritual history. In the latter part of the gospel we find out how He reaches the place where He abides.

"Abide" is one of the great characteristic words of the gospel of John. It is translated "continue", "dwell", and "remain". "Many abodes" is from the same word. When the Lord said, "Come and see", you may depend there was not much of the glory of this world to look at. There would not be much in the surroundings to divert them from the Lord Himself. This is true, I believe, with regard to heaven as well as earth.

The fact that they went and saw where He dwelt proved that there was a divine work in them. All the work done in souls, I believe, is done by God. Ministry may supply a need which God has created, but God really effects everything in souls from beginning to end. God uses men to enlighten others, but communicating light is not work. Work is that which is ministered affecting a man, and that belongs to God. It is a great mistake to confound between the light which a servant may bring and the work of God.

You get the light through an instrument, but it is God who makes the light effective. Take the case of the jailer -- the work began with God, the exercise produced was of God. Then the apostle speaks the word of the Lord to him, and the word took effect -- this latter being the work of God. If it were not so, it would merely be the mind enlightened, but when God works, the truth is made effective in the heart, in the affections, as in the case of Lydia.

Another interesting point which comes out here is seen in the links which are formed -- Andrew finds Peter and brings him to Jesus; then Philip finds Nathanael. I do not think Andrew knew much about Jesus, but he had been drawn by John's testimony, and he felt that Peter had best come to the same Person. So with Philip and Nathanael -- they found they had come to the One who was full of divine light.

Peter gets an anticipation of Matthew 16 here. He gets a new name, and that indicates that he was to be conspicuous in the new building -- a stone. "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly". That really confirmed what the Lord gave to him here in John 1. In Peter's epistle the Lord is spoken of as the "living stone", and we are living stones -- but here it is more the idea of rock. In Matthew 16 Peter is of the Rock. When we come to the church, we come to the point where all testimonies rest. Take the thought of dwelling -- God dwelt in the way of testimony when He dwelt in the tabernacle. So it is, too, in the presence of Christ here. God dwelt there, but in testimony, for He was veiled. So in the house of God now, God dwells by the Spirit, that is, in testimony; but, at the same time, you have another building which is growing, there is the actual constructing of that in which every testimony of God rests -- we are being formed morally now for what is going to be displayed, that is, the heavenly city, now actually in construction. The present time is the closing time

of testimony, and the beginning of that which is for display. What we get in Ephesians 3 is what is going on now in view of display. When the heavenly city comes down it will be no longer testimony, it will be all display. Testimony is the time of faith. None save the men of faith had any benefit from the cloud which rested on the tent of testimony. So, too, when Christ was here, His words and works testified to God being there, but only those who had faith discerned it. In the time of display it will be no question of faith, the nations, as such, will walk in the light of God; it will then be sight, and no longer faith.

There are three great testimonies of God which come out in the Old Testament -- blessing, dwelling, and ruling -- and all these centre in the heavenly city. I think the Lord looked on to all this display when He said to Peter here, "Thou shalt be called Cephas", which is, by interpretation, a stone. What is going to be displayed then is what is growing now here. It "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord", that is the heavenly city, and men walking in the light of it -- the public benefit of all that will be brought to pass in the millennium, although it will not effect any change in man apart from God's work in him. This is proved by the fact that, when the millennial age is over, men will again come under the power of the devil.

Ques. How do the three days come in here?

F.E.R. I should take it as, first, Peter's day, the building; secondly, Nathanael's day, "An Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile"; and thirdly, the third day as the figure of resurrection which introduces the marriage. Peter is a typical stone, as Nathanael was a typical Israelite according to God -- no fraud, no concealment from God. It is more difficult for people to take in what is referred to in the third day, that is, the idea of a scene being on the ground of resurrection. Resurrection itself is more easily understood; but without that being actually mentioned here, we come

into the view of a scene established on that ground. Death is dispossessed -- "swallowed up in victory". The judgment of God has been met, and the power of the enemy broken, and when Christ comes in He sets death aside and comes in in the power of resurrection. The practical working of it, in regard to saints, will be in the consciousness of a spiritual life outside and above the natural life. That will be the "good wine". They will have perfect happiness in the millennium, but it will not be bounded by the millennium. All that is natural will come to an end then, but what is spiritual will remain. In the new earth you will get a completely changed condition of existence. There will be no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but nevertheless earth will never be heaven. They are always kept distinct, although always bound together.

CHAPTERS 2: 23 - 25; 3: 1 - 21

F.E.R. The last two verses of chapter 2 bring before us the extent to which man as such can go, that is, a mental conviction -- believing on account of the miracles which he saw. Simon Magus went that far. It leaves them without light from God, though, at the same time, it leaves them without excuse. Signs bring no light from God, and a man might see the signs, and yet be unaffected morally. I take it that is the reason why the Lord would not trust them; no impression was really made upon them from God. The effect of God's touch is that a man does not stop at miracles. He might see a leper cleansed, or a dead person raised, but it is not a question merely of the miracles, but of light from God, and the grace which could come in touch with man's need. With the Lord, the great point was for them to receive His testimony concerning Himself and so it is now. The reception

of the Spirit's testimony of Christ is really what converts a man; but, from the very outset, the Lord did not trust Himself to man. He knew what was in man, just as He could reveal what was in God. He knew the worst feature in man, and that is, that he is not to be trusted if it be a question of the things of God. If a man were put to the test in regard to the things of God, he would always prove unfaithful. The fact is, God is the only One whom you can really trust.

All this paves the way for what comes out in the next chapter, I mean for the truth that man must be born again. A man must be made sensible of his need of God, for that is really the effect of being born again. Men do need God, but they are not sensible of it. He needs God even for happiness here in this world. He may be surrounded by everything, and yet there is one great element lacking if he has not God. I do not covet the richest man in the world if he has that lack, because it is such a lack -- such a moral deficiency. God is really a necessity to man's happiness, and He meant to be. Man secured his own will, and a great artificial world was built up for the glory of man, but he has not secured happiness thereby. Even where you least expect it, I believe there is a great deal of heart-burning and discontent. Man is man all the world over; you may get different training and surroundings, but that does not alter the man. God never intended that man should be happy without Him.

Nicodemus comes to the Lord with the conviction, and expresses it to the Lord, "Thou art a teacher come from God". He had come to that point, but he had only the idea of being taught -- he had not got the thought that man was to be the reflex of God Himself. Nicodemus, like most people, did not get beyond material ideas, and the Lord rebukes that. He says, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit",

and not anything material. That is beyond the compass of man's mind, while he can understand "That which is born of the flesh is flesh".

Ques. What is "born of water"?

F.E.R. It is very difficult for us to understand. The source of it is referred to here, but the water here does not refer to a testimony presented. Israel, to whom the passage quoted from Ezekiel refers, will be sprinkled with clean water, but I do not see that testimony is brought to them. New birth is a work of God in man -- a work brought about by divine agency. There is no divine work in man save what is done by God Himself. It is the work of God which makes the light presented by the servant effective in the soul. People are begotten by the testimony -- I can understand that. So converts are accounted children of the testimony. The apostle says, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you by the gospel"; but we cannot understand, or follow, or take account of new birth. It is the secret work of the Spirit of God, and like the wind you cannot tell whence it comes or whither it goes. In divine things it is very true that you cannot take account of anything until you have got it. "New birth" is absolutely clean, from the very nature of it, water being the source of it. It produces a cry, from sheer craving after God -- it is pure in that sense. A man may be in distress and cry to God, but I would not call that pure. The cry of new birth is absolutely pure -- a real craving after God, with no ulterior motive.

If you make "born of water" the word, it is making it too definite, and you lose the moral idea. "Water" is used in Scripture as a figure of "the word", but so it is of the Spirit, and it is also indicative of cleansing, but I believe the idea intended to be conveyed here is being born of the Spirit. The Lord puts it very definitely, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". It would

be too absolute if it were put, "He who is born of the Spirit is spirit", and therefore it is put in an abstract form. New birth is a work by which God becomes a necessity to man. It is a genuine, bona fide work of God, which produces the first real cry of desire after God. The effect of it is that we can see, and there is nothing like it. The kingdom was presented to man in the way of testimony, and, for that reason, it needed new birth for a man to see and enter into it. The Lord here, as a humble Man on earth, was really the testimony of the kingdom, while man was so high that he could not look down and see it, and he needed, therefore, to be born again to see the kingdom there in the Person of the humbled Christ. I wonder what God would think of man's kingdom, as man glories in it! It is simply man glorying in his shame -- his armaments, and such like. That will not do for God. The fact is, all that God brings in is moral, and for men to boast in the means of destruction is to glory in their shame, and ought rather to lead them to hide their diminished heads. Man needed to be born again to see the kingdom in a humbled Christ, and now he needs it to see the kingdom in a glorified Christ. One was too low, the other is too high. The work of God was needed to bring man to a collapse, like a rent balloon, so that he should have eyes to see what is of God.

Men come into the kingdom by faith; they accept it first and so come into it. We want to preach the kingdom of God now, that is, to bring man's soul under the moral sway of God. The epistle to the Romans all goes on the ground of the kingdom of God. "Righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit", infinitely transcends all that this world can give me.

Ques. "We speak that we do know", etc. (verse 11) what is that?

F.E.R. It refers to the particular character of the

Lord's testimony. No prophet could have said that. It says the prophets searched diligently "what ... the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify". They could not go beyond that. John the Baptist was the close of one order of testimony, and the Lord was bringing in a new order, and it is this character of testimony which marks Christianity. The secret for us lies in the Spirit. The practical effect of speaking of new birth to a Jew was to put the Jew, as such, out of court, in order to put things upon a broader platform, and lead up to the "whosoever".

There is a complete change in the character of the testimony from verse 11. The great subject of the testimony now is Christ, and we can say, "We see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour". We can, as it were, say, "We speak that we do know". Our witness is simply a confirmation of what the Lord introduced. Everything is changed, for the Lord goes on to say in verse 12, "If I have said the earthly things to you", and "if I say the heavenly things". It is only here and in Hebrews 9:23, as far as I know, where you get the expression used, "heavenly things", and I believe it refers to Christianity.

All the promises of God go to make up one great system. This we get in the Old Testament scriptures, and then in the New Testament we see a completely new element, and that is a worshipping company, the church, really the "heavenly things". "Heavenly things" bring in an additional thought to what we get in the Old Testament; there will be a vast system of blessing, but it would not be complete without the worshipping company. We do not get the heavenly things until He has entered in. He is there the last Adam in subsisting righteousness, and the system is formed, the answer to it being that the house of God is formed down here.

Then another thing comes out here, that we are shut up to the Lord for light as to these things (verse 13),

"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". "Son of man ... in heaven" is a remarkable designation; it is what is characteristic of Him, that He is in heaven. He may leave that place, but His proper habitation is heaven.

CHAPTERS 3; 4: 1 - 42

F.E.R. It is important to trace the Lord's passage from Judaea into Galilee, and to see what comes out in each part of it. He left Judaea and went away again unto Galilee. "And he must needs go through Samaria".

Ques. Do you mean what morally characterises it?

F.E.R. Yes, the testimony which comes out in each place. The testimony at Jerusalem was, "Ye must be born again". Then in Samaria it was the gift of the Spirit, and in Galilee He raises the nobleman's son -- He gives the confirmation of the nobleman's faith. The teacher -- Nicodemus -- had the most elementary teaching of all, "Ye must be born again". This was at Jerusalem, the seat of light. Then, too, the Lord was entirely dependent on the will of the Father -- "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work". He depended on the Father, as one might say, for an opening -- He did not make one for Himself.

The great importance of this passage to us is that chapter 4 forms the completion of what comes out in chapter 3. The thought that comes out there is that "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Well, how are you going to get eternal life? How is it to be effected? You get in chapter 3 the statement of the purpose, and how to get eternal life is solved in chapter 4 -- "The water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of

water, springing up into eternal life". You must have the two sides of it; on the one hand the unfolding of divine purpose, that you may know what the mind of God is, and then, on the other side, the making good that purpose in us.

Ques. Did you say we get the purpose in chapter 3?

F.E.R. Yes. And in chapter 4 the Lord shows how that purpose is to be made good in us. The purpose reaches man through death, "The Son of man must be lifted up". God could not approach man except through death. Death lay in the way as between God and man. He could only approach man through death, and death lay on man.

Ques. I suppose it was not only sin that had to be dealt with, but death?

F.E.R. Well, quite so. Man is under death, but that is the way by which God approaches man. You get the same thought in Romans 3. The blood there is the witness of God's righteousness when it is a question of God's approach to man -- He really reveals His righteousness there. You get here in John 3 the Son of man lifted up, but what lies behind that? "God so loved the world".

Rem. The lifting up was the necessity to the purpose of God's love.

F.E.R. Yes. I think there had to be a demonstration before God of what man's true state and condition was. That was suitable for the glory of God. It took place on the cross, but the wonderful thing is that, as having made that demonstration, He disappears, and then re-appears as the Communicator of the Spirit in resurrection. That is chapter 4. The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world baptises with the Holy Spirit. And John the Baptist says, "I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God".

Ques. Is that why the testimony of the gift of the Spirit is given outside Jerusalem?

F.E.R. I think so. A slight is cast on the Jew,

and on everything connected with him, all through John's gospel.

Ques. In consequence of the statement in chapter 1 that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not"?

F.E.R. Yes. That explains the Lord's conduct to them all through. A man like Nicodemus, for instance, thought he could be instructed, but what he really wanted was not teaching but a divine work in him.

Ques. In what way is salvation of the Jews?

F.E.R. Well, God is faithful in that way -- the testimony of God always went out from the Jews. Even the apostle to the Gentiles was a Jew. I think you get nothing in the New Testament except through the Jews; even Luke only wrote as he had word from those who were "eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word".

Ques. Do you mean that any light they had was through the Jews?

F.E.R. I do. The Jews were the depositaries of the Scriptures, everything in that way belonged to them -- the oracles of God belonged to them. God has certain methods and ways, and He does not depart from them. It was on this principle that He sends the gospel to Jerusalem first. Jerusalem was still owned, in a way. It is interesting to see that there is a sort of overlapping. There is a recognition of Jerusalem, it is not absolutely set aside. Of course, when their perversity came fully out, then the testimony of God left Jerusalem.

Rem. But they had another chance, as it were.

F.E.R. Yes. As Peter said to them, He shall send Jesus back to you; Acts 3.

Rem. I was thinking about what you were saying as to new birth just now. It says in Galatians, "Jerusalem which is now, for she is in bondage with her children", but "the Jerusalem above is free,

which is our mother". You must have a new start, you must be born of Jerusalem which is above.

F.E.R. Quite so. Of course, too, the guilt of the Jew was not then complete; but when the testimony of the Spirit came and there was knowledge, and yet they rejected Him (Acts 7), then the testimony of God left Jerusalem. But, even then, God did not repudiate her. His eye is upon her still, though she has been set aside for the Jerusalem above. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance", and God will begin again with her. "The desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband".

Rem. So Jerusalem is called "the holy city" even after the crucifixion.

F.E.R. The fact is, that when Jerusalem is set aside there is nothing but Babylon here. That is one very great reason why I should not be disposed to take any part in Jubilee festivities, because, in the eye of God, it is Babylonish. It is times of the Gentiles, and Jerusalem is trodden underfoot, but God still has His eye upon her. He does not lose sight of Babylon either, for that matter. All the glory of man is Babylonish in the eye of God. It is not conferred of God -- its source is really man. I believe it is a great mistake not to see this.

Rem. It is striking that what passes away from Jerusalem goes to where the false temple had been, that is, Samaria.

F.E.R. Yes. But I think it is not difficult to understand the complete change and newness of what had come in. When He speaks of what He would give, all was to be completely new. On God's side there was nothing new, but on the woman's side everything must be completely new.

Rem. I suppose it would be easier for her to understand the necessity of all being new than it would be for Nicodemus.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The fact is, God has not altered; it is only that He has expressed Himself. The love of God was just as much a reality at the beginning as when it came out -- there was no alteration on God's side -- but there was a moment when the love of God came out, and what that love brings to light is that God has opened a door out of this world. It is not that He has reinstated man, but He has opened a door for man into a new sphere. The point you have to reach in chapter 3 is the Son of man lifted up -- the Son of man risen from the dead. If that were not a necessity, it would mean that you could have eternal life without Christ, but we find it is to him that "believeth in him". The man must reach the sphere where Christ is, and that is not this world. You could not bring resurrection into this world. Now "Easter Sunday" and "Whit Sunday" are the most incomprehensible institutions that I can conceive of. I can understand "Good Friday", but how can you make events out of what the mind of man cannot possibly take cognisance of? Man's mind can take cognisance of death, but it cannot touch resurrection.

Rem. And how is a man going to commemorate His death who does not know His resurrection?

F.E.R. Just so. I can understand their commemorating anything that comes within man's cognisance, but Christ has gone into a sphere which is beyond the cognisance of man's mind. No one can get there but by the Holy Spirit.

Ques. Then death would be the door out of this world?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. It is a very important point to see that God has opened a door. The door is open. I may have a very great deal to learn, but still God has opened the door.

Ques. Why do you lay such stress on that?

F.E.R. Because it shows that everything is clear

on God's side -- all is clear for God. Take the simplest believer -- God can communicate to him the gift of the Spirit. That would not be the case if the flesh had not been ended for God. It would be impossible for God to communicate the Spirit unless the flesh had been ended. It is a long time, perhaps, before we come to it on our side. God approaches it from His side, and we have to come to it in another way -- not quite so quickly as God has done -- but we reach the same point. Many a lesson has to be learned on the road to it, and before I can say, "I am crucified with Christ".

Rem. You must pass through the door.

F.E.R. Yes. But I think faith passes you through the door, and then you have really got experimentally to reach Christ after you believe. You believe in Christ -- that is the ground of your faith -- and you receive the Spirit, and then you have to reach Christ experimentally where He is. It is like Romans 8, but you have to go through chapters 6 and 7 to get there.

What a wonderful picture it is at the beginning of the chapter (John 4) -- the Lord wearied, and sitting just as He was on the well! And then the poor sinful woman comes to draw water, and the wonderful thing is that He does not wait for her to approach Him, but He approaches her. He begins, and says to her, "If thou knewest the gift of God and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water". If man is to get anything at all, it must result from God's first approaching him. God only can save. He sought, and man must be sought.

Rem. A Jew would have said that the Lord had gone very far afield this time.

F.E.R. Yes. And the woman, too, looked at things in a kind of casual way, a natural way. It is the great hindrance with people still.

Rem. In the state in which she was, she could not have seen things in any other way.

F.E.R. No. And when you come to think of it, the Spirit of God dwelling in one is an astounding thought, even to us. To think of having "a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life" -- "living water" -- is wonderful. She could not have had the feeblest idea of the line upon which God was giving; and people today do not enter at all into the goodness of God, nor do they see the line upon which God gives -- they do not understand His "giving". It is the last thing they will allow -- the goodness of God. All they think of is how to prepare themselves to be suitable to Him -- instead of apprehending how entirely unsuitable they are. The ignorant heathen seek to appease God, and the respectable and civilised seek to be made suitable to God. Man fails to see that God has come close to him in order that He might communicate to him the gift of the Spirit. I think that is the great point to which everything tends. The work of the Lord here was really to prepare a little company to receive the Holy Spirit, and He only comes consequent upon the rejection of Christ.

He "sat thus on the well". To all outward appearance He was just a wearied traveller, but the real truth was that He was presenting God to the woman -- God was here. I think we fall short altogether if we do not apprehend that He was presenting God. God has been manifested in flesh. It was the moral power in that One which affected souls and drew them.

Rem. It is very helpful to see how the Lord received and dealt with particular cases.

F.E.R. Yes. It is that which makes the gospels so essential to understand God's approach to man -- you see it there in the Person. Neither could you understand the truth of the church except as you saw what the Lord was in the midst of His disciples. No amount of doctrine will give it to you. You must see the

tenderness of the Lord to His disciples, and the way He came down to their capacities, and His affection for them, to understand what the Lord could be to the company now.

Rem. You could not conceive a lower place for the Lord to come to, nor a lower person for Him to talk to, than this poor sinful woman, and the Lord has to bring light to her conscience such as she needed. He did not tell Nicodemus of the well of water.

F.E.R. I think she serves as a foil to the Lord in order that grace might come out. It all shows that not a bit of man in any form was to be recognised. The best, as well as the worst, has to go. You take any human quality you like -- it will surely break down if pressure is brought in. I think you may look upon every purely human quality in that way.

What comes out in this chapter (4) is that eternal life springs up from what a believer has within. Life is subjective, and the truth comes out in this chapter that eternal life springs up from what is within a man -- that is really deliverance. I think the Spirit comes as living water from above to make a man's heart conscious of what has already been given to him. No man knows the love of God until he has the Spirit. You may believe the testimony of it, but no man can know anything of it but by the Holy Spirit. You cannot have the thing experimentally in any other way. The first principles of the gospel are righteousness and power, and then you become conscious of another thing, and that is, the love of God. That is His nature. I think that when the Holy Spirit comes to shed abroad the love of God in the heart, then it is we have the well of water springing up.

Ques. It is the love side that is presented to Nicodemus, is it not?

F.E.R. Yes. But that is from God's point of view. The Son of man was lifted up, but the secret which lay behind that was the love of God -- "God so loved

the world". You may attempt to preach the gospel to other people, and you preach from what you know, and from where you are, as the Lord Himself says, "We speak that we do know"; but as to their apprehension of things, that is quite another matter. I think Romans makes that quite clear. The first thing presented to man is the righteousness and power of God. These are principles which a man must know first. I think the point with God is to lay a foundation in a man's soul, and righteousness must be first. It would be no good to lay a foundation of love in the soul of a sinful man -- you want righteousness first. Then, too, I do not think that love in itself would give you ground for hope in God; what gives you hope is the knowledge of His power, and then, when the Spirit is given and sheds the love of God abroad in the heart, you know the well of water that springs up to eternal life. The Spirit springing up is a well of water in the believer, and you are formed in the divine nature. It is the formative work of the Spirit. You are filled and fashioned and emancipated. I believe that is the great thought in the passage. That is the way a person can be really emancipated from sin -- practically set free from the control of sin.

What came out in connection with Nicodemus was really the setting aside of man, but here it is more the positive side. The Lord does not say a word to Nicodemus as to the subjective side, but here what you get is that you are formed, subjectively, by the new power. You are drawn away from everything here by a new power entirely, and as you grow in it, you are practically set free from sin. I do not think there is any emancipation otherwise. Deliverance must come in concurrently with the divine nature, otherwise you would have the flesh delivering itself, which is impossible.

Ques. Is not that the common thought of man?

F.E.R. Yes, I think it is. But it is ineffective -- it

will break down somewhere. The fact is (as before referred to), man has to travel a long road to the cross, whereas God has travelled by a very short one. I mean as to the end of man, which is where the gospel starts from. The death of Christ was all there before God, but, as we see in the case of the children of Israel, the man was gone for God at the outset, but they had to travel for thirty-eight years to reach it. That is why I have said that Numbers 21 is concurrent with chapter 1. The first twenty chapters are concurrent with what comes in in chapter 21 and after.

Ques. In what way do you mean?

F.E.R. Well, like Romans 8, that is your beginning; the communication of the Spirit is the beginning of the Christian's history. He begins "in the Spirit", not "in the flesh". You begin now where God begins, but then you have to come to it. Until then you have not apprehended a single bit the good of it. That is where the earlier chapters come in.

Rem. The springing well, then, is the apprehension of what lies in the Spirit?

F.E.R. Well, not entirely, because one follows on the other. The gift of the Spirit follows upon the cross, and so the Lord could talk to a poor sinful woman about the gift of God, and she would get there from the outset; but then she would have to learn all the lessons of Numbers 1 - 20, what the flesh is, and to learn, too, what the ways of God are with a people in the wilderness, with a view to their moral education. The wilderness is a necessity for us, and not for God. If you did not learn certain things, you would not know the secret of the water from the rock, or the necessity of the water of purification. He meets the need of the people, it is true, but the need must be learned.

It is very important to distinguish between the principles on which God works and our apprehension of it all, and the way in which we reach it. God

reached it in His own way, entirely independent of man, but we have to reach it by the road proper to man. I am sure of this, that you must not only have faith, but you must reach experimentally the point which God has reached, in your own soul's history. It is only in that way you enjoy fully what God has given. "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh". We have to come to that, although it takes a long time with some. God arrives at it quickly, but it is a great mercy to us that we get the good of it without having to wait to reach it experimentally. You really have it by faith, but for the full good of it you must have it experimentally. There are many things we must learn; the waters of Marah were to be drunk, and we have to find out the indisposition of the flesh to enter the land, its inertness, and all that, so that we may learn how indispensable God's provisions are for us while in the wilderness.

The fact is, only God knows our need, and He has ordered His ways from His knowledge of man's need. You may think to find a short cut into the land -- as people say, a matter of eleven days or so -- but for all that, you will find that this is a scene of dead bones, where you want the water of purification, and a dry and thirsty land where you will want the water of refreshment.

CHAPTER 5: 1 - 30

F.E.R. We had the revelation of God -- His present mind, the revelation of His will -- in chapter 3, and then we got the communication of the Spirit in chapter 4. The latter comes out in Samaria in connection with the Lord's progress from Judaea to Galilee. Then He goes on to Galilee, and completes the testimony by showing God's faithfulness to the Jew, or rather to Israel.

The great point in what comes out in Galilee is that between Israel and God there must be the link of faith; so the Lord says to the nobleman, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe". He challenges him in that way. The nobleman, however, believes the word of Jesus, and the link is established between them in that way, while Israel, as a whole, would be characterised by the craving to see "signs and wonders". Without faith a man has no light or knowledge of God. It is by faith the link is formed. This man is brought into distress, and in a kind of way he feels that Christ is his only helper, but he was really looking upon the raising up of his son as a ground of faith, and the Lord rebukes that. When he rested simply on the word of Christ he gets the sign as a confirmation. You see, faith would not be moral if it depended upon a sign, but when faith is there, the sign comes in to confirm it. It is so difficult to man -- and I think we know something of it in ourselves -- to believe in the goodness of God, that He has pleasure in good.

I think chapter 5 brings in a further development. Chapters 3 and 4 go together. You get in chapter 3 light as to what is God's will -- what He had before Him -- and chapter 4 brings in the way in which it is effected in us. One great point is emancipation from sin. You get a person taken up who was under the control of sin, and the effect of the Spirit springing up in her was to emancipate her from sin. It answers to "That the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin". That is what the Lord made good in regard to her. In chapter 3 there is foreshadowed the truth of the old man being crucified with Christ, but then the woman was to be emancipated from sin, and that is really by the power of the Spirit within her, as set forth in chapter 4. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death". It is the emancipation

of a poor sinful woman in the very place of her sin, for it was in Samaria that she was emancipated. She was not taken out of Samaria, but emancipated there. The very principle of Christianity is that in the scene of your sin you are to be delivered from it. So, too, it is in the world that you are to overcome the world. Resurrection is what takes place upon earth -- it is not in heaven, but upon earth, that by the power of God a man is taken out of death; it is in the very scene where he died. This is very distinctly dealt with in chapter 5. Chapter 4 is emancipation, while chapter 5 brings in quickening. This latter comes in really in view of relationship.

Ques. Does that bring in the thought of nature?

F.E.R. Well, I think it does, in a sense. The thought of quickening in Scripture is that it introduces the object of it into relationship. I think that quickening is a much broader term than we have supposed. You are looked at as being made alive out of the state of death in which you were found, in order to get an entirely new place of relationship with the Father. He quickens "whom he will". It is for Himself -- for the place they are to have before Him.

Ques. It is not just emancipation here?

F.E.R. No; it is more positive. Here you share the place of the Son of God. It is the same in Ephesians -- you are quickened together with Christ. We are made alive before God in company with Christ, it is "with him".

Ques. What about the man here at the pool?

F.E.R. He is really, in type, quickened that he might live before God. The man is raised up by the word of Christ. It is really, in type, the application of the word of Christ to the Jew, and will get its accomplishment in the future with the Jew, when the law is written in the heart of the Jew. Then it is he will carry his bed. It has often been said that what marks the present moment with the Jew is that his

bed carries him; but when the law is written in their hearts, they will carry their bed. The man here is helpless, yet at the word of Christ he carries his bed.

Ques. Is that why he was healed on the sabbath?

F.E.R. I think it was the purpose of the Lord to call attention to it -- it was providential. The sabbath was the sign of the covenant, and many of the Lord's miracles were wrought on the sabbath. The covenant had grown old and was on the point of being broken up. It has often been a stumbling-block -- the Lord doing miracles on the sabbath. In the eye of God the covenant was already broken.

Ques. Why does it specify thirty-eight years?

F.E.R. Well, it corresponds with the length of the wilderness journey up to the time of the brazen serpent, and to the death of Moses. It indicates the probationary period; it was over -- he had lain there thirty-eight years in that case, but now he gets a new start by the word of Christ.

It is so important to see that quickening really means that a man is made consciously alive out of a previous state of death. But then, how? You must be made alive in reference to something. It is not just like a vegetable -- a man is made alive in reference to something, and, as a matter of fact, he is made alive in relation to the Father. The effect of the quickening word is to bring you consciously into relationship to the Father. "The Father quickens whom he will".

Ques. Why is it that it comes in after the gift of the Spirit, as in chapter 4?

F.E.R. Well, you find the same thing in Romans 8. You first get emancipation, and then later on you have the same Spirit spoken of as the Spirit of sonship. The Spirit is looked at first as the power of deliverance, and then you get the thought of life, and then, too, of sonship. You have all in the power of the same Spirit, but there is a kind of moral order. The Lord says,

"It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing". I believe people put too limited a meaning on the word "quickening". There is a remarkable force in it.

Rem. It has been applied to new birth.

F.E.R. Yes; but that is not the idea of it in Scripture. It is evident enough in this passage that the Lord was quickening in view of the Father -- that is the great point in the chapter -- and He was acting in perfect concert with the Father.

Rem. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do".

F.E.R. Exactly. If you are quickened by the Son, it is that you may live to the Father. It is to bring you into the place of children, and He completes the work eventually. It goes on to the raising of the body.

Ques. Does quickening come after the gift of the Spirit?

F.E.R. Well, at all events, the realisation of it does -- the effectuality of it is really after the Spirit is received.

Rem. But you must have the Spirit to know it.

F.E.R. The Spirit is received before there is any formative work of the Spirit. Quickening is the result of the Spirit's formative work, and not simply of His being there. A man is made alive, he is quickened, in that relationship.

Rem. Actually it is after.

F.E.R. Well, yes. It is the renewing of the Holy Spirit; you get that, too, when the Holy Spirit is received. He is "shed on us abundantly", and then He renews. The renewing was when the Holy Spirit was shed, not before. We cannot know this relationship apart from love. The fact of it is, that quickening brings you into the divine nature. It is a positive thing. No one can know the Father -- can touch Him -- except in love. It is not faith that enables you to know the Father. To believe in the Father is one

thing, but to know Him is another. I do not think you know the Father apart from the divine nature.

Rem. The one is objective, and the other subjective.

F.E.R. Yes. The Holy Spirit is the completion of one line, but then He is the beginning of another. If you take the responsibility line in a man, the Holy Spirit is the completion of that line in this way, that when he has faith, then he is sealed by the Spirit. God puts His seal on him, and that is the end of that line; but then there is the line of purpose and the Holy Spirit is the beginning of that line. I venture to say there are thousands of Christians who apprehend the Spirit as the closing up of the one line, but they do not know Him as the beginning of another line. When you get to Romans 8 you begin on an entirely new line.

Ques. Is there any type which sets forth the first to us?

F.E.R. The first, I imagine, is supposed when they come through the Red Sea -- the presence of the Holy Spirit is assumed when they are brought through the Red Sea.

Ques. That is, on God's side?

F.E.R. Yes, it is. But then it was a kind of seal upon them.

Rem. You were saying that God justifies a man in order to give him the Spirit.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. Everything depends on the Spirit.

Ques. Does the gospel end at the first?

F.E.R. Well, yes, in one way. But you know you have to take into account a good deal more than that. Man is to be justified by faith in the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is given; and then, in a certain sense, that is the end of the gospel -- the man is sealed for the day of redemption. If you look at a Christian as on the line for heaven, he is sealed for it, and the whole course is clear; but then that is only one line,

and that line, too, in one sense, will come to an end. But what is so important is this, that the Holy Spirit is the beginning of another line, and that is according to God's purpose -- that is where you really begin.

Rem. I think you have pointed out that Miriam never got into the land.

F.E.R. No. Neither Miriam nor Aaron. Even Moses came to an end, and the new line all comes out in connection with Joshua. He is the leader on the new line.

Ques. Is quickening new creation?

F.E.R. Well, they stand in different connections, but they are virtually the same. New creation is connected with good works, and walk, and all that -- in a moral connection. We are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them", and the "new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness". Then in Galatians we have, "As many as walk according to this rule" -- that is, the rule of new creation. New creation and good works go together, but quickening is that which God effects for Himself -- it is not that He quickens you for good works. When it is the thought of the Father, then you get quickening, but new creation is more a moral idea.

Rem. The one is man-ward and the other God-ward.

F.E.R. The new man comes out where the old man was, that is, down here. "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works". Now the whole point of this chapter is that you are quickened for the Father.

Ques. Is that what you mean when you speak of a soul beginning on a new line?

F.E.R. Yes. It is "the renewing of the Holy Spirit". A vast number of Christians apprehend the Holy Spirit on the one line who do not apprehend Him on the other. The former is on the responsibility

line, but the latter on the line of God's purpose. Now the gospel of John almost ignores the former, and makes very prominent the latter -- it is almost exclusively occupied with the purpose line.

I think the first part of the chapter is very beautiful, and the beauty is that the Lord does not go beyond what is proper to Israel. He does not speak of heavenly things, but He tells forth what will be true for Israel, and then He goes on to show them "greater things".

In the legal system everything depended upon a man's ability to get the relief which it afforded him, but we see here that the man who most wanted it was the man who did not get it. The whole providential system was given on legal ground, which took account of competency in man to avail himself of it. If there had been any grace in the others they would have let the man who had been there thirty-eight years get down first, but, as he said, "While I am coming, another steppeth down before me", and that had been not only once or twice, but thirty-eight times. There is not much grace there, in fact the system did not admit of it.

I think now we see the revelation of God in contrast with providence. Many people's thoughts do not go beyond providence. They say, "God helps those who help themselves". I believe many people think that, but the revelation of God comes in and helps a man who cannot help himself. In this chapter we see that one word of Christ helps the man who cannot help himself "Take up thy bed and walk"; and on the same day was the sabbath. When man is relieved from the pressure which is upon him, then you get a sabbath.

Rem. And that is what God will do for Israel.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so, and that brings in the true sabbath. The law will be written in their hearts, although we must remember that this can only be done

by One who can relieve them from death. Christ can quicken out of death -- the judgment of God -- and that is the reason why the Lord is brought before us in this chapter as the Son. No one could take man out of that state but the Son; and so the law can be written in their hearts because it is in the power of Christ to relieve from the pressure of death. I do not hesitate to use the expression that really God Himself came into the place of man's judgment. I know what I am saying -- it was the great testimony of God that He, in the Person of His Son, came into the place of man's judgment. If it was God's judgment, none but God could relieve man from it, and He did it by coming Himself into the place of that judgment. "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law".

Rem. It presents God in a very blessed way.

F.E.R. I think it is the whole gist of the chapter that He could remove the judgment, He could quicken man out of death. Death was upon man, as well as in him, and that judgment must be removed in order that man might pass out of death.

Ques. What is meant by death in man?

F.E.R. It is man's weakness, his inability to please God. The law brings home to me that death is in me, and it brings death into me. The man in Romans 7 was dead before, but he did not know it; he only realises it when the claims of the law are recognised.

I think that expression of the Lord, "Take up thy bed and walk", is one of the most wonderful things that came out in the Lord's ministry. The man was to walk in newness of life, and on the same day was the sabbath. What does that imply? They would be able to please God. Enoch walked with God, and had the testimony that he pleased God. That was outside of death. He was translated, and had light as to

translation, which was outside of death, just as Abel had light as to acceptance; that was his light.

Ques. What about the man sick of the palsy in Luke 5 -- he took up his bed and walked? Is that the same at all?

F.E.R. Yes, it is just the same principle. Palsy sets forth man's moral weakness -- his inability to walk. But there was another thing in connection with this man -- the Lord says to him, "Thy sins are forgiven thee". The proof that his sins are forgiven is that he is relieved from death, and no man can say that his sins are forgiven if he is not relieved from death.

In Romans 6 death is on man, and in chapter 7 it is in him. In the former you are buried because sin is on you -- you are buried into Christ's death. Christ has come into my death and I am buried into His. Then in chapter 7 I know that death was on me, but the law brought home that death was in me -- it killed me, I was perfectly helpless.

There is one thing very painful in this chapter (John 5), and that is, that the man is so heartless that he does not seem in the least touched, and the Jews are perfectly heartless. The Lord says to him, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee"; but I cannot help thinking that if the man had been touched, he would have stayed with the Lord, or gone home, and not have gone to the Jews, apparently with a view to stirring up opposition. I have noticed that, where you find orthodoxy, it is almost always allied with great heartlessness. There may be great zeal for the truth and so on, but very little in the way of warmth or affection. In this case the Jews were zealous for the sabbath, but see how hard they were. However, it all serves as an occasion for testimony. "The Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day". But Jesus answered them, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work". And therefore they sought the more to kill

Him, because, as they declared, not only had He broken the sabbath, but said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

It is very wonderful the character of the Lord's works. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" -- not great works of destruction, such as man may work, but here it is a palsied man, who had lain on his bed for thirty-eight years, to whom the Lord said, "Take up thy bed, and walk". The fact is, when God comes into a scene of sin, it is to relieve man from the pressure and effects of sin. Ever since sin came into the world that had been true. The ways of God all foreshadowed man being relieved from the pressure which sin had brought in upon him. You will find all through Scripture the thought presented of death being set aside. It comes out from the very beginning -- man died, Abel died, but he had first found a place of acceptance with God. Then Enoch comes in, and he is translated so that he should not see death at all. You get testimony after testimony of what was God's thought about it. With Moses, too, at the bush, the testimony is, "I am ... the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", that is, that death is being set aside by resurrection.

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work". How often, in the present day, you come across people who are insensible to any goodness in God. People talk about "the Psalmist", and that sort of thing, and quote Scripture in a flippant sort of way, but they have not the faintest impression of the goodness of God. It is so sad, in the midst of a people professedly Christian, with a certain familiarity with the letter of Scripture, to see how little knowledge there is of God's goodness. God's dealings in grace are really summed up in the expression, "My Father worketh". The law was dealing with man in responsibility, but the idea was that it was to be written. For the moment, I know it was written on tables of stone, but the divine

idea was that it was to be written in the heart of man. When Moses went up into the mount, he unveiled his face -- he was a picture of Christ. God looked to the end, and the end really was "the glory of the Lord". The people were not allowed to look to the end, but it was there before God, and I think you can understand why the law was written on tables of stone. It was because Christ had not yet come. Until He was here upon earth you could not have the law written on men's hearts; He must be the first, and when He came, He could say, in the language of the Spirit in David, "Thy law is within my heart". It was not that it needed to be there -- it was there, and it was God's thought from the outset. It was from that standpoint that God could charge Moses to take from the people of Israel the materials for the building of the sanctuary.

CHAPTER 5: 19 TO END

F.E.R. What we see here is that the perversity of the Jews just became an occasion of bringing out more light and truth. The same thing comes out in the next chapter. When they ask the Lord for a sign, He turns it into an opportunity for opening up more truth. The perversity and crookedness of man is turned to account in that way.

Rem. You get the same thing, too, in regard to the woman in chapter 4. The Lord takes the opportunity of bringing out the truth in regard to the Spirit.

F.E.R. Yes. And again when she speaks of worship, the Lord uses it as an occasion to open up what the will of the Father was, and so on, with regard to worship. Here they charge the Lord with calling God His own Father, and the Lord takes occasion to bring to light the relations which existed between the Father and Himself, and what comes out so solemnly is this, that if they saw Him they saw the Father. The Lord

was doing what the Father showed Him -- the works really showed forth the Father.

Ques. Why did you say, "The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing"?

F.E.R. It is the participle -- it is characteristic. It indicates that whatsoever the Father might be doing, He showed the Son, "For the Father loveth the Son". The expression really is, "For the Father has affection for the Son and shews to him all things whatsoever he is doing". He shows it all to the Son.

Rem. It makes it all the more solemn that they should have refused Him, for all the works that He did were of love and of mercy.

F.E.R. Yes, they were really the works of the Father. It has been pointed out that, in John, when it is a question of what God is morally, it is GOD who is spoken of, but when it contemplates the activities of grace, then it is the Father, "My Father worketh". It comes out rather remarkably in the previous chapter, where the Lord says, "The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him"; and then, in the next verse, "God is a Spirit". That has to be taken into account. He is not worshipped materially -- you cannot worship Him in material things, but it must be "in spirit and in truth".

Rem. He is not "worshipped with men's hands".

Ques. Is that distinction between "God" and the "Father" kept up all through Scripture?

F.E.R. Well, I do not know that it is quite that in all Scripture, but it is so very markedly in John, especially in the gospel.

It is important, if you are to understand things at all, to see that there is a progressive development of the truth in these chapters. What I mean is that there is a method, a definite order, adopted by the Spirit. In chapter 4 it is what God gives -- the living water; but what you get in chapter 5 is what is brought to us,

the light of the Father. The well of water is to be in you, while the Father is revealed to you. The great point in chapter 4 is the emancipation of man from irregular and unsatisfied desire -- that is what "thirst" means in Scripture, that which is characteristic of man naturally. It is not only unsatisfied, but irregular desire. It takes irregular lines, not the lines that God intended. It is lust in the principle of it. But what you have to meet that is the Spirit; the Spirit is to spring up in order to emancipate the person; as Paul says in Romans 8, "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death". You see, even with a woman such as you get in chapter 4, there is no doubt that she has affections, but then her desires were taking irregular direction. It was to emancipate her from this that the Lord promises the "well of water springing up into everlasting life".

But now the point in chapter 5 is that the Father is brought to you, not you to the Father. In chapter 4 the well of water springs up -- Christ becomes the Object of affection to you. It is in that way that you get everything corrected -- all affections take their proper place and course, and in that way you get emancipation. Then in chapter 5 Christ brings the Father to you when He says, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work". He was only presenting the Father, for "the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth", and what the Father was doing, the Son was doing likewise.

Ques. What are the "greater works" (verse 20)?

F.E.R. Well, there were much greater works to be done than raising up a lame man. The works which come out in this chapter are dispensational works; for instance, the raising up of Israel in the future is a dispensational work, but the works which are "greater" are not dispensational. There are works which the Father does which are outside all dispensations.

Ques. Is what verse 25 brings before us a moral raising up of the dead?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so.

Ques. Would not the judgment be, in a way, one of the greater works?

F.E.R. The Lord only brings in judgment incidentally. Even that is coming in on the line of dispensations, but it is for the purpose of securing the honour of the Son. It is a greater work, in a sense, than raising up the man at the pool.

Rem. The work at Pentecost was greater.

F.E.R. Yes. At Pentecost the work was outside the course of dispensations, and the church is properly outside of them.

Ques. Would you say that all the signs are in connection with the dispensations?

F.E.R. Yes. They were according to what the Jews might have understood -- what might have come within the range of their knowledge; but in each of the signs the great point is that the Lord uses them as a peg upon which to hang something greater.

Rem. It comes out very markedly in chapter 6.

F.E.R. Quite so. "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven", and the bread with which He had fed the multitudes was not the bread from heaven. "My Father giveth you the true bread". Chapter 6 completes the testimony. There you get the appropriation of the death of Christ, and Christ as Priest, and that brings you deliverance from the whole system in which flesh lives. You must have chapter 6 or you would not have the testimony completed.

Ques. What is the intent of bringing the revelation of the Father to you?

F.E.R. Well, if you take as an illustration the conditions of human life, as far as I know, they are three -- you must have water, light and bread; and you get these three things in these three chapters. There are very few people who could get on without

them -- in fact, none. If you shut up a man in prison darkness and deprive him of bread and water, you would soon make an end of him, and I think it is the same in regard to our life spiritually. There is water in chapter 4, light in chapter 5, and the bread in chapter 6. These chapters bring out all that is necessary to meet the conditions of life.

One point is that you are no longer in the light of "Jehovah", or of "the Almighty". You have the light of both, but you go beyond this -- you have the light of "the Father". The great thing is that it is the revelation of God in His nature. "The Father loves the Son" -- it is God revealed in His nature. "Almighty" is not God revealed in His nature, it is one of His attributes; neither is "Jehovah", which brings out what God is in His eternal faithfulness -- "the Eternal", as it is rendered in the French. But when you come to the revelation of "the Father", it is God in His nature -- "The Father loveth the Son". I do not think it could come out until there was an adequate object here, but when the Son became Man, then the love of God could come out, there was an Object adequate.

Ques. God is spoken of as light and love. Is it the whole of His nature which is contained in those two statements?

F.E.R. Well, I would not exactly speak of light as being the nature of God. The nature of God is summed up in one word, and that is love -- "God is love". Light means that everything is detected, but the nature of God is love. That is what is characteristic of Him.

Ques. Would you say that the Father was working with a view to this coming out -- in view of the divine affections coming out?

F.E.R. I think so. God, in the revelation of His nature, was to pervade all, but until the Son became Man it could not be declared, there was no means.

See how it works out -- the Father loves the Son, and then the Son had affections towards those whom the Father drew to Him. The Father's love reached to the disciples through the Son, and the Son had affection for them as those whom the Father had drawn to Him.

Rem. It shows unity of purpose and nature.

F.E.R. Yes; and in that way the Father's love descended to them, and in One who Himself had part in the love of God, and who alone knew it. No one but a divine Person could declare the love of God.

Rem. It gives great force to the word, "The Father loveth the Son".

F.E.R. Yes; and in that sense every work was the outcome of love. The revelation is the declaring of the Father -- of God. What the Lord is bringing out is the light in which our souls are to live, not just a power within us to emancipate us from this or that, but the light in which we are to live, and we must have the light of the Father's revelation. The names of "Almighty" and "Jehovah" had failed to hold man, but now you get another thing, most important, coming out here, and that is the light before which a man can be entirely and completely subdued. It is the love of God that subdues a man, but light is the accompaniment of love, because if God shines out, everything is detected in the light of God -- detected and exposed -- and light and love thus work together, they are inseparable.

Rem. The light not only subdues, but it satisfies.

F.E.R. Yes, it does. This chapter seems to me to be the most profound in Scripture -- that is the idea I have of it. To attempt any kind of exposition of it is a most difficult task. The Lord here undertook to declare the terms on which He was with the Father, and what His presence down here meant -- what was really expressed in His Person down here. Who can open that out?

The force of verse 19 is that the Father was not

doing anything which the Son was not doing too. The marvellous thing to me is this -- I do not quite know how to put it -- that God Himself comes down and really anticipates the judgment that lay upon man. God Himself comes into the judgment in the Person of the Son, into all that lay upon man, and, in the very fact of coming into it, it is annulled, and nothing is left but the light, and that light is to be the life of our souls.

I think we may have looked at Christ too exclusively as the sacrifice, and have lost sight of Him as a divine Person who came forth, and who, having entered into death, brings into it the testimony of God -- the light of God. The other side comes in, of course, He did offer Himself a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour, but in holding to that side, it does not do to overlook the other. He brings into death the testimony of God, He anticipates our judgment. We were under death and the curse, but Christ has come and anticipated them, and they are annulled by the fact of a divine Person coming into them. And what is left? Why, the light is left, that it may be the life of our souls. God Himself is revealed in it; the testimony of God comes out in the death of Christ. It did not come out in its completeness in the life, but in death. So God sends forth His Son to redeem. Redemption was accomplished, but at the same time God is revealed, the light of God is brought into death.

Rem. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin".

Ques. What about "The hour is coming, and now is", etc. (verse 25)?

F.E.R. Well, but it is because He has come into death that you hear the voice. You hear it in the place of death. It is in that place that you hear the "voice of the Son of God". He could not remain in

it because He had life in Himself. It is in the apprehension that He has come down to where we were in the eyes of God -- every one was under death -- that we hear the voice, and those that hear shall live.

Rem. It is beautifully illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan -- he came down to where the man was.

F.E.R. Yes, it is most striking. He came as a divine Person to accomplish a divine work, and then, when accomplished, He went back: "again, I leave the world, and go to the Father". And you get the same thought again in Hebrews 1, "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high".

Ques. When it speaks of the Father showing Him all things, it is "the Son", but further down it is the "Son of God". What is that?

F.E.R. "Son of God" indicates that He has become Man, it is the title under which He is revealed; the title could not exist until He became Man. When it speaks of what He is eternally, it is "the Son", in distinction to "the Father", but as Man, He is the "Son of God". Who but a divine Person was coming to reveal the Father to us? Who could take up the Father's works and say that the Father showed to Him all that Himself was doing? Who could know that but the Son? An angel might come from God and kill thousands of Syrians at a stroke, but that was not the presentation of God; he was but obeying the commands of God, as we should do, but it is a very different thing here, the Son presents the Father.

Ques. The Son presents the Father in His love?

F.E.R. Yes, that is just the point: "The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". In one sense He never left the bosom of the Father, but yet He comes out from it in order to declare God in His nature -- not simply in His power or righteousness, but in His love. There

was nothing that the Father did which the Son was not doing, and he that saw the Son saw the Father.

Ques. Is verse 21 a moral statement or actual?

F.E.R. It is not raising men up to judgment, but quickening them, making them live. It was not the pleasure of the Father -- the work of the Father -- to bring them up to judgment. It takes in the whole thing -- body and all. Raising up men for judgment only comes into the passage incidentally to secure the honour of the Son.

Ques. Why do you think it puts "raiseth" first?

F.E.R. Well, it looks upon men as actually dead, but the Son quickens whom He will; it does not say "raises" in regard to Him. Then it looks on to the coming of the Lord. He comes out in that light -- He quickens; He comes in that way in regard to all here. That is what Christ will do when He comes. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".

Rem. In chapter 11 He says, "I am the resurrection, and the life".

F.E.R. Yes. But then He goes on to say, "He that ... liveth and believeth in me shall never die". They will not be raised, but they must be made alive. We get it in a spiritual sense now, but quickening, in the strict sense, applies to the body, because death came in on the body. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".

I think Christians would be very wonderful people if they were really in the light of this chapter -- really living in the light of the Father. It is not so much the light of Christ's glory here, but really the light of the Father. We have had the revelation of Christ, and the power of the Spirit, but in this chapter He brings in the light of the Father. He is the Son of the Father, and He brings in the light of the Father. It is, "Is not this the Christ?" in the previous chapter, but this chapter is the distinctive testimony of the last Adam. The last Adam is the Son of God, who comes

(in order that He may be the last Adam) into death itself, and He annuls the power of death, and takes up the position of last Adam in resurrection, and becomes a life-giving Spirit. He has brought into death the full light of God. "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness".

Ques. Is the order of these chapters similar to that of Romans 6 and 7?

F.E.R. Well, I do not know if you could make John run with Paul in that way. Chapter 4 runs more with Romans 8 in taking up the state side, but I am sure I do not know where to put John 5, although it connects itself, in a way, with Romans 8. You see, John deals so exclusively with the state side, but Romans with our responsibility.

Ques. Why do you say He brings into death the blessed light of God?

F.E.R. Well, where do you get the testimony except in death? It is there you get the full testimony of God's love. God appeals to you in that way.

Ques. Would you say that in verse 24 a man is viewed as "in Christ Jesus", where there is no condemnation?

F.E.R. Oh, but there is more than that. It is not simply that there is no condemnation, but it is the kind of people who have passed out of death into life -- into the new region.

Ques. Is "in Christ Jesus" "passed out of death into life"?

F.E.R. Yes. But then the extent of it there (in Romans 8) is only that they have "no condemnation". Here it is, "not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life". It is more positive. John is so extremely comprehensive. We get a somewhat analogous statement in the epistle, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren". Death and life stand in the strongest possible contrast in John. Death is where Satan

acts -- life is where God is revealed and known. It is all darkness and death in Satan's sphere, but on the other side all the light of God had come out, and it is life, "The life was the light of men".

Ques. Verse 24 does not apply to a soul in his responsibility?

F.E.R. No, that is not the point.

Rem. But this verse has been used much by the evangelist to that end.

F.E.R. Yes. But he has given that up now, I think. It was used to give people an idea of security, a kind of short way out to security, and it has failed, therefore, to give to people what it was intended to convey, and people, too, were deceived by it. What it means is this, the Lord has brought out the light, and the effect of it is that "he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me" does not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life. The reason why he has passed out of death into life is because he has passed out of darkness into light. I think His "word" is more the revelation, not just the works He had done, but the revelation of the Father.

Ques. What is the force of "hath everlasting life"?

F.E.R. The point is, I think, that he has reached it in that way, and it is that kind of person who has it. It is the one who hears the voice of the Son of God. There are certain people in the world who have eternal life, and they are thus characterised.

Ques. The one characterised by hearing the voice of the Son of God?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. The moment has not come for bringing eternal life dispensationally into the world. If it were, you would not want this sort of knowledge to discern those who have it. As the psalm says, "There Jehovah commanded the blessing, even life for evermore"; but what marks the present

moment is that certain people in the world have eternal life, and they are marked by hearing the voice of the Son of God, and believing His word.

Ques. What is the difference between verses 24 and 25?

F.E.R. Well, I think that the "voice of the Son of God" indicates that He Himself has come into death, so that the dead might hear Him -- that is what it conveys to me. He comes within the range of the dead, comes into what was upon man. He does not remain there, He could not be holden of death, but He comes into it and brings into it the testimony of God, and those who hear His voice live.

Ques. And then they follow Him?

F.E.R. Yes. But the first thing is, they must live. You could not follow until you live. It is not responsibility in this chapter, but life; neither is it in chapter 10. When they follow Him, they do what is congenial and natural, "I know my sheep, and am known of mine". Then, too, they "go in and out, and find pasture". It is privilege.

There are two steps -- "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live". If you want to know them, it is characteristic of those that live that they "hear the voice of the Son of God". It is in that way that they are detected. They hear the word of Christ -- it is in that way that they get life. I think that the first moment that they begin to live is when the love of God is discerned. That is, as it were, the first breath, and you must have breath as a sign of life. With a new-born babe the first mark of life is a breath, and so it is spiritually. In the beginning, when God created man, He "breathed into his nostrils ... and man became a living soul". And what man ever breathes spiritually until he has the light of the love of God?

Now Christ has really brought into death the testimony of God's love -- if you can understand the

expression. He has really come into that circle -- broken through the fence -- and brought in there the testimony of God's love, and the moment a person apprehends that he begins to breathe to God. That is life.

Ques. The Son hath "life in himself". Does that refer to resurrection?

F.E.R. Well, He could not be holden of death. It is only a divine Person who could have life in Himself. It refers to the place He has taken as Man, that it is said to be "given" to Him. Here you have the incarnate Son on earth, and everything is looked upon as given to Him. He takes the character of receiving everything from the Father in this gospel, even things that properly belong to Him, as in the words, "Glorify thou me ... with the glory which I had with thee before the world was", chapter 17.

"All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth". He carries the thought out to its fullest limit and boundary. "They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". It is not simply that He exercises quickening power on those that believe, but He carries it out to the utmost boundary of death. It is all put on that kind of moral ground so as to cover everybody.

CHAPTER 5: 25 TO END

F.E.R. We were speaking last week of the dead hearing the voice of the Son of God, and that those who heard lived. I believe the thought is that the Son of God comes as low as the dead, so that they might hear His voice.

Ques. So that those who were in death might hear Him?

F.E.R. Yes. What I mean is that He goes down

into death to bring into death the testimony of God's love, as you get in Romans 5, "God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". The voice of the Son of God speaks from the dead in that way, and the dead hear, and they that hear, live. The dead hearing the voice of the Son of God indicates to me that He goes among them, so that His voice may be heard.

Ques. It is not quite like quickening, is it?

F.E.R. Well, it is hearing His voice. He does quicken, of course.

Ques. When would you say it is heard?

F.E.R. Well, it is when a person apprehends really what it meant for Him to come into death. It is then when the dead hear. "Voice" is a very difficult expression when applied to divine Persons. It is a human figure applied to divine Persons. The dead are those who are under the judgment of God -- it is the place where they were, and it is there that He speaks. It is His voice expressing the love of God to man: "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.... God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".

Ques. Does this include new birth?

F.E.R. Well, the Lord is not taking up the divine side now, but the human side.

Ques. Do you mean that He has previously in this chapter taken up the divine side?

F.E.R. Yes: "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will". Later on He speaks on the other side; it is to the dead here, it is our side. We have the two sides in that way -- one side is God's activity and working, and the other side presents what the dead hear: "the voice of the Son of God".

Ques. Does not "the voice of the Son of God" go altogether beyond new birth?

F.E.R. Yes. He quickens, and quickening goes beyond new birth a great deal. It really goes on to the raising of the body. The point is that His voice ministers to you an impression, and the question is what impression has the voice made upon you?

Rem. Yes, I see that we have confined it -- at least I have -- too much to certain words spoken.

F.E.R. But it is a very much wider thing than that. He spoke when He was here upon earth, but, to my mind, His voice in death has much more significance than when He was here. It is that side of it that comes out in these verses. He had spoken in regard to the divine working, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work" -- the Son working in line with the Father, and in the communion of the Father -- but now He takes up the other side. It is not new birth or quickening, but the impression of the voice of the Son of God upon the soul. If you ask when a person lives to God, I can tell you, with positive certainty, that it is when the soul apprehends the love of God. That moment the soul begins to live to God.

Ques. Is it like the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than Abel's?

F.E.R. Well, morally it is so. It is analogous to that.

Ques. Is it as we say sometimes, "It speaks volumes"?

F.E.R. Yes, that is it, exactly.

Rem. It puts an entirely new colour on these verses.

F.E.R. Well, do not take it upon my word simply. It is a great thing to be orthodox, you know. I ask any one, what peculiar significance to you has the voice of the Son of God? Just as I might say, What is the voice of Isaiah to you, or of Jeremiah? Each prophet has a certain significant voice. I think the

"voice" of the prophet is the predominating idea in that prophet, but now we have come to someone better than a prophet, and what is the predominating idea in the voice of the Son of God? Well, without doubt, the great idea in His "voice" is the presentation of the love of God. That is the "voice of the Son of God" to me -- it is what is peculiar to Himself.

Rem. You can well see it in the case of the prophets.

F.E.R. Yes. Each prophet had his own peculiar significance. He had a "voice" in that way; and the "voice of the Son of God" had its own significance too.

Rem. John the Baptist speaks of himself as being a "voice".

F.E.R. Yes. And it was a voice that was peculiar to himself. It was the voice of the one who came before Christ. Now the Son of God has a voice, and when that voice is apprehended in the soul, then that soul lives -- "They that hear shall live". It is that you come into the region of life, you "pass out of death into life". The region of life is where God is, and where God is revealed.

Rem. It is a very great transition from death into life.

F.E.R. Yes, it is. I think the idea is that you pass into a new scene, a new region.

Ques. Who are the "dead"?

F.E.R. Oh, I think all. The Lord comes into a scene of death: "If one died for all, then were all dead". All are dead before the eye of God, but here it is that you wake up out of death, and then you pass out of death into life; you pass out from under the judgment of God into all the full light of God. It involves a tremendous passage for a soul.

Ques. There are two ways in which a man is "dead", are there not?

F.E.R. Yes. Death is on man; the judgment of God stands between God and man. God imposed

that sentence upon man, and it stands between them. You are not literally relieved yet of death, but between God and a man's own soul it is gone. I feel we should be better able to talk of these things if we were more in them. I believe the great difficulty in accepting these things is that we are not in them. You cannot talk about a thing that you are not in.

Ques. What is the connection between all this and His having "authority to execute judgment", etc.?

F.E.R. It is to show that His authority extends to all. His rights, having become Son of man, have to be extended over all. If it had been a question simply that those who heard "lived", it would have meant that He would have nothing to say, in a sense, to the others. They would have continued under the judgment, but then judgment must be executed, and that is given to the Son, "that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father".

Rem. But that is the "Son of God".

F.E.R. Yes. But then it shows farther on that He has authority to execute judgment, "because he is the Son of man". He has been presented to man in that form, and the crucial point between God and man is Christ. The One who is rejected in the world is not exactly God, but Christ. Men will tolerate the idea of God -- they have not given up the idea of God yet, they are not prepared for that -- but I think that every one of us must be conscious that Christ is rejected among men. These people shut themselves out from all hope if they will not accept this Man; they really shut out the possibility of God presenting Himself to man. I think it is a very extraordinary thing for a man to assume the absolute impossibility of God presenting Himself to man, and yet, as you know, men do assume it.

Ques. Next we come to the resurrection of the body, do we not?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. "The hour is coming, in

the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice". There is a very great difference between the voice that speaks now and the one that will speak then, and yet it is the voice of the same Person. The character of the "voice" will be altogether different. The effect in the one case is "living" -- it is moral; but the effect in the other case is resurrection -- an actual physical effect; and I think you will always find -- it is a principle with God -- that the physical follows the moral, the physical is subordinated to the moral. I believe you will find it a principle all through Scripture. God is bringing about at the present time certain moral results, but it will be followed by the physical.

Rem. It is so in the case of the palsied man. He first says, "Thy sins be forgiven thee", and then, "Take up thy bed, and walk".

F.E.R. Yes. The Lord settles the moral question first, and then He raises up the man, and the resurrection of the man is the proof and testimony to the moral -- you see life. The Lord calls it here "the resurrection of life", and "the resurrection of judgment". You see, life really demands resurrection. How are you going to carry it out, how is life going to be made good, if there is no resurrection? He evidently has not got it this side of death, and on the other hand, if a man is to be judged he must be judged in his body, for a man is not a man apart from his body. Now if neither judgment nor life comes in on this side of death, then both judgment and life demand resurrection.

Rem. "If the dead rise not, we are of all men most miserable".

F.E.R. Quite so. There may be a suspended state of existence, but a man is not properly a man apart from his body. As the Lord said to the Sadducees, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living". They had died as regards men, but they lived for

God, and the Lord brings that forward as a proof of resurrection. If you are prepared to give up the thought of life or of judgment, then I can understand you will not want the thought of resurrection, but I think you would be reduced to a curious position. Just think of a man being really formed, by the Spirit of God, in the divine nature, and the whole thing terminating in death! he never actually lives at all. And then, too, think of this world of confusion -- the wicked prospering, and the evil really triumphing over the good -- and yet that there should never be any kind of moral solution! You are reduced to a most extraordinary position if you look at it apart from Scripture. If it is such a scene of confusion to you, what must it be to God -- and yet to have no solution of it! But here you get the solution of it -- they hear the voice of the Son of God, "and come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment". The Lord puts it on moral ground, too, and not on the ground of faith or unbelief, or anything of that, but "they that have done good", or "evil". No system of faith sets aside the simple question of right or wrong. It is not put in here as an actually occurring event -- as far as that goes, there is no time specified, though in the mind of God the day is fixed -- but it is moral. Life has its resurrection, and judgment has its resurrection -- each thought has its resurrection.

Ques. In what sense is it, "They that have done good"?

F.E.R. It is maintaining the great principles of good and evil in the world. If a man does evil, then judgment will overtake that. The Lord puts it specially on moral ground so as to maintain the immutable principles of right and wrong, of good and evil.

Rem. Like as in Romans 2, he that does good is approved of God.

F.E.R. Yes, and so Paul puts it elsewhere, "I

know that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust". You see, if you go back to Old Testament times, there were no "Christians" then, and yet men did good. Wherever a man had light from God, he did good. How is it possible for a man to do good who has not light from God?

Ques. Then it is not a question of conversion?

F.E.R. Well, it involves it, but a man could not do good apart from God. You would make a man independent of God if it were possible to do good without light from God.

Rem. No dispensation sets aside the principles on which God acts.

F.E.R. No; there are immutable principles on which God acts. The fact is, that every bit of good that has been wrought in this world on the part of man is the effect of his getting light from God. Men are not very good judges of right and wrong; they have made themselves a god superior to revelation. The fact is, they have no god at all except one out of their own imaginations or reasoning. You may conjure up a god -- an intelligent man may do that -- but, after all, the real basis of it must rest upon what light he has got from the Bible. He cannot help being affected by the Bible if he has been brought up under the influence of it, and though his mind may conjure up a god which he considers superior to what is found in Scripture, it is really based upon what light he has obtained from Scripture.

Rem. Yes, and outside Scripture you get the hideous things of India and other heathen places.

F.E.R. For my part, I do not want to follow scientific men. They have got no god, or only one conjured up by their own mind. If you have not got revelation, you have no god at all. These men have only got an idea of God which their own minds have conceived.

Now I think from this point the Lord passes on to another ground -- it is the ground of conviction. He brings forward the various testimonies which left the people without excuse (verse 30). You will see that the point was that He was not simply speaking as a man down here -- "I can of mine own self do nothing, as I hear, I judge", and then, "I seek not mine own will". His judgment and His will, in that sense, both came from above; they did not find their source even in Himself. It was not a man speaking here from his own mind, but it was bringing down here into this scene the light of what was above. He was morally perfect Himself too.

Ques. He was the only One fit to judge, because He had no will. "As I hear" refers to what He heard above, not what He might hear and form an opinion on?

F.E.R. Oh, no, I do not think so. It is, "As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me". He could have no will apart from the Father. "The Father loves the Son", and though man could not accept or believe it, there it was, "As I hear, I judge". I often think they must have been struck with the certainty of the Lord's words. It was not a man just indulging in platitudes, but there was a certain distinctness about what He said. He spake "as one having authority". "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen".

Then He goes on to say, "If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true", because if He had borne witness to Himself, He would have isolated Himself from the Deity. He would have made Himself a separate and distinct Person. But the truth is, the Lord never did a work, or said a word, that did not involve the whole Trinity, as He said, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". And anyone who knows anything about Scripture can

see that everything the Lord did and said was in the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not testify to Himself. The Lord really takes here, if I might say so, the place of the vessel of the testimony.

Rem. In chapter 8 He says, "I am one that bear witness of myself".

F.E.R. Yes. In that way He could bear witness of Himself, but not as an independent Person in the Godhead.

Rem. And the very fact of His testifying of Himself in that passage is to bring out the Father -- "If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also".

F.E.R. Yes, exactly. The point here is that He did not take any place but that of a Vessel. He refuses the place of being the Source, and in taking the place of the Vessel He was true to that place.

Ques. In verse 32 is the "another" the Father?

F.E.R. It is not "another" in the sense of a different one, but He says, I am conscious "that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true".

Ques. Is that the Father?

F.E.R. I imagine so.

Ques. Not John the Baptist?

F.E.R. Oh, no. I do not think the Lord would have said He was conscious that the witness was true if it had been the witness of John. And then, too, He goes on to say, "Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man". I should suppose that in verse 32 He refers to the Father, that is one witness, and then He speaks of the works as bearing witness, and then to the Scriptures -- three witnesses.

Ques. Was the witness of the Father what was spoken from heaven?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. I think He refers to that further on when He says, "The Father himself ... hath borne witness of me".

Ques. Does it make man more responsible?

F.E.R. Yes. It was not a question simply of their refusing Himself, but that the full presentation of God was refused. You will constantly find through John's gospel that the rejection meant the rejection of God. "Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father". There remained but one thing more to be done, and that was to reject the Holy Spirit, and that was done in the case of Stephen. "As your fathers did, so do ye". They resisted the final testimony in that way.

Ques. Is it from "man" or from "the man" (verse 34)?

F.E.R. It is "the man" -- evidently referring to John's testimony. It is plain that man could not bear testimony to God. Christ was Himself the testimony. It would be equivalent to saying that God could not bear adequate testimony to Himself. We do not need testimony, for example, about the sun. If a man were to ask for testimony about the sun, you would think he was out of his mind. So in regard to Christ, if He could not make Himself felt, then it was no good men bearing testimony to Him. You find it constantly coming out in the earlier part of this gospel; "Come and see". The point was to "Come and see" the One who was there before their eyes and needing no testimony.

Rem. In verse 35 John bears witness to the truth, and yet the Lord does not receive testimony from man. I do not quite understand the two verses.

F.E.R. The point is this -- they would have to believe in Christ on His own testimony, not on John's. So, too, a man may preach to you at the present time about Christ, but if you are going to believe in Christ, it must be on His own testimony. A man never really believes in Christ until he cannot help it. He believes in Christ because he cannot help believing.

Ques. John's testimony was not set aside, was it?

F.E.R. No. But John's testimony was not on the

ground of faith. People were exercised by his ministry, but Christ Himself was the ground of faith. So at the present day, you do not simply believe on Christ on the word of the preacher. If you do, your faith will not stand, that is certain. Christ appeals to certain moral necessities in the soul of a man, and he is shut up to the work of God -- the work is entirely of God.

Ques. Is Moses brought in as a witness?

F.E.R. No. I think He simply brings Moses in for conviction. They were hoping in Moses (verse 45), and the Lord takes them up on that ground. "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me". What is so striking is that He really seems to put the Scriptures as more authoritative than His own words. "If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Ques. We have generally heard that there is a fourfold testimony here. Do you go with that?

F.E.R. Well, it is so in a way. There is His own testimony, and then the Father's testimony, then that of John the Baptist, and then that of the Scriptures. The effect of the whole passage, and it was necessary that the Lord should speak thus to them, is to leave them entirely without excuse.

Ques. But if the Lord did not receive testimony from man?

F.E.R. Well, the Lord Himself, in a certain sense, was the sum of all testimony. If John bore testimony, it was simply by the power and grace of Christ. He could not bear witness otherwise.

Ques. Is "witness" the same idea as testifying?

F.E.R. Oh, yes, I think so. It is very solemn to think that, although they would not receive His testimony, they will receive the "man of sin". "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive". The truth is that Christ appeals to certain moral necessities of man, and Antichrist will appeal to certain lusts of man, and, therefore, you see man

receives Antichrist much more readily than he would Christ; and how people are deceived by these things -- how they run after them. The whole system of the world adapts itself to some lust in man, and when Antichrist comes he will just appeal to some desire of man for greatness, or glory, or such like. The very principle which led the people to reject Christ is really Antichrist.

CHAPTER 6: 1 - 40

F.E.R. In chapter 4 we noted the communication of the Spirit, and the well of water springing up into eternal life; then in chapter 5 we get the voice of the Son of God and what that voice implies, and now, in this chapter, we get living bread.

Ques. And that is connected with the Son of man?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. The contrast between chapters 5 and 6 lies in this -- that in the former we have the Son of God's part, as it were. He is there presenting God, but now in this chapter He comes within the range of man's appropriation, on man's part. In chapter 5 it was, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" -- that is what I understand to be speaking on God's part, but when He comes as living bread, He gives life to the world, that is on our side. Grace brings Him within the range of our appropriation -- eating is appropriation in that way -- grace brings the Son of God within the range of man's appropriation. He has become the Son of man to that end. Hence the great idea in the chapter is food -- that which sustains. It is not light, as in the previous chapter, but that which sustains and supports. "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed".

Ques. It is more what He becomes, would you say?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. It is not a mighty voice

speaking as in chapter 5, bringing light to man from God -- here it is quite the other side. So the chapter opens with the feeding of the multitude. The two miracles which introduce the two chapters are important -- the palsied man raised up in a moment by the word of Christ, and here the feeding of the multitude.

Rem. It is interesting to see how John illustrates, in that way, what he puts forth.

Rem. This chapter supposes life, and brings in what is necessary to sustain it.

F.E.R. I think you must take these three chapters together, no one of them gives you the truth completely. Each one gives its own teaching, but you must take the three together.

Rem. They do not repeat one another in any way.

F.E.R. No. And each one is essential, and you cannot do without it. It is not a question of the grace of God, or a man getting the forgiveness of his sins, but the point in these chapters is life.

Ques. In what aspect is Christ Himself presented as the Bread? In what way is He the Bread?

F.E.R. It is Christ Himself the portion of man's heart. There are two great ideas in the chapter: His death and His priesthood -- that is, for the full support of man, of the believer. "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me" -- that is priesthood. The people say, "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world", but then He goes up on high as a Priest, and then the word is, "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me". That is where priesthood comes in. The Priest has reference to all that Christ is on our side. He is the Mediator on God's side, but on our side He is the Priest.

Ques. Then Mediator and Priest are two quite different ideas?

F.E.R. Oh, yes, totally different. Mediator is from God to man, while Priest is what He is on our side Godward.

Rem. In the previous chapter He comes out as Apostle.

F.E.R. Yes. But He really comes out as last Adam. It is from God to man in life-giving power; so He raises the dead -- it is the power of God acting upon man. But this chapter stands in the greatest possible contrast to that; here He has taken such a course as to put Himself within the range of man's appropriation.

Rem. I suppose the first step is incarnation, and then He comes into death -- gives His life for the life of the world.

F.E.R. Yes.

Ques. Does not this chapter give Christ as the manna?

F.E.R. Well, He uses the manna as a contrast. He is in contrast with the manna. "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die". He does not use the manna as a type, but rather in contrast. The whole question here is not the wilderness, for which the manna was suited, but life -- that is, in the latter part of the chapter.

All the miracles in John are of very great moment. They are not introduced in the ordinary way of miracles at all, simply as an expression of the goodness of God to men, as in the other gospels -- for instance, in Luke, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him". In the gospel of John they are undoubtedly "signs" -- they all bear witness to the One who did the miracles. You lose the force of the miracles in John if you do not apprehend them in that light.

Rem. When He turned water into wine, it says, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory".

F.E.R. Yes, and undoubtedly the raising up of the man in chapter 5 has that same force.

Ques. You would connect that principle with all the miracles in John?

F.E.R. Yes, I would. Take the raising of Lazarus -- He says, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby". They were all reflective, they bore witness to the One who did the miracles.

Ques. How do you reconcile the Bread and the Priest? The Bread came down out of heaven.

F.E.R. But if He had not become a Man, He could not be a Priest. Feeding is simply a figure of appropriation. You make the food your own. "The bread ... is he which cometh down from heaven". You could not have an efficient priest except One come down from heaven. The fact is that the Priest must come down from heaven as well as the Mediator. Man has nothing at all for God, and even on man's side all must come down from heaven.

One undoubted feature of the gospel of John is the complete ignoring of all that went before. It is a new point of departure, and not a part of anything that had been.

Ques. He is still the living bread come down from heaven?

F.E.R. Yes; it is characteristic of Him. There are two expressions used: "cometh down from heaven" -- that is characteristic, but "I came down from heaven" is historical. This is what actually occurred.

Rem. That was because He alone could conduct us into eternal life.

F.E.R. Yes. It is not simply a man raised up down here, but He is going to lead you in; and in order to be led in, you must have what came down from heaven. "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee". Well, that comes down from heaven.

Rem. The fact is, the Priest must die.

F.E.R. Exactly; eating His flesh and drinking His blood means that I die too -- it is the appropriation of His death. It is my death experimentally, in the sense of deliverance. It has been pointed out that the miracle is a fulfilment of Psalm 132, "I will satisfy her poor with bread".

Ques. Is there a difference between "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me", and eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

F.E.R. They are manifestly two distinct ideas, but we are a little anticipating. You see, His death is deliverance to the one who appropriates it. It results in the deliverance of the soul from the whole course and system of things in which the flesh lives, but then that is only one side. Deliverance must come in, but you also want someone to conduct you into what is heavenly, and that is where the Priest comes in.

Ques. I thought the verse referred to Christ as incarnate -- "the living bread which came down from heaven"?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. But the question of place does not come in. I think the prominent idea in the passage is not the place, but the Person. If you come to the question of place, as Paul would look at it, He is at the right hand of God, but John does not look at it in quite the same way. Of course you could not take up priesthood officially on earth, but you get the principle. The Lord was a Priest to those about Him, that is, His disciples, not officially, perhaps, but He was so virtually. He was their stay and support, and I think He is that to us now.

Rem. When He prayed for Peter, that was a priestly act.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. You get the principle of the thing there. I have said that you could not understand the assembly at all if you do not see what Christ was here upon earth in the midst of His own, and yet, of course, you do not get the assembly before Pentecost --

no one would pretend that for a moment. I think it comes out very markedly in the Lord's supper. The very first participation of the Supper was when the Lord was in the midst. You have to distinguish between a position taken and what He was morally.

Rem. That is interesting to me, for it had often been a point to me His having prayed for Peter.

Rem. And He speaks of Himself as the Comforter -- at least He speaks of "another Comforter" as though He Himself were one.

F.E.R. Yes, He does. And you must bear in mind that John does not recognise the old system -- everything is completely new; nothing that went before is recognised.

Ques. You mean He does not recognise the old Levitical law?

F.E.R. Yes; everything is new. In the previous chapter He says, "The hour is coming, and now is". He gives a present application to what had not yet strictly come in.

Rem. That clears up many difficulties, I feel.

F.E.R. Well, people have tried to construe the thing in a kind of literal way, but they only mar it.

Now this passage is introduced with the testimony of the feeding of the multitude. It is a witness to Christ as a divine Person. All that God had predicted with regard to Israel was really there, and, just as in the previous chapter, this had been witnessed to by the raising of the palsied man, so here you get another principle testified to, that is, perfect administration. He uses the bread that was there, and His disciples share with Him in the distribution of it to the people. It is a picture of perfect administration.

Ques. It is a picture of millennial times?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. I often think if I were not a Christian I should be a really awful man. When I see the inequalities of the world, the dark contrast between the intense poverty and great luxury -- dreadful

poverty, grinding poverty -- it afflicts me tremendously, and if I had not the sense that God knows better than I do, if I had not the check of being a Christian, I should just be an out-and-out radical. But I have no doubt that God knows how to modify things in reference to people. With the world as it is I have not a vestige of sympathy. What I mean is that, with the Lord in His rightful place, you will get perfect administration coming in, and you will not have these inequalities. When He was here, they had "bread enough and to spare", and when He comes to administer things, you will not have the enormous inequalities which exist now.

Rem. It could not be, for we read that every man is to sit under his own vine and fig-tree.

F.E.R. I believe that God will strike a fatal blow at all the great commercial system, as we see it growing now. It is as evident as possible, from the prophets, that God will strike a blow at Tyre -- the symbol of commercial activity. The proper function of ordinary government here is to protect life and property, but if they were to attempt to equalise things now, they would bring about only the direst confusion. It is beyond man -- only God can effect it.

Ques. Why did not the Lord allow them to make Him a king?

F.E.R. Well, He would not allow Himself to be made a king by the will of man; and, besides, man was not to be trusted. The very same people that would have made Him a king today would crucify Him tomorrow. There will be no question of His right to be king when He comes again. They would not accept Him as the Son, and they could not, therefore, receive Him in any other way, "He received from God the Father honour and glory". His glory is that He is Son, and it was not even the Father conferring anything upon Him, but recognising what belonged to Him. I think it was a mere momentary impression

with these Jews. They were affected by the miracle for a moment, but it was the mere conviction of the human mind.

Rem. And depended a good deal upon the fact of their appetite being satisfied.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so.

Ques. Is there any special reason for connecting this with Psalm 132?

F.E.R. Well, it shows the fulfilment of that psalm, or, more correctly, a sample of the fulfilment of it, and not only that, but it contained in it a much more general idea. It really refers to millennial good, but the power was in the Person -- it was a testimony to the Person. It is not only the miracle, but the manner of the miracle, the way in which the miracle was carried out, that was a testimony to the Lord. He connected it all with heaven, teaching that heaven was the real source of blessing and good for man.

Ques. Was His position on a mountain alone a figure of His present position?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. He refuses to be made a king by the will of man, but then He goes up on high, a figure of the priestly place He now occupies.

Rem. I suppose the kingdom could not be on a stable foundation except by death.

F.E.R. No. Death was essential, and so it is said, "He tasted death for everything". His death is a most wonderful thing to me, not simply in the sacrificial aspect of it, but in that it was the great testimony of God. It was that which ruined Satan; it is the testimony of God come into death. Man, with his genius and abilities, might have thought it a strange thing that he should be under death. He might have said, Here am I, with ability and genius, and yet liable to death; but the great answer God gives to that is Christ come into death. In the presence of that you could not have any doubt as to the love of God -- it is God's answer to Satan, too.

Rem. It is the voice of the Son of God come into death.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. He speaks from the place of death -- He brings in the testimony of God's love.

Ques. Would you say that that was a greater voice even than His life?

F.E.R. Yes, in one sense it was. "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". He went about doing good, but His death was the greatest proof of His love. He brings the testimony of God's love into death, and in the presence of the death of Christ, could you have any doubt or question about God's love?

Ques. Would you say a little more as to that point? I do not quite understand your thought.

F.E.R. Well, we were speaking of it last week; the voice of the Son of God is heard because He comes into the place of death, and it is there His voice is heard.

Ques. Is it to the morally dead?

F.E.R. Yes. But then "all were dead" before God's eye. Christ comes into death, and what I understand by His "voice" is that which His voice speaks, it is what is peculiar to Himself.

I think what comes out here is a kind of dispensational picture. He goes up on high, and comes down again. It is the same scene as that which comes before us in Matthew 14, but here you get that, as soon as He came into the ship, they were at the land whither they went, and you do not get the incident as to Peter.

Rem. But, practically, appropriating the death of Christ is, in a way, like Peter walking on the water.

F.E.R. Well, it is; you might well connect them. The Lord gave witness to His being King when He rode into Jerusalem. He was Zion's King, but everything here, as I understand it, was in the way of testimony. Everything had to be taken up really on

the ground of divine righteousness, but the Lord was here in testimony to everything.

Ques. I suppose His death was the one great thing He did for us?

F.E.R. Yes. He died for us really that we might receive sonship. "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law; that we might receive the adoption of sons".

Now we come to the didactic part of the chapter, but first you get the sea, a picture of the whole scope of moral death down here, agitated by Satanic influences (verses 18 - 22). It is a picture of what will be when the Lord comes into things again in connection with the Jews upon earth, and so "He bringeth them unto their desired haven". He makes Himself known to them, and, I think, comes into what is, in a kind of way, suitable to men down here, that is, the ship.

Ques. Do you think they brought this trouble upon themselves, in a way, by going without Jesus?

Rem. In Matthew 14 it was Jesus who constrained them to go into a ship.

F.E.R. Yes, and it was necessary for the purpose of God. I think it was typical of what they will enter into in the future in a very real way. They will know then what the agitation of the winds and the waves really means actually. They will get the sea then, and no mistake, acted on by Satanic influence.

Ques. This represents the Jewish remnant?

F.E.R. Yes; in the future, clinging to the boat which God had given them, but feeling the agitation of the winds and waves. They will be exposed to the activities and energies of Satan. We get in Revelation that when Satan is cast down from heaven, he turns to persecute the seed of the woman, to make war with the remnant of her seed.

Ques. That would represent the nation, or rather the remnant?

F.E.R. Yes, the remnant. I think the Lord will appear, as I understand it, for their salvation, and faith will recognise Him then. The true remnant will be counting on it. I suppose there is no one living who would deny, even now, that the influences of Satan act upon the world. No one would have imagined how things are affected by Satanic influences. Masses of people today are influenced in a way that they cannot account for.

Ques. What is meant by the words, "Except those days should be shortened ... for the elect's sake" -- does He really limit the time?

F.E.R. Yes. He really limits it to the three and a half years. He puts that limit upon it.

Ques. In verse 27 (John 6), what is "sealing" there?

F.E.R. Well, I suppose, as Son of man, He had been sealed. It refers to the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

Ques. What is the force of "sealing" in His case?

F.E.R. Well, it is marking Him out as God's -- that is, as Man, He is marked out as God's. He could not be sealed in the same way as Son of God. God puts His seal on Him. After the same manner the Holy Spirit is the seal in regard to Christians.

Ques. Would you say that we appropriate Him who is Heir of all things in the mind of God -- the Son of man?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. It is in contrast to what comes out in the preceding chapter. In chapter 6 it is the Son of man, but in chapter 5, if I might use the expression, He is in touch with God, in concert with the Father, acting in concert with Him. When you come to chapter 6, He is in touch with man, so He says, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed".

Ques. What do you understand is the meaning of

their question, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

F.E.R. He answers them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". He does not leave much to be done on their part.

Rem. How very much it is like what they said to Moses, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient".

F.E.R. Yes, indeed, and you find the very same thought in man's mind to this day -- "Teach us how to work the works of God" -- that is their thought. But what they want is light. "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". Man does not appreciate his need of light, he seeks direction as to how to work, but what he really wants is the first principle of all, and that is light. How can a man work in darkness?

CHAPTER 6: 30 TO END

F.E.R. We constantly get the Jews using the expression, "What sign shewest thou?" I think the "sign" is what is referred to in 1 Corinthians 1 as the "power of God": "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God". The Jews sought for a sign, and the Greeks sought after wisdom, and in contrast to that the apostles preached Christ, the power and the wisdom of God. What I understand the sign to be is a proof or sign of God's intervention. So the manna, in that way, was a sign of God's intervention, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat".

The giving of the manna authenticated Moses; the point in their mind was that if anyone came to them as from God, he was bound to give them proof of God's intervention. The difference between Moses and Christ was that Moses was nothing. They got the bread from heaven through Moses, but he himself was

nothing. Now it is the very opposite with Christ -- He was everything.

Ques. Does the Lord mean here that Moses gave them the shadow, but not the substance?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The Father gave them what was called "bread from heaven"; that was the substance, Christ Himself.

Ques. Therefore He is in contrast with the manna?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven". The Father is the Giver, not Moses; there was nothing essentially in him. God takes up suitable instruments, no doubt, but still Moses himself was but the instrument. But in Christ was everything. You might read Hebrews 11 with all its different witnesses, as simply representing the traits of faith in one person. The different men are nothing in themselves.

Ques. Is there any thought in its "coming down" (verse 33)?

F.E.R. Yes, the manna was figurative of Christ. "He gave them bread from heaven to eat", and that was no doubt emblematic of Christ. It is only taken up here to set off Christ.

The great argument of the chapter is that "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever". In the case of the manna, it did not give them life; they ate it and died -- it was not intended to give them life; but on the other hand, "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die". The real point in the sign was this -- what were the people on the lookout for? If they were looking for the right thing, they would have received a sign, but they were looking out for the wrong thing and consequently missed the right thing. Christ Himself was the sign, and He was the sign because He came, after all, in a very lowly way -- a babe laid in the manger. The intervention of God was not apparent outwardly, but, nevertheless, it was

there -- Christ was the power of God. There was a kind of expectation abroad, as we find from other scriptures, but the people were not looking out for what they really wanted.

Ques. I suppose that what would have suited the Jews better would have been that He should come like Elias, and call down fire from heaven?

F.E.R. Yes. But then it would have been a poor lookout for them. They themselves would have come under the destructive power of it. I think if the people had only been looking out for what their need really was, they would have apprehended Christ, but they were looking for the wrong thing.

Ques. You mean that which would have met their need spiritually?

F.E.R. Yes. If they had been in the mind of God, and of Scripture, they would not have stumbled over Christ. They were eaten up with self-importance, but God had no intention whatever of putting honour upon man, and therefore it was totally impossible that the Christ should be in any way connected with the honour of man. "This shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger". If they had been in the mind of God they would not have stumbled over that fact, or that the Christ should have been going about the world not having where to lay His head. They would have known that the One who came into the world as a Saviour and as a sacrifice for their sins could not have come in any other way. He could have had no part whatever in their honour and glory. They would have received the sign -- One truly coming into manhood, but at the lowest and weakest point of manhood -- a babe. Simeon and Anna looked for redemption in Israel, and they saw the sign.

Ques. Do you not think that the same principle is abroad in the world today?

F.E.R. Yes; you see it in people who stumble

over Scripture. It is certain to me that, if a man is to live to God, he must see that God will not put any honour upon man. That is patent to anyone and everybody.

Ques. "Giveth life unto the world" (verse 33). Does that mean that it is not merely for the Jews?

F.E.R. It is the way that the apostle usually employs the word. "God so loved the world". It is a most wonderful thing that a Man has actually been in the world who was capable of dying for the sins of the people. He was God's Lamb. On the other hand, He could communicate the Holy Spirit. That is what had come in. But then, if He is going to be a sacrifice for their sins, it must be that He passes through the world entirely apart from it. That is inevitable and obvious. The people were looking out for the wrong thing, and therefore the right thing was a stumbling-block to them. So the apostle says in 1 Corinthians, "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block".

In this chapter it was the occasion of the Passover. He makes a great deal of it -- speaking of eating the flesh of the Son of man, and drinking His blood.

Ques. "Cometh down from heaven" (verse 33) is what is characteristic of Him, is it not?

F.E.R. Yes. It expresses the true thought of God in regard to the world; it is One coming down out of heaven, having life, and giving life to the world. That is the thought of God. He comes down out of heaven -- expressing in that way the love and the grace of God -- and gives life to the world. I feel that we are very poorly affected by the ministry of it. He brings into the world the witness and the testimony of divine love, and brings man into it. I think people would be very different if they were more in the light of it.

Rem. And you could not be in it and not love.

F.E.R. No, quite so: "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love". One "coming

down out of heaven" was the expression of what God's thought was.

What I see is that they had no sense that man was under the judgment of God, under death. It is a most astounding thing how men overlook it. Cain overlooked it, and men today have no idea of it. Life is the great need of man, for he is under death.

Rem. I think you have said that the idea of "bread" is life brought within the reach of man's appropriation.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The fact is that, morally, as to the history of a man's soul, he really finds life in death.

Ques. In the death of Another?

F.E.R. Quite so. The testimony of divine love comes into death, and when a man apprehends that, it is the beginning of life with him.

Ques. That is the "voice of the Son of God"?

F.E.R. Yes; that is the idea of it to my mind. Love has come into death -- that is the real language of the cross. "God so loved the world". When a man apprehends that, then he begins to live. It is the first breath of life. No man lives until he breathes, and this is the answer to the love of God, it is the beginning of life spiritually.

Ques. Is not satisfaction one great thought of John?

F.E.R. Yes; and bread gives the thought of that. I think the chapter brings in -- or at least the effect of it would be -- a peculiar attachment of heart to Christ, just as the previous chapter brings in the voice of the Son of God. Another effect would be complete deliverance from the whole system of the world where Christ is not.

As regards divine Persons, the prominent idea in chapter 4 is the Spirit, then in chapter 5 the Father, and in chapter 6 Christ. In chapter 4 you have the well of water, that is, the Spirit, the water which Christ gives. Then in chapter 5 you get the light of

the Father, that in which His pleasure lies, His working. And then chapter 6 brings Christ Himself specially before you giving His life -- His flesh -- for the life of the world.

Ques. There are two thoughts brought before us -- "My Father gives", and then His own grace in coming down?

F.E.R. Yes. He traces things from their source; but the great point in the chapter is the Father leading to the Son -- all that the Father drew to Him should come to Him.

Ques. Is that why you say there is peculiar attachment of heart to Him?

F.E.R. Yes. It is because the Father has drawn you to Him; it is the drawing of divine affection.

Ques. Why do you think He says, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"?

F.E.R. I think you must read it in connection with what follows -- "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me". And then further on, "This is the will of him that has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day". What it brings out is that the Lord had a charge -- even a responsibility, if one might so say -- to all those whom the Father had given Him. They were committed to His keeping until the last day. He would present them all at the last day. Perhaps I should not use the word "responsible", but He is accountable to bring them all to light then.

Rem. In chapter 17 He lays stress on it, "none of them is lost".

F.E.R. Yes. But now they are not known; we are apparently no different from other men today, but in the last day we shall all come out into view. The last day must be the millennial day, I think.

Ques. Not the last day of the existing period?

F.E.R. No, I do not think so.

Ques. Was it not a Jewish expression of speech? Martha uses it, you know.

F.E.R. Well, I think the last day must be God's day. I should think that the moment Christ rises from the Father's throne, that must usher in the last day for God. The moment He brings in the "resurrection of the just", that brings in the millennial day.

Ques. God's rest would begin?

F.E.R. Yes. The moment Christ leaves the Father's throne, as has been said, it will alter everything. The moment He begins to act, it ushers in everything for God. Certain things, of course, have to be fulfilled which man is not cognisant of, but still, the moment He rises, it ushers in everything for God. We find the apostle Paul using the expression "that day" -- he had that same day before him.

Rem. And he prays for Onesiphorus that he may find mercy of the Lord "in that day".

F.E.R. Yes. I think the "last day" is God's day. Man will have had six days of it, and God has the last day.

Rem. The day of life and love.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. It may not be God's day in the sense that it is the eternal state, but it is His day all the same.

Ques. What do you understand by the expression, "raise him up at the last day"?

F.E.R. Well, no one today can tell the difference between you and the rest of the world, but the work of God will all come to light then.

Ques. It must have meant something for these Jews to hear this, for they thought that all were to be raised up?

F.E.R. Yes. Here He says, as it were, I will raise up those whom the Father has given Me. Who could raise men up if they are under the judgment of death? It is only He who can relieve man of that judgment, and raise him up. He annulled him that

had the power of death, and He gained the keys of death and hell by dying. He "became dead"; it is on that ground that He has the keys.

Rem. "Keys" is the sign of administration.

F.E.R. Yes, and in order to gain them He had to go into death.

Ques. And since then, has He not put death in quite another light for us?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. Spiritually the Christian has passed out of death into life, there is no longer the judgment of God for him. We can be on terms of the greatest intimacy with God, and even risen with Christ, but not yet, of course, literally free. By the Spirit all is made good to us.

The Lord is looking at the great result all through the chapter, and that is why He speaks so much about raising up at the last day. If it was man who brought all under judgment, it should be man who went into it and annulled it, for "By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead". It is always that way with God. Man is under death, and the voice of the Son of God appeals to him where he is. He comes into death that His voice may be heard. He brings into death, where man is, the testimony of divine love, and makes death really the place of life. You have the same principle coming out in connection with Israel -- "the valley of Achor for a door of hope".

Rem. So that Satan's work has become, in that way, a perfect fiasco.

F.E.R. Yes. God has maintained His own judgment, and yet taken advantage of it to express His love, so that man might live.

Ques. Do you get the will of God on two sides in verses 39 and 40; one on Christ's side, and the other on our side? Is verse 40 that there is nothing in God's mind against us -- all is open?

F.E.R. I could not quite say. It is put on the ground of man's responsibility. What it conveys to

me generally is that there is nothing in God's mind against me. The Jew had received testimonies, but here it is "whosoever" contemplated. The great idea is, it is open, and there is nothing now in the mind of God against me.

Ques. Is the expression, "seeth the Son and believeth on him", descriptive of a person?

F.E.R. Yes. For though God undertakes to fulfil His own counsels, yet there is nothing in the heart of God against any man whatever, against any man's salvation.

Ques. And yet, in His company, there were some who did not believe?

F.E.R. People will not come -- they do not want to come. He brings all that out at the close of chapter 3. They did not want to come "lest their deeds should be reproved". And people do not want to come today. These infidels and free-thinkers do not come to Christ because they do not want their will rebuked. It is intense conceit at the bottom of it -- intense conceit of man's powers and sufficiency, and therefore they do not come to the light. "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life".

Rem. Someone has said, "None will come; all may come; but some shall come".

F.E.R. Yes. No one ever came but by the power of God; yet all are free to come, every one that "sees the Son". The way is open. Any desire after Christ is not hindered, but if God did not accomplish His purpose, He would have nothing at all. He brings down man's will in some way. It would be a very poor lookout for man if God did not accomplish His purpose, and there would be no result for Christ's work; but there must be a result. After all, the purpose of God does not come fully out until after the world had rejected Christ -- "the world knew him not" -- and then it is that "as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God".

The world took no account of its Creator when He came to them.

Rem. How dark they all were!

F.E.R. Yes; they did not recognise Him; and you could hardly expect man to recognise what came down from heaven; but he ought to have known what suited his own need; to recognise what came down from heaven is another thing.

Rem. And He came in the very way suited to all men's needs -- within the reach of all men, accessible to all.

F.E.R. Yes, exactly. The great essential was that He should be accessible; and it may be added that it would be impossible to conceive of a man who had taken part in the glory of man becoming a sacrifice for sin.

Rem. He was, from His birth, completely outside everything here.

F.E.R. Yes. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners". The world could not have been what it was if Christ could have taken any part in it. I think it is a very great point for people to apprehend that, from the very moment that sin came into the world, God had another world before Him.

Rem. He could not patch up the old.

F.E.R. Exactly. What came out before the flood are the great constituent parts of the world to come -- acceptance, and then the heavenly and the earthly companies. Then after the flood you get the new stock, the man of faith, and the woman marked by confidence. Obedience is what comes out in the man, and confidence in the woman; and then you get the progeny in Isaac and Jacob. Abraham is the father of us all in regard to the world to come. "I have made thee a father of many nations". All the new stock comes of him -- we are all accounted as of Abraham's seed. He is the pattern of the new stock, and what marks him is obedience. In Sarah God sets forth His

power in the most remarkable way. When there was no hope in nature, He brings life out of death. Abraham looked for a city that had stability; he sought a country, and God prepared him a city. As the Lord said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day".

Rem. It is very striking that he should have looked for it just at the time when the earth was divided up among the nations.

F.E.R. Yes. God saw what man was after, He saw the combination of man for his own glory and the gratification of his pride. Man made for himself a city and a tower, and for the moment God scattered it; but now man has got over all that with his telegraphs, and railways, and the like, and you will get the whole thing coming out again in full bloom in Antichrist. When it is all full-blown, and you get the harlot coming into view, then God brings to light the heavenly city, the city which Abraham looked for. After all, man's work is utterly without stability, the very best of it. I do not see anything in it, but not only that, it is positively repulsive.

CHAPTER 6: 41 TO END

F.E.R. I do not think it is very difficult to enter into the murmurings of the Jews, if we know anything at all about our hearts, and how material the mind of man is.

Rem. And then, too, having no real sense of their need was what made it so difficult for them to understand the Lord's words.

F.E.R. Yes. For when God begins to work, and man is really anxious to get light from God, things become comparatively simple to him, but for the human mind to enter into divine thoughts is a very difficult matter. They seem to be astonished at the

idea of any one coming down out of heaven, and so would people be at the present day, I believe.

These Jews took up the word of the Lord in a kind of material, natural way; they never understood anything moral. The Lord speaks of it afterwards to them, because, when He had told them of His giving them His flesh to eat, they had taken it up in a material way, and He says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life", that is, the words had another character -- they were of another order of things. I think it has reference to their understanding it all in a kind of literal way. They say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" We see from verse 42 that the Jews knew the genealogy of Christ after the flesh, but they had no idea of His divine genealogy any more than was the case with Peter, until the Father revealed it to him.

Ques. Until Matthew 16, you mean?

F.E.R. Yes; when he confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God. It was with some sense, I should think, that He had come down out of heaven. He had the sense of Him as of another generation altogether -- He was more than the Son of Mary.

Ques. Peter does not rise to that here, does he?

F.E.R. No, he does not.

Ques. Is not this the corresponding passage to Matthew 16?

F.E.R. No. This corresponds to Matthew 14. But the way it is put at the end of the chapter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", is, as we all know, incorrect. It really is, "Thou art the holy one of God". The words, "the Christ" are omitted.

Rem. Matthew 16 is the only place where that expression occurs, "the Christ, the Son of the living God".

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Ques. What is the exact force of His coming down

from heaven to give life to the world? "The bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world" (verse 33).

F.E.R. Well, I have taken it in the same way as other similar expressions in John -- in regard to the world, I mean. He was the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world".

Ques. There are three expressions used in the chapter -- verse 33, "the bread of God"; then in verse 35, "the bread of life"; and then in verse 51, "I am the living bread". What would you say as to the force of each?

F.E.R. I think that the general idea of "bread" pervades them all. As I understand it, it is satisfaction. Bread is what satisfies, and, in that sense, Christ may be spoken of as the Bread of God, because it was in the heart of God that He should come down out of heaven and give life to the world. The "bread of God" is a moral idea -- it is the Bread of God's providing.

Ques. Before we can get satisfaction we must get life from it?

F.E.R. Yes. He says, "I am the bread of life" -- the one who believes on Him has eternal life -- "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". It is the realisation of complete satisfaction. As has been said, "It a region of satisfied desire".

Ques. So that it is in contrast to the manna?

F.E.R. Yes. They ate the manna and died, he now He says, "This is the bread ... that a man may eat thereof, and not die". You see, a man in the world is consumed with desire -- the more he gets, the more he wants, he is never satisfied. Supposing man obtains the object of his ambition, to get to the top of the tree in politics, or such like, do you suppose he is satisfied? He has come out into a larger region, he has got a larger scope for his desires, and he has

just become consumed with desires which are never satisfied.

I think what a man really wants is bread. That is what man naturally wants to find, what he craves after and does not get -- he wants bread.

Rem. "Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not?"

F.E.R. Yes, exactly.

Ques. What about the "living bread"?

F.E.R. What is called "living bread" is a new idea entirely. You cannot get "living bread" until death is there. Christ is "living bread" outside of death. The fact is, He brings life in.

Ques. Is the "living Father" brought in, in the same way, as a contrast?

F.E.R. Yes. "Living" has that character in Scripture. The thought of "water" is refreshment, while "bread" is more satisfaction to a hungry soul. Bread and water go together as necessary to life. In a "dry and thirsty land, where no water is", people die parched -- they have no refreshment.

Ques. Why does the Lord introduce, in verse 44, "Except the Father which hath sent me draw him"? Is it that they were not upon a moral line, and it needed the Father's drawing to bring them to Him?

F.E.R. The idea of it to me is that the Lord did not come down out of heaven to attain anything for Himself. He did not come down to make Himself a centre -- He had no ends of His own to serve. It was no good their murmuring against Him -- He had emptied Himself. He did become a centre, but that was no work of His own, it was really the Father who gathered to Him.

Ques. He is the Father's centre, in that sense?

F.E.R. Yes. He never made Himself a centre, otherwise they might have had ground for their grumbling.

Ques. What is the Lord leading them on to, is it not to death? They must realise their condition under death before anything else.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. He could not give life to them in their then condition. I think it comes out very plainly in the after part of the chapter. The first place where Christ is to be appropriated is in death if He is going to be the satisfaction of a man's heart. It answers, to my mind, somewhat to baptism, if you can understand my thought. What you properly learn in connection with baptism is the fact that Christ has come into death. I was in death, and Christ has come into death. He has, in love, come into the place where I was that I might have Him for the satisfaction of my heart. You cannot apprehend Him as Priest until you have apprehended His death. I think that is what comes out in this chapter. "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves".

Ques. Would you say that the Supper is a continuation of that?

F.E.R. Yes. But that is more in connection with the assembly, here it is individual.

Ques. We do not learn all this actually at baptism?

F.E.R. Well, no; because, after all, you have not a very great hand in your baptism, and no doubt a very long time elapses between a person's being baptised, and his learning its import -- its moral import of Christ in death.

Ques. Is there any force in the expression, "He that cometh to me shall never hunger", and then, "He that believeth on me shall never thirst"?

F.E.R. I think that "coming" would indicate a kind of movement in the soul, and "believing" is the reception of the testimony.

I think we are all very deficient as Christians, because we are so little acquainted with divine Persons.

We have a kind of familiarity with doctrine, but we have never got hold of what the doctrine presents. You get the doctrine of chapter 4 put forth -- I am sure I have often heard it -- and compared with Romans 5, but then the point in chapter 4 is that you are conscious of the Spirit springing up within you into eternal life. It is not a question of doctrine, but of a well of water springing up. Then, too, in chapter 5 you may have the doctrine of it, but the great point is the bringing in the light of the will of the Father. It is the revelation of the Father's pleasure. Then, when you come to chapter 6 it is the soul finding complete satisfaction in Christ. How few have it, and yet they know the doctrine of Romans 6. The real deficiency is in the lack of acquaintance with divine Persons. Do not stop at doctrine, or you will only get the shell, while the kernel is not reached! If you get satisfaction in Christ, it is extremely possible that you may have to let many other things go. You cannot have Christ as bread, and be taken up at the same time with a thousand things down here. The two things are incompatible. Paul counted things but dung and dross that he might win Christ.

I think the Father's drawing is really seen in appreciation of Christ. When you see a person with a real appreciation of Christ, then you know it is the effect of the Father's drawing. It is seen in that way.

Where do you think the evangelist has a place in this chapter? You cannot say for a moment that the evangelist draws to Christ. It is, "Except the Father which hath sent me draw him". You may say, But the Father uses agencies. So He does, but that is not the side of things here.

Rem. You get that in Romans 10.

F.E.R. Well, I hold to Romans 10, but it is very important to see that all the work is really done by God. Nothing is real but what is of God. "Every one that has learned of the Father comes to me". It

is the drawing of the Father, and He draws only to Christ.

Rem. Like chapter 17, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me".

F.E.R. I think it would be an interesting point to think of what is the sign and evidence of the Father's drawing. It seems to me to be in the way of affection for Christ. It is when there is the movement of affection to Christ we see the sign of the Father's drawing.

Ques. The stepping out from the boat?

F.E.R. Yes, I think that would come in too. You are prepared to leave certain things. I think the point in the chapter is the Father drawing to a rejected Christ, not to Christ accepted.

Rem. And consequently drawing out of the world.

F.E.R. Yes. He is everything to the Father, and the Father draws to Him. If such a thing were conceivable as that Christ was accepted here, the Father would not have to draw to Him. The Father's drawing is a proof that He was rejected. This chapter records the same circumstances as Matthew 14.

Rem. So that that which is spoken of Peter in that chapter is true of every soul that comes to Christ.

F.E.R. Yes. You come to the Living Stone. Peter had to leave the Jewish boat, and we today have to leave the boat, and it is a very Jewish boat, too, in which the mass of people are found today.

Ques. Does it not suppose discipline and progress, "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me"? You have to learn it in your soul.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so, and man necessarily leaves the boat when he comes to Him.

Ques. You would not say that a man has left the boat when he comes among "Brethren".

F.E.R. No, I would not. He has only left one boat for another. He has only come into a scriptural

system -- left a "one-man ministry", left the big boat for a smaller one.

Rem. I think it is very beautiful the way it is put in the New Translation: "Every one that has heard from the Father himself, and has learned of him, comes to me" (verse 45). It brings out the great point in it -- the immediateness of it -- that each one has to do with the Father personally.

F.E.R. There is no room in this chapter for the evangelist. The fatal mistake has been to confound this with conversion. Many a converted person has never come into this. They may have tasted that the Lord is gracious, and they are born again, and they are redeemed, I do not doubt, and yet I have equally little doubt whether they have ever come to the "living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious".

Rem. It is to every one that "seeth the Son"; He is a divine Person, and a divine Person in rejection.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. If He were not in rejection, there would be no drawing.

Rem. You were speaking of the evangelist. He has some place.

F.E.R. Oh, yes, of course. I was only following on what was said as to the work being God's. It is of immense importance to see that.

Rem. I think you have said that the work of the evangelist is to bring light.

F.E.R. Yes, that is it -- he enlightens. Of course, the evangelist is not a mere machine, and he may reason with a man, and all that, but the great thing is to bring light, to "open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light".

Rem. So that, although you may thank God for the one who brought you light, yet if you had not to do with God Himself, you would not have turned from the darkness to light.

F.E.R. Yes. The mere fact of the man getting

light would not do him any good -- the light has to become effective.

Ques. Is there not a difference between the scriptural thought of an evangelist and the way the work is carried out?

F.E.R. Yes, an evangelist is a wonderful man. I really can hardly conceive anything more wonderful than that a man, in this dark world, should have power to communicate divine light. He can go to people and open their eyes, "that they may turn" -- that is God's work. The evangelist has opened their eyes, but it is God's part to make the work effective.

Rem. It is like "diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all".

F.E.R. Yes. I think a man may have the gift of an evangelist, and very little light, but the more light he gets, the better he will be able to help people, and the more he will be helped in the exercise of his gift. If a man were increasing in the knowledge of God, he would become a very much more effective evangelist -- he has got more light.

Rem. And yet the more light that is given the less people like it.

F.E.R. Well, that is very likely, because you see that a man who has not got very much light often preaches to man according to man, and is acceptable to man, but that is a different thing from preaching to him according to God. I think the point is to present the light in a divine way. This is what the apostle did, without studying to serve it up acceptably.

Rem. You often find young converts used to others.

F.E.R. Yes, because they are in earnest about it. It is natural that the truth by which a man has been recently affected is in very great freshness. I do not think that if a man goes on he will lose his freshness. The verse, "keep yourselves in the love of God", would show that.

Ques. What is the force of verse 46, "He which is of God, he hath seen the Father"?

F.E.R. The Lord's object was to show that it was a spiritual work, and to keep them apart from any material thoughts.

Ques. Does not "he that believeth" see the Father?

F.E.R. No. "He which is of God" is the Lord Himself: No one hath seen the Father save He which is of God -- that is Himself: He would not speak of a believer as "of God". It is Himself:

Ques. I suppose you would say that He mentions that in connection with the murmuring in verse 43?

F.E.R. Very likely. The Lord is speaking of Himself all through the passage as simply incarnate, but in verse 51 He speaks of His death: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". He goes to that point now. All through the passage He is an incarnate Christ on the road to death, because it is only there that He can perfectly put in evidence His love for man. He must come down into death if He is to do that. I think the idea amongst us has been that Christ has died to make us dead, but the truth is He died because we were dead. You may recognise, of course, the fact that death is upon us, but the acceptance of it is another thing, and though it does not alter the fact that death is upon us, the point is that we might accept that we are dead, and Christ came into death for that.

Rem. As a man accepts death, the consciousness of the judgment of death is removed.

F.E.R. Yes. I see that divine love has been into death, and the moment I see that, I am free of the judgment.

After all, what is there in divine Persons but love? What is there to know of them but love? I am sure you only get to them when you love. It is he "that

loveth is born of God". You cannot touch divine Persons but in the divine nature. Scripture is very explicit about it: "Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God ... for God is love".

Ques. Why is it three times over, "I will raise him up at the last day"?

F.E.R. Well, it is the consummation. The "last day" is God's day, as I understand it. "Your life is hid with Christ in God" now, but in the last day it all comes out -- it comes to light. The Lord takes care of it.

Rem. I did not quite catch your thought as to the "last day".

F.E.R. The "last day" is God's day in contrast to man's day, and in contrast, too, to all dispensations. God will not be defeated, He will have His day. Man has had a good many days, but God will have the last day.

It is all a question of appropriation at the present. If we were brought into it actually, we should not have to appropriate. It is the way we come into the blessing now, but that is not the way in the last day. There is something still better coming -- not appropriation, but manifestation.

Until a man appropriates, he does not assimilate. It is J.N.D. who uses the expression, "assimilated into the life of our being". What Christ presents to us is assimilated and digested, so that a man really lives by Christ. That is the principle upon which we live now, but that will not be the principle in heaven. Appropriation will not mark heaven -- there will be no need of it.

Ques. Does this take in the thought of eating the "old corn of the land"?

F.E.R. Oh, no, I do not think so. It is all the great fact of His coming down to me; it is very much more akin to priesthood. I appropriate Him, in that sense, as a living Priest, and the living Priest would

lead me into the enjoyment of where He is Himself -- into life. Life is where He is. The old corn of the land has more reference to Himself as the Object and Centre of divine counsels.

Rem. I thought that was what He carried us on to here.

F.E.R. I do not think it goes beyond affection here -- it is a question of affection. The idea to me is that it is finding in Christ a complete and satisfying Object, so that I am apart from all that a man naturally turns to -- independence of all that upon which a man rests down here. Christ Himself was independent of all here, because He lived by the Father, and I do not want anything here if I live because of Him.

Ques. Was it not as sent by the Father, too -- He lived as sent by the Father?

F.E.R. It says of us, "He also who eats me shall live also on account of me", but we could not speak of His eating in that way. It was natural to Him to live because of the Father, but we only live because we eat. And how does a man live down here? Why, because of the world. If he had not the world he would wither -- he wants the world to live by. Now that is exactly where Christ was entirely independent of the world, because He lived by the Father. He found everything in the Father. It is a question of affection. He lived by what the Father was to Him. Here it is that Christ is indispensable to me if I have apprehended what Christ is as a controlling Object, like, "Where thou goest I will go", and so on. It is all that line of things here.

Rem. I think the other Persons of the Godhead present quite a different thought from that of Christ.

Rem. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

F.E.R. Yes. But then Christ presents a different thought from any other divine Person. In that way you could not say that the Father died for you, or

that He is a Priest to you. The fact is that it is "the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me".

Ques. And is it not a blessed thing that we have the love of the Son?

F.E.R. Yes. The old corn of the land is in contrast with the manna. I will tell you where you get something more of the old corn, that is in chapter 7: "This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet; because that Jesus was not yet glorified". It is the Holy Spirit coming out to report the glory of Christ.

Ques. But must you not have something of the company to know what the old corn of the land is?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. You do not feed on the old corn of the land individually. Feeding on the manna is individual, but not on the old corn. The moment you come to the latter you are on assembly ground.

Rem. And that is why the manna ceases.

F.E.R. Yes, exactly. When you come to the truth of the assembly, it is the old corn of the land. Manna is not the food of the assembly, it is for the individual, and I do not think you would be very effective if you did not know this.

CHAPTER 6: 53 TO END

F.E.R. What I see in this chapter is the Lord presenting Himself to us in three different positions: first, as come down out of heaven; secondly, as giving His flesh for the life of the world, so that you may eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood; and thirdly, as ascended up where He was before. The soul has to follow the course which the Lord has taken.

Ques. So that if they were to be with Him when

He had ascended up where He was before, that meant following Him into death?

F.E.R. Yes; and the Lord introduces after that, "It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing". That is what immediately follows.

Ques. The Spirit was to characterise things down here whilst the Lord was up there?

F.E.R. Yes. It is only the Spirit that could put you in touch with Christ up there.

Ques. Is the following Him into death what you call appropriation?

F.E.R. Yes, though not for salvation, but for deliverance. I think that is the great point that comes out in the chapter. You do also get this much, "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves". Verse 53 is a test. Then in the next verse you have the kind of person that has eternal life -- it is a person who eats His flesh and drinks His blood, that is, one who appropriates His death (verse 54). There is a great deal of difference between the faith in His death and the appropriation of His death. There are thousands of people who are in the faith, but not the appropriation, of His death.

Ques. The subject of these chapters, up to chapter 6, is deliverance, is it not?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so.

Ques. That is, you begin with new birth and eternal life in chapter 3?

F.E.R. Well, the introduction of new birth, as I understand it, was really to exclude the Jew. He brings in the necessity of the new birth to put the Jew out of court; the Jew had no more title to be born again than the Gentile, that is, "whosoever". Now if the Jew had a special place, you could not have the "whosoever" brought in, but it is, "whosoever believeth in him" -- Jew or Gentile -- "should not perish, but have eternal life".

Then when you come to chapter 4 you get the beginning of the subjective side -- of our side -- the "well of water springing up into everlasting life"; that is really the beginning of eternal life in the believer. Then in chapter 5 it is the hearing of the voice of the Son of God -- the full light of the love of God brought in -- and in chapter 6 it is the appropriation of Christ's death, and you cannot get on without that, because it means the deliverance of the person from the whole world-system. It is only by His death -- by the appropriation of it -- that you get free of the flesh and the world-system. But then again, if you are to be brought into full blessing, you must have the Priest. He alone can conduct you into it. "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me" -- we want Him.

The great mistake has been in limiting the idea of the Priest to the Jewish idea of it -- the idea of making intercession, and so on -- and not seeing that the Priest is to conduct us into heavenly blessing.

Ques. In, what way does the Priest conduct us in?

F.E.R. I think He makes us conscious of association with Himself. He has become man that we may be associated with Him, so that, as man, He may be the Centre and Head of a company.

Rem. And now He has gone back to God.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. But "it is the Spirit that quickens". The moment you have the Son of man ascended up where He was before, you get the Spirit, and the Spirit quickens us, so that we may become conscious of association with Christ where He is. You can very well understand that no one could have the idea of His ascending up where He was before, and of their association with Him, if they did not know Him as come down. He came down that we might go up, that we might be with Him, in association with Him, in life. He really came down in order to engage our hearts. You would not care to be with Him if

you were not attached to Him, and therefore it is that the apostle says, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha". Where you learn the grace of Christ is in His coming down: "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor". His death was necessary, too, for there was no way of deliverance but by death. It is impossible to find deliverance from the world-system but by death.

Ques. Does it correspond with what we get in Romans 6?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Ques. And is deliverance the conscious apprehension of it in the soul?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. It is the apprehension of what is the import of the death of Christ. God will not have to say to the flesh any more; He has condemned sin in the flesh, and He will not have anything more to say to it. Well, when I see that, then it works in this way, that I will not have any more to say to it either. That is what the Christian says in the power of the Spirit. He has put off the "body of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ".

Ques. You no longer look for any good in yourself?

F.E.R. No, you do not, and God does not expect you to! You enter into the import of the death of Christ -- that God will no longer have to say to the flesh, and it gives you a true estimate of it.

Ques. Every believer is entitled to take that place?

F.E.R. Yes, exactly. But it must be individual, each one for himself.

Ques. Is there any meaning in the appropriation of His death except in deliverance? "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood" is the maintenance of deliverance, is it not?

F.E.R. Well, it has to be maintained; but in that verse it is the character of person, the one who eats His flesh and drinks His blood, who has eternal life. It is

the appropriation of His death, or, as the apostle puts it, "always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus".

Ques. Is there an allusion to three "eatings" in these verses?

F.E.R. Well, the connection is maintained in that way, but what really comes out is that there is reciprocity. He is in your affection, and you are in His, and after all, no person has eternal life if he does not love Christ. Look at verse 56: "Dwells in me and I in him". The very thought of "dwells in me" is affection, and then, too, in the next verse, "As the living Father has sent me and I live on account of the Father, he also who eats me shall live also on account of me". Christ is indispensable to us. He wanted nothing but the Father, and so in regard to the Christian, if he has Christ, he does not want anything else. People talk about eternal life, and claim to have it, but after all, many of them have very little affection for Christ, and the whole thing is contradictory.

Ques. Has not verse 53 been used of the sinner coming to Christ?

F.E.R. But it is not the sinner coming at all. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are strictly continuous. They do not go back to chapter 3 at all.

I think it is immensely important to see that the manifestation of Christ was bound to solve, in some way or other, the question of eternal life. You get hints of it, you remember, in the Old Testament. There is reference to it in Psalm 133, and then, too, in Daniel. The Christ was in some way to bring in a solution of that question. You find people coming to the Lord with the question as to how they might have eternal life. But He did not bring in eternal life according to the Old Testament scriptures. It has got its solution, but it takes another form. The secret and ground of it now is the Spirit in the believer.

Rem. And Christ is the model of it.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so -- He is "the true God and

eternal life". But with Him there were no links to be broken, while now what we have is the mighty energy of the Spirit springing up and emancipating the believer. Then, too, we have the testimony of divine love in Christ's death -- we have that light; and now, in this chapter, we get the grace of Christ. He became a Man in order to conduct us into the scene of life where He is. He became a Man for that purpose, that we might touch Him, that He might abide in us, and we in Him. It is a very different thing from believing in Him. You believe in Him before you have affection for Him. Affection is by the Spirit.

Rem. "The Son of man ascending up where he was before" shows the sphere.

F.E.R. Yes; and what a remarkable way of putting it, is it not? For He certainly was not the Son of man when He came down, but the great point is, that it is that Person who came down. The Son of man is a designation of that Person -- the Person designated by the title "Son of man" goes up.

Then you get the great truth that the Spirit quickens, and what I understand that to mean is the Spirit indwelling -- it is in contrast with the flesh. It is not the Spirit of God acting upon a man as when he is born again, but it is an indwelling Spirit who quickens -- makes a man really alive. I think the great point in chapter 4 is emancipation; the water of life, which Christ gives, springs up to eternal life; but I think it goes even farther here. There it is emancipation from sin, but here it involves deliverance from the flesh and the world-system.

Rem. This has to do with the affections of heaven, so to say.

F.E.R. Exactly; it makes you responsive to the love of God. The first breath of divine love in a person is response to the love of God -- when a person can say, "I love God".

Ques. What is the connection between this and the Son quickening as in the previous chapter?

F.E.R. Oh, well, I think the one takes the external side, and the other the subjective. Of course, in one sense all was the work of the Son -- the whole thing from beginning to end; but if you speak of the means employed in us, it is the Spirit. On the one hand, it is the Son acting in concert with the Father, but on the other, it is the Spirit who is operative within. Here in chapter 6 it is the subjective side. The Lord is really rebuking them for having taken up His words in a material way. He says, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life". He had been talking about His flesh, and they took it up naturally -- the words that He spake were spirit and life. The fleshly understanding of the words of Christ profits nothing.

Rem. So that it comes to this, that only the spiritual can understand them.

F.E.R. Well, quite so. There is nothing that tends to lead people wrong more than understanding things literally and materially. If you try to understand things literally, you soon go wrong. Every illustration drawn from natural things, when used to bring spiritual things before us, can never be more than a figure. For instance, when Scripture speaks of new birth, or of the one body as a representation of the body of Christ, it only presents us, as it were, with figures, and we must not forget it.

Ques. Please explain what you mean by carrying things out literally?

F.E.R. Well, for example, the attempt to make out a mystical man. It is the employment of a figure which Scripture presents to us to show us the intimacy that exists between the members of the body down here; that every member is indispensable, and that all are interdependent, but you must not employ the figure beyond that.

Rem. And the Spirit would only give that understanding of it.

F.E.R. Yes. You take the figure up as the Spirit gives you understanding of it, but if you attempt to use it beyond that you will get into error.

Ques. How does faith differ from appropriation?

F.E.R. Well, I think that a person is saved by the faith of facts. I do not think you are saved by the understanding of facts. That means that you understand the import of the facts, which is appropriation -- what the divine mind was in those facts.

Ques. But are they not very intimately connected?

F.E.R. Yes, but they are very different. You see, it is a believer who appropriates, while it is a hitherto unconverted man who believes.

Rem. It is very important to see that it is a believer who is contemplated in this chapter.

F.E.R. Yes. It is "he that eateth". You could not speak of an unbeliever "putting off the body of the flesh" -- that is the work of a believer. When a man first believes, the death of Christ is apprehended in its value in the sight of God, but that does not argue for a moment that he enters into the import of His death. The beginning of that is baptism, I think. You see that the only place for the man that has gone is burial. You come to this, that the flesh has got to go, because it has already gone for God; but you do not expect an unbeliever to enter into that, and therefore I think you cannot be too simple in the presentation -- in the gospel -- of the death and resurrection of Christ. The gospel comes out in the way of a testimony, an announcement. The gospel is heralded, and where the facts are accepted -- not necessarily understood -- it is the salvation of the one who believes.

Ques. Is not the gospel the light of God?

F.E.R. Yes, I think it is; but then God does not stop to explain to people all the import of Christ's death, that is another thing. So you eat the flesh of

the Son of man, and drink His blood, and enter into the true import of that death in the mind of God. Then, again, you are "risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead", and you have come to the import of His resurrection. You get a statement of the fact of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, where you have brought before you the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but when you come to think of being risen with Him, you apprehend that the resurrection of Christ is the introduction of a new world. All, on the one side, has gone in the death of Christ, but in His resurrection a new world comes into view, and a new world not formed out of the wreck of the old one. Then I can say that all the ties that bound me to this system are broken. How can I cling to a world that God has done with?

Ques. Was this what brought in some of the difficulty here in this chapter, "This is an hard saying"?

F.E.R. Yes. A very hard saying indeed to people who are not content to see that this world is gone for God.

Rem. And especially so for a Jew.

F.E.R. Yes. All his hopes and expectations were bound up with it. The Lord's words meant the breaking of all ties which he had once recognised.

Rem. Then the resurrection is really the introduction of the eternal day.

F.E.R. Yes, it is. "Through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead". It is a most wonderful thing to be risen with Christ, all that tied me to this world broken. Perhaps I have still to get a living in it, and still to serve the Lord for a little moment, but all the bonds are broken, and I stand a free man. That is the power of the apostle's exhortation, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free". Morally

the believer is no longer in the world. The ground of deliverance is there for every Christian; the way of deliverance has been formed for every one who will take it.

Rem. And there is no other way.

F.E.R. No. The fact is that, as others have said, a man carries the image of the world in his heart, and if you were to shut up a man in a dungeon, he would still have with him that image. Now you may think this is a very hard thing to say, but I do think that believers very poorly love Christ, and they have very little conception of the love of Christ. Do you think that, if they loved Him, they would care to be happy in the world from which He has been rejected?

Rem. Just satisfied with the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins, and that they will go to heaven when they die. The latter part of this gospel brings out how much the Lord counted on the affection of His own.

Ques. When He says, "The Spirit quickens", does it mean that the Spirit can conduct you along that road?

F.E.R. Yes. Quickening and deliverance must go together.

Rem. Deliverance has more to do with the scene where we are, and the other with the scene where Christ is.

F.E.R. Yes. Every element in this scene is totally unsuitable to Christ: man, man's will, Satan's power, sin, ambition, no matter what it is. It follows that if you are going to live with Christ, you must be delivered from this scene. "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal".

As to the thought in verse 67, "Will ye also go away?" we have had the experience of people leaving us, as you know, but the Lord had just the same. Only think what it must have been to the Lord to have

that experience, conscious of what He Himself was!

Ques. And they were disciples?

F.E.R. Yes, up to a certain point. You see, it is not that people do not walk with us, but they leave the light. It may be that we offend them; and in the case before us, flesh was not attracted -- the only people who were attracted were those in whom God wrought.

Rem. Only those in whom there was something of the divine nature.

Rem. These were the sorrows of love with the Lord.

F.E.R. Yes; and I am sure one grieves over those who walk not with us. It is a matter of real grief and trouble, but what must it have been to Him!

Then He tests the twelve -- "Will ye also go away?" And then you have Peter's answer, "Thou hast the words of eternal life". They had that sense of Christ, whatever else was lacking. Now I have, in some measure, that sense of the company. They may not all be quite right, perhaps, but still it is Christ's company.

Rem. And what holds you really is Christ.

F.E.R. Yes. I do not think the point is that every one is quite to your mind. If it is Christ, and Christ's company, how can you turn away? Looking back on the last twenty or thirty years, what have we been doing? I think I should be prepared as much as any, and perhaps more, to allow all the weakness and failure of the company, as well as in myself -- but apart from that, where am I to go? The company that I care to be with, and where I am, thank God, is where the light of God is, in spite of infirmity, where there is light upon the truth. I could not say, dogmatically, that the Lord is with them, but what I judge is that the Lord is where the truth is, and it is my conviction that the Lord is with us. The Lord is where the truth is, and that is the company for me. Do you

mean to say that the disciples were very different from ourselves? I am sure that the Lord had a very great deal to bear with them, in their dullness, and hardness, and incapacity, and so on. But if there had been no response to His solicitude for them, the Lord would not have continued to give them light. My firm conviction is that the Lord never cares to go on with indifferent people. It was when Moses "turned aside to see" that he got light, that is, he responded to God's approach, and got light.

Rem. If you turn away from the light, then it is a case of "how great is the darkness".

Ques. And does not the principle that "he that hath, to him shall be given" hold good?

F.E.R. Yes, I think it does. If people remain in their apprehension of things where they were twenty or thirty years ago, what I should say is that they have overlooked the moving of the tent of testimony -- it is continually shifting. It is not that the word of God is altered -- the truth is unalterable -- but what I want to see is the way in which the truth is adaptable to the circumstances in which I am at the present moment, and not twenty years ago. I do not believe the children of Israel waited twenty years in any one place, they were continually on the move with the tent of the testimony, and if they had not done so they would have been starved.

Rem. And we starve if we do not go on with the tent.

F.E.R. Yes, we do; we should not get the manna. We have not got any rules as to how to get on without God, and it would be a poor thing if we had.

It is a most wonderful thing to be in the company of the Lord, as we see in Peter's words, "Thou hast the words of eternal life". But it is a most terrible thing, too -- everything comes to light. He was light, and it brought all the goodness of God in, while at the same time it exposed everything that was not of

God. "One of you is a devil", is what He said of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. The Lord does not try to hold things together in any kind of natural way. He held those whom the Father had given to Him, but He does not get followers together in any human way -- in fact, He exposed them, "One of you is a devil". I think it was in divine wisdom that Judas was chosen. Under the very best influences, it was shown what the heart of man could be: that a man three and a half years in the company of the Lord could be a traitor. There was a traitorous heart there, though probably Judas did not intend all that time being a traitor.

As regard Peter, he had, with all his faults, real affection and attachment of heart to Christ. It was his affection that led him into danger; there was real affection mixed with self-confidence, Peter had to learn to analyse things; he was really attached to Christ, but he was in a position to which he was not equal. I think the prayer which the Lord taught His disciples was, after all, very suitable, "Lead us not into temptation". If you are placed in circumstances of temptation, then you may pray to be kept, and you may be kept from it. We may ask not to be put into circumstances for which we are not equal.

CHAPTER 7

F.E.R. I think this chapter brings us, in a certain sense, to a new departure in the gospel, The latter part brings us very distinctly into the presence of the glory of Christ, and you have also the gift of the Holy Spirit. All that brings in what I might call a new platform.

Ques. What would you say is the difference between the gift of the Spirit, as presented here, and in chapter 4?

F.E.R. Well, as a matter of fact, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in chapter 4.

Rem. "The water that I shall give him", etc.

F.E.R. Well, no doubt it refers to the Spirit, but He is not mentioned. He is only spoken of in a limited way in chapter 4. What I mean is that He is not a witness of the glory of Christ there, but a well of water springing up to eternal life in the believer.

Rem. That is an individual thing, but here it is collective.

F.E.R. Yes. Here it is the Spirit "which they that believe on him should receive", and in chapter 4 it is "the water that I shall give him, shall be in him", etc. In chapter 4 it is the gift of Christ, in chapter 5 the word of Christ, and in chapter 6 the flesh of Christ.

Ques. You take the Spirit here as the witness of the glory of Christ?

F.E.R. Yes, do you not think so? It speaks of the Spirit in that way. "The Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified", and I think it is the bringing in of the glory of Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the witness of it here, that puts everything really on a new platform. It is the character of the time we are in -- not now Jesus on earth, but Jesus glorified, and the Holy Spirit given. It has sometimes been spoken of as "the Spirit's day", and I think rightly.

Ques. You mean the present moment?

F.E.R. Yes.

Ques. You would say that it is not so much the Spirit as indwelling here, but as witnessing?

F.E.R. Yes, it is. When you come to chapter 10 you find the relation in which Christ stands to the saints -- it is a new one. He is the "Shepherd of the sheep", and in chapters 11 and 12 He is glorified. I have been much interested in chapter 4 in thinking of the well of water. You see, the case is exemplified in a woman, and I have a kind of idea that in Scripture the woman always represents humanity. She is representative of humanity. Now what marked the

woman in chapter 4 was that she was a woman with affections, but the affections were all out of gear -- as you might say, ill-regulated.

Rem. She had no proper object for her affections.

F.E.R. No, Affections were there, but going out in wrong directions, Now the "well of water", as I understand it, refers to the Spirit of God forming and regulating in the believer right affections.

Rem. Affections having God for their object.

F.E.R. Yes; having God for their supreme object. You get the affections regulated. Man, after all, is an extraordinary creature, because he is capable of affections, but where God is concerned, his affections are perverted. But when the man is born again, the Spirit comes, as a well of water within him, to form and to control his affections -- affections which, naturally, were all out of gear.

Ques. Would you connect that with the love of God?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so; and the next thing is that Christ gets His proper place, too. The affections are well regulated -- that is the effect of the "well of water".

Ques. When you spoke of "humanity" just now, you meant what God formed, I suppose?

F.E.R. Yes; humanity as such. You will often find in the parables of our Lord that humanity is represented by a woman.

As we saw before, in chapter 5 you have the word of Christ, and really that is the revelation of the Father. It is no longer the Almighty, or Jehovah, but the Father. Then in chapter 6 you have Christ Himself as the "Bread" -- for complete satisfaction of heart, the affections all brought into regularity -- and Christ the satisfaction of the soul, His grace is apprehended, the grace that brought Him into manhood, the soul's satisfaction, so that you do not hunger. I think it is in that form that eternal life is brought to

us in the present day; there is no great outward change, but there is a very great inward change.

Ques. I suppose, up to this point, the man's need has been met?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The Spirit is brought in here on the last day of the feast to inaugurate another day.

Rem. It was the eighth day.

F.E.R. Yes; and I think what the Lord was bringing in was foreshadowed in the great day of the feast.

Rem. And signified by the feast of tabernacles.

F.E.R. Yes. Every feast has been fulfilled except the feast of tabernacles. The passover, and the feast of unleavened bread, and of the firstfruits, and the feast of weeks, the whole of them have been fulfilled, and nothing remains to be fulfilled except the feast of tabernacles, for which we still wait.

Ques. But is not the believer brought into touch with that which will presently be fulfilled -- I mean by the ministry of heavenly things?

F.E.R. Well, he gets something very much greater than a feast; a feast is always connected with earth. The feast in the earlier part of this chapter served to bring out the condition of the Jews -- what their spiritual condition was. Even His brethren did not believe on Him. It was not any advantage to have been of Christ's natural kindred -- it is most painful to see it.

Rem. And it is the same now as to spiritual things.

F.E.R. I think it is. The natural thought would be that it was a great advantage to be connected with the Lord by natural ties, but what we see is that His kindred were just as unbelieving as all the rest.

Rem. It is remarkable, too, that He did not commit His mother to His brethren after the flesh.

F.E.R. No. Here their only idea was that He should show Himself to the world. And you will find

the same idea abroad in the present day. The great thought is that if a man does anything at all extraordinary he should show himself to the world.

Rem. To be known openly.

Rem. And to have the world's approbation.

F.E.R. It is as certain as possible that, if men are not conscious of God's approval, they will turn to the world for it. I think it accounts for defection, and all that, very often.

Rem. But there is no support of the Spirit in that kind of thing.

F.E.R. No. In regard to the Lord Himself, He was entirely outside of it all. He does go up to the feast, but He goes, as it were, secretly.

Rem. If the world approves, it is too often because something is ministered which the world can appreciate.

F.E.R. Yes. There is some recognition of the flesh. You see here there was a sort of moral power about the Lord which they could not resist; and what a wonderful thing it was to see the Lord here in that state of things. He goes up to the temple and teaches. The Jews sought to kill Him, and His brethren did not believe in Him, but yet the Lord just goes on -- "He went up into the temple and taught".

Rem. It was the Jewish system here spoken of as "the world".

F.E.R. Yes. It is always so in the gospel of John. "Me it hateth, because I testify of it" -- that is manifestly the Jew.

It is interesting to see that nothing is recognised by John as for God except what is of Christ. The feasts are called "feasts of the Jews". It is all new here -- nothing is of God but Christ -- the old is done with. It is a great help in the understanding of the gospel of John to see that there is no acknowledgment of anything that went before; it is in that sense that I understand the expression in the epistle, "Ye have

known him that is from the beginning [or outset]". That, of course, refers to Christ.

Rem. And the introduction of the Son of God was specially new.

F.E.R. In the ways of God, one can very well understand that there is a kind of overlapping. God saw fit to take up what existed; but then, as to any kind of outward dealings with the people, it all came to an end, and all that remained, all that stood, was what began in Christ -- nothing stood but that; all else came to an end. I think it is a great point for us to apprehend that there is a completely new point of departure, a starting-point, and that point is Christ. Whatever God might see fit to work down here, either in regard to the Jew or the Gentile, Christ is the starting-point for God.

Rem. It began when the Word became flesh.

F.E.R. Yes; that is the starting-point.

Rem. And made available to man in death.

F.E.R. Yes. But then death was not the starting-point of life. Life comes into death on our account, but death is not the starting-point of life. This starting-point is Christ. "In him was life". We find life in death because Christ has come into death, but, looked at in the ways of God, the starting-point of life is Christ, not death.

I think we get here the extraordinary patience of the Lord coming out. He went up to the feast, not openly but secretly (verses 10 - 16); then, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself".

Ques. What does He refer to when He says, "my doctrine"?

F.E.R. Well, I suppose to the subject of His teaching -- what He taught. The Lord was always true to the position He had taken up as the "sent One". He did not take up a position down here of being a

source of doctrine, but He says, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me".

Rem. He did not link it with what went before; it was what was distinctly His own.

F.E.R. Well, quite so; it was not contrary to what went before, but yet it was quite distinct from it.

Rem. Everything that we have had in the preceding chapters.

F.E.R. Yes. But then all that was new. You could not find in the Old Testament the well of water, or the revelation of the Father, or Christ as the satisfaction of the soul -- the living Bread. He was solving, in a totally unexpected way, the great question of eternal life. It was spoken of in the Old Testament, and Christ presents the solution of it. The Old Testament predicted it, but Christ presents its solution -- how it is come to pass.

Ques. Why is God's will put in connection with knowing the doctrine?

F.E.R. Well, the Lord takes up a position in contrast to Antichrist. Antichrist takes the position of being a source -- but Christ will not take that ground. He is in accordance with God's will, and He says, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine". The great point to my mind is His having left the truth of God where it was.

Ques. How do you mean?

F.E.R. Well, God was God, and man was man. He does not, as it were, enter into that, and so He says to the young man, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one; that is, God". And I think I can see the great wisdom of the way in which Christ came, leaving things just where they were, and so He says here, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself". God, as such, was God still.

Ques. Was it not the great point in the Fall that man assumed to be as God?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so; and you see the thing developed in Antichrist. Even in the heavenly city you have God and the Lamb -- it is God objectively. The truth is in its proper place now, and I regard it as a point of the greatest moment that the truth of God was left just where it was -- God was God. The truth -- the revelation of God -- came out in such a way as not to bring in confusion between God and man.

Rem. But, at the same time, it brings in the most blessed relation between God and man.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so; but God remains God, and man man. Christ here gives up everything to God, "If any man will do his will".

Rem. And yet elsewhere it says, "He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes".

F.E.R. Yes. But the word there is really conferred authority. He had everything at His disposal -- all the wealth and power of God -- but He would not take the place of God here.

Rem. Although this gospel makes it perfectly clear that He is God.

F.E.R. Yes, exactly; but all the fulness of God was brought close to man in a vessel. It was all in a vessel.

Rem. "Before Abraham was, I am".

F.E.R. But that was true of Him personally. Here He was the vessel in whom God was set forth to man, in whom the fulness of God dwelt; but my point is that God remains God, and man man, so that you get no confusion between God and man.

Rem. Although all the fulness of God dwelt in a man.

F.E.R. Yes. He was the temple of God, and the consequence is that, the Son having become a man, through all eternity He will be subject. The abstract, essential truth of God is presented to us in the Father: "To us there is one God, the Father".

The fact is, that even in regard to Scripture, if

people want to know what it means, and to be certain about the word of God, they must have preparedness of heart to do the will of God. You find people with all sorts of questionings about the word of God, but what they really want is not to be satisfied about their questionings, but "if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine".

Rem. Otherwise there is the "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. To be carping at the word of God is just the state of the human mind and will at work, and not man in lowliness. I can quite understand a man having questions through weakness, but if he wills to do the will of God, he will have all his questions solved.

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory". That is a hidden reference to Antichrist, but the principle is true of any man who speaks from himself -- he himself is the source of what he says. "He that seeketh his glory that sent him [that is Christ] the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him"

Rem. He does not say that He was that, but He could not hide really what was there.

F.E.R. Yes. It is most wonderful the place the Lord takes here, a most wonderful place for a divine Person to take, to accept the place of being sent, and when sent He seeks not His own glory, but His who sent Him, and so He proves Himself to be true, "and no unrighteousness is in him".

Rem. Except for the Fall, in one way you cannot see how God could have been revealed.

F.E.R. No. Man would have known Him as a beneficent Creator, but he would never have known the love of God -- there would have been no occasion for it. The revelation of the love of God is consequent upon the Fall having come in, and redemption having been accomplished. Then again, I doubt how far

there could be the acquaintance with God of an innocent creature like Adam. God was not at all known by him from contrast; we know Him to a very large extent by contrast, through the fact of knowing good and evil. He did not make Himself known to angels, but our capability of knowing God is, to a very large extent, by our knowing good and evil. We learn goodness in contrast with evil, and we know evil in contrast with goodness. I doubt very much if a man could know God thoroughly if he did not know evil -- but he knows it.

Rem. Yes, and he is delivered from it.

F.E.R. I do not, of course, mean knowing evil in the sense of delighting in it. A holy person knows evil, but, by the very fact that he is holy, he abhors it.

Rem. He is made a partaker of the divine nature.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so; and He chastens us that we may be partakers of His holiness.

Rem. You have not far to go to know evil.

F.E.R. No, quite so. You find so much of it in yourselves. The apostle says, "I would have you ... simple concerning evil", which does not involve our ignorance of what it is, but our avoidance of it in a practical sense. "Be ye holy, for I am holy".

Ques. What did He mean by saying, "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am" (verse 28)?

F.E.R. He answers them according to their own state. They thought they knew Him, and He reveals their thought. You see, they could not possibly enter into the thought of a man here without a will, and that was the very position the Lord took up. "If any man will do his will". The fact is, the only Man who was ever in the world with a title to a will was here without a will.

Rem. Because His will would have been entirely according to God.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. The Lord takes the ground of doing all from the Father -- everything He did, and

every word that He spoke. The Father was the source of everything He said or did. We see it even in Gethsemane -- "Not my will, but thine be done".

On the other hand, the one that speaks from himself seeks his own glory. You get this thought embodied in the Antichrist. He sits in the temple of God, and shows himself that he is God -- it is his own will.

Ques. There are other antichrists, are there not?

F.E.R. There are others, but they are all of the same spirit. There are plenty of antichrists in Christianity. I think I am justified in saying that the Pope is the greatest example of it. You see, he speaks from himself, and if a man does that, any man, you may say what you like, he is seeking his own glory. You could not conceive a greater contrast than between Christ and the Pope. I often wonder that the great dignitaries of the church do not see the difference between Christ and themselves. But I suppose they think that Christ was rejected when He was here, but that now He is in honour, and so they share in His honour! I came across an address by one of them, in which he said that now that Christ had become a Man, He had put honour upon humanity, and that therefore the injunction could be given us "to honour all men"! That was the gist of what he said -- a most extraordinary thing to say!

Rem. "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

F.E.R. I only mentioned it because it shows what is in the minds of people as to the fact of Christ's having become a Man. They do not see what we get in this chapter, that Christ was rejected, even by His brethren.

CHAPTER 8

F.E.R. I think that down to the end of chapter 6 the prominent thought has been life. Then in chapters 8 and 9 the great thought is light -- the light

came to the Jews and they were tested by it. Chapter 7 is the point of transition, and brings in the truth of the Spirit, and the day of the Spirit, in order to pave the way to chapter 10, only I think that first the Jew had to be tested by the light.

Rem. But they "loved darkness rather than light".

F.E.R. Yes. It is the state of the Jews completely tested by the light; you get the expression in this chapter, and also in the next, "I am the light of the world". The effect of the light is to make manifest, and the state of the Jew is made manifest by the light, both in this chapter and the succeeding one.

In the introduction to this chapter you get Christ doing what even the law could not do. There is the case of the woman brought before the Lord, and in the presence of the light her accusers are convicted by their consciences, and go out, one by one. There was no bowing to the light on their part, but, any way, they are convicted by it. They could have executed the law, as far as the woman was concerned, but they are themselves convicted by their consciences and go out. The fact is, if you were to be really in the light of the presence of God you could not execute the law.

Rem. The Lord Himself would not condemn.

F.E.R. The law was the system under which the people were placed, and they had to feel the edge of it, and the light was here in the way of testimony, but not to judge. The light was the light of God, and by the very fact that it was light it was bound to expose all that was contrary to it, but it was not here to judge.

I think, you know, they thought of Christ merely as a man -- no more than a man -- while the fact was they were standing in the presence of the full revelation of God, of the One in whom "all the fulness was pleased to dwell". That was the folly into which the Jews had fallen, they judged the Lord by the standard of men.

Rem. As He says in verse 14, "Ye cannot tell

whence I come, and whither I go". They neither knew His origin nor whence He came.

F.E.R. No. He was immeasurable. He really had no origin, He filled all things. Nothing could have been greater folly than to attempt to judge of Christ by any human standard. They might have felt that from His words at the beginning of the chapter, "I am the light of the world", but instead of this they say, "Thou bearest witness concerning thyself; thy witness is not true". They were judging after the standard of the flesh. Imagine applying the standard and judgment of man to the "fulness of the Godhead"! I do not think you could possibly understand the chapter except as you see that they were in the presence of the "fulness of the Godhead". He says in verse 18, "The Father that sent me beareth witness of me", "my judgment is just" -- is true -- "because I am not alone, but I and the Father who has sent me"; that is, that if He judged at all -- "I judge no one" -- it would be according to the full truth of God. The Lord did not judge independently, or in reference to Himself, but according to the full truth of God.

Rem. You mean moral judgment, of course, for He judged no one.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. The light was not here in the way of judgment, but of testimony, and if God sees fit to give a testimony to man as to what He is, and of what He wills, it must be in pure grace.

Rem. The life of Christ here consisted in making God known.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The life was the full expression of God, and this must be in pure grace. He might set up a throne of judgment, and the light would be there, but that would be in the way of judgment. The light coming into the world in the way it did is of pure grace.

Ques. I suppose that every testimony of God is on that line?

F.E.R. Yes. Even the very last testimony comes in that way, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come" (Revelation 14:7); that is, that man might escape the judgment.

The great principle that underlies John is that the fulness of the Godhead was presented to man in Christ, and the second principle comes out in chapter 5. "The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will". "For what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise".

Ques. What do you understand by, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death"?

F.E.R. Oh, that is moral -- a man passes out of death into life.

Rem. It has been applied to death actually -- that a man never sees death at the moment of death.

F.E.R. I understand it to mean that the believer passes out of the region of death morally. I think that is the way the Jews understood the Lord's words. They use the expression "taste of death". "Tasting death" gives the moral idea, a man tastes the bitterness of death.

Rem. But then the Jews seem to go on to speak of the prophets and Abraham.

F.E.R. Yes. But I was thinking of the way in which they understood His words.

Rem. I had always thought that it was on the same line as "passed out of death into life".

F.E.R. Yes, I think it is. I believe you must take what comes out in this chapter with that which is presented in the preceding ones. The Jews say to Him here, "Where is thy Father?" (verse 19). "Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father

also". You cannot understand this apart from what the Lord had presented in chapter 5. What He had brought to light was the full grace of God, and this without any obstruction on His own part. There was no obstruction of sin or anything else on Christ's part, as there always is on ours. Now the truth that comes out in chapter 5 is that the Father raises up and quickens the dead. People do not rightly estimate that, but it is the only thing that is to be done with man. You see, if a man is in a state of death, there is nothing to be done with him but to quicken him.

Rem. So He raises up the dead to life, that is, in its moral sense.

F.E.R. Yes. I am sure you cannot understand what comes out here if you do not understand the presentation of life in chapter 5.

Rem. He was the true "candle" of the Father.

Rem. "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning".

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. He was the real, true expression of what He spoke.

I think this is a most important chapter; because you could not have the "one flock", or the "one shepherd", as in chapter 10, except as the Jew had been exposed, and it is for this reason that you get full exposure and conviction brought to the Jew, as in the beginning of this chapter.

Rem. And their exposure cleared the ground.

F.E.R. Yes; the Jews all had to go. He alone could say, "He that is without sin among you" -- for there was no sin in Him. But then that was not all the truth. He had fully presented the Father, and He worked in perfect accord with the Father. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work", and as the Father raised up the dead, so He did.

Rem. The man in chapter 9 gets eyesight.

F.E.R. Yes, and they turn him out. There is a great difference between the other gospels and the gospel

of John. In the other gospels you get the testimony: "the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised", and so on. You see goodness in the midst of Israel, relieving men of the effects of sin, and so on, but the simple thing you get in John is, "The Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth".

Rem. It goes to the very root of it all.

F.E.R. Yes; and it takes up that which alone could meet the case. Now it would be a very good thing indeed for me, if I were blind, that I should see, or if I were lame, that I should be made to walk, but, after all, the root of the matter would not be touched. And so, even the forgiveness of sins, important as it is, in a sense only comes in incidentally. The man who is quickened to a new life does not live as before. The whole position is totally changed.

Now here you get the Jews saying to Him, "Where is thy Father?" -- the most cold-blooded thing you can imagine! To me it is such a profound thing that One was here by whom the Father was perfectly expressed to man, without anything at all to hinder or obstruct the expression of it, and yet practically no impression was produced.

Ques. Is that why He said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"?

F.E.R. Exactly. Here He has to say, "Ye neither know me, nor my Father", and you see how they were all held back, poor wretched men, without any judgement at all; they could not lay a finger upon Him, and yet they are not a bit subdued. Nothing could have been more manifest than their insensibility morally, and yet they are not a bit subdued by it. Every word He said only raised fresh difficulties.

Later on He says to them, "Whither I go, ye cannot come". They say, "Will he kill himself?" to which He replies, "I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins". Where did He go?

It was where they were not morally able to follow. The Father was present in Him, and yet, at the same time, He retired to the Father -- He goes back to Him -- and where He went they were morally unable to come. You could not possibly bring sins to the Father. The fact is, He might come in grace to sinful man, but it is not sinful man who goes to the Father.

Ques. What is the force of "shall die in your sins"?

F.E.R. It is the totality of it -- the climax of all.

Ques. It is really only as Christ is formed in us that we touch the Father, is it not?

F.E.R. Yes. It is only in love that you touch the Father. A sinful man, as such, does not touch the Father, because touching the Father involves the calling, and that is sons. Sinful man, as such, has no place there.

Ques. And therefore it is necessary that the Father should quicken?

F.E.R. Yes. The Father's love could only be known by the quickening of the Father.

Ques. How does "The Son quickeneth whom he will" come in?

F.E.R. Well, that takes in the whole thing, as I understand it. When the time comes for a public work, then I think the Son quickens whom He will. It contemplates the complete thing, not merely that which is moral or spiritual. It includes the quickening of the body. I always connect it with, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming". Of course, that verse you quote has a present application, for the Lord immediately goes on to that; but still I think the "quickeneth whom he will" goes on to the quickening of the body.

Rem. It is not until then that a man is really free.

F.E.R. Quite so.

Ques. "Ye are from beneath" (verse 23), what is that?

F.E.R. It is all moral; He was from above, they were from beneath.

Ques. Like "The first man is of the earth, earthy"?

F.E.R. Well, no, that is a little more definite. It is more like "The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath". You must not make "above" and "beneath" to convey the sense of place. As a matter of fact, Satan is not "beneath" yet. I think these Jews understood it perfectly.

I do not think anything affords a more terrible exhibition of man -- of every one of us -- than the total inability of man to appreciate divine goodness. I feel it in myself. For instance, there is many a man of the world who would be very well content with a fortune, but, after all, what is the good of that? He may have it for a few years, but then he must leave it. Now the way God comes out is that He quickens; He makes man alive that he may enjoy His love for ever. If I had a fortune, I should not care to take it to heaven with me.

Ques. Is that the idea of the Son making you free?

F.E.R. Yes; delivering a man from every hindrance, so that he may have the liberty of the house. It is impossible for a man to be in a greater light than Christ was, and He was in the full light of the Father's love. "The light" is God revealed as Father.

Rem. We have been used to contrast light and love.

F.E.R. Yes. But it is the greatest mistake. What is that light which exposes? It is the full revelation of God. God reveals the very best thing, that is, His love, and it is that which exposes man.

Rem. You see that very best thing revealed to Saul of Tarsus, "a light above the brightness of the sun".

F.E.R. Yes. But he was subdued by it. These Jews were not subdued by it, and there are Christians who are not subdued by it. I see people going on, and yet they make no progress. It is not that I want to un-Christianise them, but I see that they stagnate.

Rem. I suppose that before the church departed from its first love their position was perfectly evident, but nowadays many people get converted, and they never know what it is.

F.E.R. No, never. You see, the church was the vessel of the testimony, and not the evangelist; but when the church lost its place of testimony, then the gospel was very greatly affected. Then they got into the idea, pretty much as it is at the present day, that it was the glad tidings of the grace, but really it is the glad tidings of the glory. Many a man has become a saved man, but he has not reached the glad tidings of the glory, which is what God wants him to have. Nothing else will greatly affect him. Man enjoys grace, but the sense of it may become dim. The right way to really get into it is to get into the light of the glory, and then you will have a still greater sense of the grace.

Rem. Not only to be detached but attached.

F.E.R. Yes. It is the glad tidings of the glory that attaches a man to God.

Ques. What do you understand by the "glory"?

F.E.R. It is the moral effulgence of God that shines out in the gospel; not simply that you have salvation for man, but every attribute of God displayed. I think the point just raised is of the last moment -- that is, the effect of the failure of the church on the gospel itself. The church was really set here to be the vessel of the testimony, and it is as evident as possible that people take their idea of Christianity from the company in which they got converted, such as the Church of England, for instance, or any of the other systems. If a man is converted among us, he will, in like manner,

form his idea of Christianity, to a large extent, from us -- and he will not get much from it. What I feel is this -- and another has urged it -- that there are two things which are very poorly known among us: deliverance and the divine nature.

Ques. Do you think that a man would take his ideas more from the one used in his conversion?

F.E.R. Well, I think you will find he will take his ideas very much more from what he is brought into contact with -- it is that which will principally mould him. He is greatly affected by the preacher, no doubt, but, in their own thoughts, you will find people connect the preacher with some "Body". The likelihood is that a convert will ask the preacher where he belongs.

Ques. What is the antidote for these things?

F.E.R. Well, the only remedy, as I see it, is that we should be in deliverance, and walk in the light of the divine nature. At the same time, I think it is a very great thing to present the glad tidings of the glory.

Rem. A person is ready to be affected by the preacher.

F.E.R. Yes, he is. But the fact is, you cannot see the thing really in practice except in a company. We have not "increased" as we should. We have increased in light, but I should be afraid to say much as to our increase in other ways -- I mean the "increase of God" in the divine nature and the enjoyment of deliverance and unworldliness.

Ques. What is really meant by "the divine nature"?

F.E.R. Well, the divine nature is love; that is the one word which expresses it.

Rem. My thought as to the remedy was that one should give oneself more to the study of God's word.

F.E.R. Well, I do not know, but I would rather set more on prayer, if I might say so. With regard to the study of the word, you cannot understand the word apart from the state to understand it. In Ephesians 1

the apostle prays that God might give them the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of their heart being enlightened, that they might know -- it is divine power to give you the state that you may know. And then in chapter 3 it is "Strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints", etc. You could not get at it simply by the study of Scripture, but you have to bow to God, and to look to Him that He may give you the spirit of wisdom. I was an ardent student of Scripture at one time, but I do not think I got things in that way -- not that I have much any way at all.

Ques. But has not your study of Scripture been very useful to you?

F.E.R. Well, yes, because, after all, it is a very great thing for a man to be set upon something -- for many Christians seem to be so dreadfully wanting in purpose, so earthly in their ways, and all that kind of thing. But then you want more than that, you want purpose; and when a man is a diligent student of Scripture, and God sees that man as a man of purpose, God comes in to give him state, in order that he may be able to enter into things.

Rem. He needs divine preparation to understand the things of God.

F.E.R. Yes. You must first get the state from God to receive them. I think you get it by bowing yourself in the presence of God, to get, by His favour, the state by which you can understand His mind.

Ques. When was verse 28 accomplished: "When ye have lifted up the Son of man"?

F.E.R. I think it must have come home to them very specially in the testimony of Stephen. His testimony was to the exaltation of Christ; it was not to His lifting up on the cross, but the testimony of His glory; and the testimony was undeniable. There was

the gift of the Holy Spirit, and then the overwhelming testimony of Stephen. They knew, I believe, that Christ was what He said He was.

Rem. But this refers to the lifting up on the cross.

F.E.R. Yes. I was thinking of the other point, "When ye shall have lifted up", etc., "then shall ye know".

Rem. Stephen speaks of their refusal as wilful sin.

F.E.R. Yes.

Ques. Is there any moral force in His being "lifted up"?

F.E.R. It is always so in John. It was a demonstration, it was putting Christ into the place of demonstration, into the place where it could be demonstrated what the true place of man was. They made a spectacle of Him; put Him into the place of curse and judgment -- man's own proper place; but the crowning act of wickedness became the crowning act of blessing for man.

CHAPTER 9: 30 TO 10: 18

Rem. It appears as if there had been a spiritual work in this blind man as well as his natural eyesight being given to him.

F.E.R. I should almost think so.

Ques. Would you say he was a kind of typical man in relation to the new company?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The point is in what the Lord says to him, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Not "the Christ", but "the Son of God". Then the man answers, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him".

Rem. I can see the new company in chapters 13 and 14, but I do not quite see how it is brought in

here. I would like to have the idea of these chapters.

F.E.R. Well, I think what you get here is the formation of the company. I do not think you get quite that in chapters 13 and 14. There the company is assumed. It is not quite the flock, as here. Here you have the one flock and the one Shepherd, answering to Jew and Gentile builded together. The point in chapter 14 is what is preparatory to their being a witness for Christ.

Rem. Here it is proving His own suitability to be Shepherd.

F.E.R. Yes. In chapter to you see the Lord coming definitely into the fold to lead out the sheep. The whole chapter is not occupied with the great point that He was to be rejected, but He comes into the fold in order to lead the sheep out. Then when the sheep are led out -- and they are the elect of God -- there is the election from among the Gentiles brought in, and one flock is formed, with one Shepherd.

Ques. What is the moral link between this chapter and 1 Corinthians 10 as to separation? The man here is brought into separation from all but Christ, and so, too, the man in 1 Corinthians to has to be separate from everything here.

F.E.R. Yes. But then in 1 Corinthians to the separation is the man's own doing -- I mean it is fellowship in the death of Christ, he takes that ground; but the point in John 9 is that the man is cast out by the Jews.

Rem. But they both reach the same point.

F.E.R. Yes. You see, the Lord allowed them to cast the man out really in order to break the links which bound him to the Jew. The fact is, if they had not cast him out, you would find it extremely difficult to understand how he could have broken with them. The Jew, by his own perverseness and contrariety, brought in the counsel of God. It is difficult to understand how the church ever would have been

formed if not for the perverseness of the Jew. I really think that those who were converted in the beginning of the Acts would have been quite content to remain where they were -- to be identified still with the temple-worship. You read that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith". It was just the perverseness of the Jews that forced them out.

Rem. The great point in this passage is the giving up of man down here, the being characterised by having reached the Son of God.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Rem. But the Lord Himself goes out through death.

F.E.R. Yes, literally He did, but all through the chapter He never attributes His death to man. He says in chapter 10, "I lay down my life"; and again, "I lay down my life for the sheep". You do not see the hand of man in it at all.

Rem. And it was for His own flock.

F.E.R. Yes; for the sheep.

Rem. And His death was the door for them to go out.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so.

Rem. His love for them was proved in that way.

F.E.R. Yes. And "therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father".

Rem. It is His love in this sense that is presented in the Supper.

F.E.R. Yes. What is presented to us is His death, and His love in His death. You see, it is all His own act -- "my body, which is given for you", "my blood which is shed for you".

In chapter 9 the one who is forced out really goes out before the Lord. It is in chapter 10 that the Lord

reveals that He Himself is going out of the fold; He was about to take that course Himself. I do not think the Lord ever took any particular course consequent upon the rejection of Himself by the Jew. He only takes it as an occasion to reveal the character in which He had been acting all along. When things come out and are developed in their true character, He then reveals what had been before Him from the outset. Take, for instance, the parable of the sower; you might think that that came out consequent upon His rejection by the Jew. But no, He only reveals the character of His acting all along; He had been sowing from the outset. So here, He had been the Shepherd of the sheep all along, though He does not bring that out at first.

Rem. He had really been the Shepherd of those who were His own, but it was not brought out.

F.E.R. No. The Lord really reveals what was the true object of His coming here when rejected of the Jews. You see, the Jew was tested -- the very presence of the Lord down here tested him, he was bound to be tested by the presence of the Lord -- but, for all that, He had really come here with a very definite object before Him.

Ques. An object only known to Himself, I suppose?

F.E.R. No one knew anything about it. It could only be known by His speaking about it.

Rem. And yet it was testified to in the Scriptures.

F.E.R. Well, no, I do not think that. They did not testify to the church, and that was the object for which the Lord really came. You get that coming out in the parable of the merchantman in Matthew; "one pearl of great price" is the church.

Rem. What comes out in this chapter is a great advance on chapter 4, where they say, "We believe ... that this is indeed the Christ".

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. Here it is, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

Ques. That is His title as on the other side of death?

F.E.R. Well, I think it was a title which was evidenced and confirmed in resurrection; Romans 1.

Ques. And is not that the basis of the new company?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. That is Paul's testimony. "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God".

Ques. Does not that, in fact, give the nature of the blessing into which the company is brought?

F.E.R. Yes. "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons". That was the object for which the Son was sent forth, that we might receive sonship.

Rem. Not simply that He might bring in the kingdom of God.

F.E.R. Oh, no. The kingdom of God comes in by the way, but the definite purpose of God lay underneath that, it had reference to the church.

Rem. It would appear so from the passage, He "loved the church, and gave himself for it".

Ques. When the apostle preached the kingdom of God, had they to come into the church through the kingdom?

F.E.R. Well, as a matter of fact, a man must begin with the kingdom of God. He certainly could not advance one step farther if he did not accept the moral sway of God; but then I think that is only the beginning of things, and he then gets instructed as to the purpose of God.

Rem. He is then in a condition to enter into the purpose of God.

Rem. His coming here with a definite object before Him really invests the path of the Lord with a peculiar dignity.

F.E.R. Yes. The kingdom of God really belongs

to this order of things, but the church belongs to the order of the new creation. The kingdom of God in itself does not consist of the new heavens and the new earth -- it does not belong to the new creation. It is God assuming the reins of government, and ruling in this order of things. It is the seventh day. But that is not so with the church, which belongs to a new order of things altogether, to new creation.

Ques. Are not both touched on in what the Lord says to Peter, "On this rock I will build my assembly", and then, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Ques. In what way would you say He came into the world for "judgment"?

F.E.R. Well, in chapter 9 they excommunicated the blind man, and why? The only possible ground they could have had for it was that he had made a kind of confession of the One who had opened his eyes. But what sin could there have been in that? The Lord fully exposes their motives. He was the Light exposing everything contrary to it. The Lord was the expression of what was in the heart of God towards man, and they were not affected by the light in chapter 8; and hated what was God's work in chapter 9. Both the light of God and the work of God exposed them fully, and things were brought to an issue: "Now is the judgment of this world".

Ques. And is not that true still?

F.E.R. I think so. In Christendom things are mixed up again, but then, I think, we have to retire from all that to realise that things have really been brought to an issue.

Rem. Morally settled before God.

F.E.R. Yes. The Jew has been completely tested, and his position exposed.

Rem. And that would include man generally.

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Ques. If man under God's culture was so completely exposed, where could other men come in?

F.E.R. But do you think that man in the present day would care for God to come near him, to come close to him? No; what I see is that they try very carefully indeed to keep God at a distance; they do not deny Him, but keep carefully at a distance.

Rem. But they often speak of God's love.

F.E.R. Yes. But their idea is that God will let them do what they like and never bring them to account. They do not understand divine love a bit. To let them run their own course, and never bring them to account, is their idea of love.

Rem. It is a wonderful step onwards for this man to be placed in the company of the Son of God!

F.E.R. Yes. But that could not come to pass until that which stood on the ground of profession had been completely exposed. The coming in of the Lord had that immediate effect.

Rem. And there was nothing in man.

F.E.R. No. He is affected neither by the word of God, nor by the work of God. The word of God did not subdue him in chapter 8, nor the work of God in chapter 9; they refused both.

Rem. I suppose, in other words, the fig-tree has to be cut down.

F.E.R. Exactly. Man, as such, is not affected either by the word or the work of God. He is hopeless.

Rem. He knows nothing more about the work of God today than at the time we are occupied with in the chapter.

F.E.R. Quite so. He may see it, in a way. Supposing a man is converted, other people see it, but they only laugh at it.

Ques. What do the disciples mean when they say, "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

F.E.R. They were looking at him as born in sin

because he was born blind, it was the common Jewish idea; but the Lord tells them it was neither the man himself nor his parents.

Rem. But he is brought to the front as a special object of the work of God.

F.E.R. Yes. But he had not sinned, if I may say so, absolutely or finally. "Sin" in John is the rejection of Christ. "Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father" -- that is the character of sin in John, and this man had not in that way sinned nor his parents. The Jew was in danger of sinning absolutely, and in fact they had done so when they refused the light.

You get the same thing in regard to the gospel, which is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ". When it came to man, he refused it. That is sin absolutely; there is no forgiveness for it.

Rem. One experiences great difficulty in reaching the Lord in this outside place.

F.E.R. Well, in order to reach Him there you must pass through the process given in these two chapters. There is no affinity between the natural heart and God's word and His work, and you must go through the experience presented here.

Ques. Is it analogous at all to Peter's leaving the boat?

F.E.R. Yes, it is in a way. Leaving the boat is, to some extent, analogous to leaving the fold, as here.

Rem. Only now there is no boat.

F.E.R. No. But you have come to the apprehension of Christ in the character in which He came.

Ques. As "good shepherd"?

F.E.R. Yes. But He came to lead the sheep out, not to leave them in the fold. He puts them forth. They had to be led out of the system of ordinances in which they were found as Jews, and they had to be relieved from the judgment of death that rested on

them. These two things were essential to the sheep; they were to be saved, and to go in and out and find pasture.

Rem. How very little we have touched the Son of God outside of everything!

F.E.R. Yes. But the moment we touch Him in that way, reach Him in that way, we reach the church.

Ques. Is it that you live by faith of Him, as in 1 John 5:5, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

F.E.R. That is touching Him by faith; but here it brings in quite another thought. You reach Him in His nature, and that is where the truth of the church comes in.

Rem. I suppose the character of a sheep is indicated by his partaking of the divine nature: "I know those that are mine, and am known of those that are mine, as the Father knows me and I know the Father".

Rem. That is a most wonderful statement.

F.E.R. Yes. It is something like what is in Galatians, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"; they had to be redeemed out of that position in order that they might receive sonship. That is very analogous to John 10.

Ques. What is the force of His entering in by the door into the sheepfold?

F.E.R. The answer is in what has just been quoted. It is not simply that He was made of a woman, but He was made under the law, and that in order that He might redeem His sheep out of it. They were brought into the new position, and because they are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts. It is the power of the Holy Spirit which qualifies for the new position. Therefore the Lord, as in this chapter, comes into the fold -- He is made under the law -- so that He may lead out the sheep, and when

that is done He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him.

Ques. Would you compare that with what you get in chapter 5, the voice of the Son of God in death; they know His voice?

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. But then He has come into death that we may be relieved from the pressure of it.

Ques. "To him the porter openeth" -- what is that?

F.E.R. Well, the great point in that is that He came into the fold legitimately, and therefore the porter opened to Him.

Ques. It has been said that the porter is the Holy Spirit?

F.E.R. I do not see that that is the idea. It is a figurative expression, and is used to convey the teaching that He came into the fold in a legitimate way that He might have access to the sheep. He came after the divine order.

Ques. Is there not a good deal the thought in people's minds as to following the Lord down here without death?

Rem. They think they can follow Him naturally.

F.E.R. Yes. There are sentimental books by the score putting Christ as an example. It is a very remarkable thing to see in the gospels that the Lord never gave much encouragement to volunteers. He called a man to follow Him, but if a man volunteered to follow Him, He put the difficulties before him. You see, if a man sets out to follow the Lord without invitation, he follows Him as long as it pleases himself; but what is the good of that?

Rem. Self-confidence must be broken down.

F.E.R. Yes; and all that kind of thing is a secret between oneself and the Lord, and one does not care to talk much about it. A man may be tested by the difficulties, but if he has really counted the cost he is prepared for them.

Ques. "That they which see might be made blind" -- what is that?

F.E.R. I suppose He is referring to their self-confidence. Jesus had said, "For judgment I am come into this world". He would judge the people who "see", who claimed to be competent to judge.

Ques. Do you think it is when the Lord is gone out of the fold that He becomes the door into a new world?

F.E.R. I think so. He takes up another figure, it is no longer a fold. The idea of a fold is dropped.

Ques. I suppose the going "in and out" would indicate liberty.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. He came into the fold to lead the elect of God out of the legal system of things, and to relieve them from the pressure of death which was upon them. You get the idea of it in Colossians 2, "Having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us ... and having spoiled principalities and powers". "And you ... hath he quickened", having done all that.

Rem. And in the assembly we are in a position outside of all that has to do with our responsible life here.

F.E.R. Quite so; you appreciate the good of the "one flock" and the "one shepherd". Christ has come into this scene in order to lead us out of it.

Ques. "Risen with Christ" really applies to the assembly, not to the individual?

F.E.R. Yes. The moment you come to Jordan, you properly drop all that is individual to become identified with the ark of the covenant, and then you come on to what is corporate and collective; and therefore the manna ceases, because it is connected with the individual path, and you come to the "old corn of the land". That is not for us individually, but collectively in a certain sense.

Ques. Do you not think that the individual line so

often detains us that we do not get on to the line of God's purpose?

Rem. But we have a good deal to learn individually.

F.E.R. Yes. We have to learn everything individually; and Scripture always takes up the part which is individual before it touches what is collective.

Ques. And the brazen serpent is individual?

F.E.R. - Yes. The brazen serpent is properly for the land -- it closes up the ground of responsibility, and they enter the land in virtue of a new life. Life is individual, and therefore the truth of it comes out in the wilderness, but you do not get the sphere of life until you get through Jordan. There are a vast number of Christians who know and enjoy life individually, but who never will know what the land is this side of heaven. The secret is that they give the preference to social life. They want piety in their social life. But if you cross Jordan, you are brought to the assembly, and then the social thing becomes quite secondary. You are identified with the ark of the covenant, and the prominent point is not death, but resurrection. By the light of Christ and the assembly you know how to carry out the social relations; and that is why the natural relationships are brought out in Colossians and Ephesians, to put them in their proper place in relation to the assembly, or rather to Christ. The assembly is collective, and everything is to be carried out in the light of it, and the relation of Christ to the church becomes the standard even for man and wife.

Rem. I do not come to Him as "Lord" in the assembly.

F.E.R. But you come to Him as the Living Stone. You come to Him in His identification with us. As Lord He is not identified with us. "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well". He is that to us individually, but as the Living Stone He is

identified with us and we with Him. It is of all moment, if you want to understand anything at all about the assembly, to see His identification with us, and ours with Him. "He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one".

Rem. That is beyond the thought of the Saviour.

F.E.R. Yes. You have tasted that the Lord is gracious, and then "To whom coming, as unto a living stone", etc.; that is the next step.

Ques. Does it not all hang upon verse 10: "that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly"?

F.E.R. They could not be in it at all except as relieved from death.

Ques. What is "more abundantly"?

F.E.R. Certainly not the idea of two infusions of it. It is the character of it.

Ques. Alluding to the Spirit's coming, I suppose?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Ques. In its full character?

F.E.R. Yes, the "well of water springing up into everlasting life". They were to have it in its fulness, not in any stinted way.

Ques. What is the force of the verse in chapter 14, "Because I live, ye shall live also"?

F.E.R. You live in correspondence to Him, in concert with Him.

Ques. That is more than mere dependence?

F.E.R. Oh, yes. You are completely outside the whole course of things down here. He goes on to say, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you". It was what separated Him from the world. He never was in the world; He was in the Father, and then you are "in me". Even when He was in the world He lived because of the Father.

Rem. In chapter 16 He lives in another sphere and He associates us with Him in it.

F.E.R. Yes; and He says, "I will come to you". Everything was so clear that He could come to them. They had no comfort in the world, but He says, "I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you", and "because I live, ye shall live also".

You may depend upon it there is nothing less known than Christianity in the full power of it.

Rem. And we are conscious of how little we have entered into it.

F.E.R. Yes. I feel how little I know what it is to have the Lord on our side. I have been greatly encouraged lately, in connection with Philippians, to see how the Spirit of God by the apostle insists upon it, when everything had come to confusion in the church. What is depicted in chapter 1 is not a very exhilarating state of things: they were preaching Christ of envy and strife; even the apostle himself was under the world-power. It was a state of things very like the present time: the church today is under the world-power. But when you come to chapter 2 you find him exhorting the saints to be "blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation". The Christian company at Philippi was to come out in all its brightness: "among whom ye shine as lights in the world". It is very encouraging at the present time, even if you take into account the ruined state of the church. You can see a company coming out in the proper brightness of the church.

Rem. That is very encouraging. And that is the special point for which the Lord is working at the present time.

F.E.R. Yes; because He is coming. I think there is the energy of the Spirit of God working down here, and you are encouraged in God -- you do not look at man.

Paul was under the world-power, and that is where the church has been ever since. They have tried to govern the world-power -- that is what Roman Catholicism has tried to do -- but, nevertheless, it has turned the other way. Even in this country the head of the church is the queen. At the beginning of the Acts the church was opposed, not by the world-power, but by the religious power: the high priest and the council; but all that religious power was scattered to the winds. And then the effort was to corrupt the truth by introducing a Judaising element -- that was at Corinth -- and then it comes under the world-power. The apostle was bound at Rome.

Rem. "With the soldier who kept him".

F.E.R. Yes. He was the symbol of the world-power. But the word of God was not bound, and so he wanted the Philippians to come out in all the first brightness of the church.

Rem. Her shining "was like unto a stone most precious".

F.E.R. Yes. As he says here, "among whom ye shine as lights in the world".

What comes out in John 10 is John's peculiar way of presenting the church. Paul would tell you of the body and the Head, but John tells you about the sheep and the Shepherd. It is the same thing, the same persons are spoken of -- they present the same thing in different lights. The Lord is speaking here to those who had the idea of the flock; Israel was Jehovah's flock, but now the Lord is revealing a flock and a Shepherd of a new character.

Ques. Is it the same as the true Vine?

F.E.R. Oh, no; that is a different idea altogether. He speaks there of the professing thing. Israel had been the vine, but the moment Christ came here, He was the Vine, and then fruit-bearing depended upon their being identified with Him. Here He is the good

Shepherd. He does not speak of Himself in that character at the beginning of the chapter; the proof and evidence of His being the good Shepherd is that He gave His life for the sheep. They were to be relieved from the pressure of death, they were to be saved, and to go in and out, and find pasture.

CHAPTER 10 (CONTINUED)

F.E.R. I think it is important to see that what comes out in this chapter, as we were noticing last time, is that the course which the Lord takes is not new, but that He came here definitely to the fold, to lead the sheep out of it. As we get elsewhere, "God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship". There was a definite purpose in the sending out of God's Son. He came into the fold in the legitimate way, but it was to lead the sheep out.

Ques. I suppose you would say there were other things connected with His coming into the world?

F.E.R. Yes. But all else was secondary, and it is of all importance to see what the divine purpose of His coming into the fold was. All else that came out -- the testing and exposure of the Jew -- was incidental, and the result of that testing only proved the divine purpose for which Christ came. Exactly the same principle is seen in the parable of the sower to which we referred last time. He was the Sower from the outset. Here we see the divine purpose in His coming into the fold, and every other thought is subordinated to that.

Ques. The great point in the Supper is His love in death?

F.E.R. Yes. It is essential to get the divine sense of what He came here for.

Ques. The sheep who hear His voice were Jews, were they not?

F.E.R. Yes; that is plain, because the Lord says afterwards, "Other sheep I have". I think the thought in many people's minds is that He came here, and the Jews rejected Him, and that, when His own people would not have Him, then He took up another character.

Rem. I have had that kind of thought.

F.E.R. Yes; that when everything failed as to His presentation to the people, then He takes up another character as the Shepherd, and leads His own sheep out. But it is not so; He just reveals to them the true character in which He came; He had that character from the outset.

Rem. He knew all things from the beginning, but you have to wait until the testimony is rejected openly for the truth to come out.

F.E.R. Exactly. It is the occasion for bringing out the real purpose for which He came here. We have seen the steps leading up to it in chapters 8 and 9. You get the same thing in principle in the Acts. The testimony at the beginning was to the exaltation of Christ, and that if the Jews repented, God would send Him back to them. That was the testimony of the Holy Spirit then, but, at the same time, the Holy Spirit had really come to conduct the company to Christ in heaven.

Rem. It is just the presentation of the two things that has rather puzzled people.

Ques. Would you think the idea of the fold was really a restraint placed upon the flesh, that is, Judaism, and that what they were to be brought into is the liberty of love?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so.

Rem. It is all based upon what exists between the Father and the Son.

F.E.R. Yes, exactly.

Ques. What is your thought in, "I am the door"

(verse 9)? Would you say it is a moral sphere of blessing for them?

F.E.R. Yes. You do not come into any blessing except by Him.

Rem. Through His death.

F.E.R. Yes.

Rem. It is the company, the flock, that is in view here.

F.E.R. I think the Lord is working up to that.

Rem. And there is no inconsistency with other testimonies -- the Head and the body, the bride, and so on.

F.E.R. No; every one of them is but a figure.

Rem. We have had the thought that John is very individual.

F.E.R. I do not think a bit more so than Paul. Of course, when it is a question of life, everything must be individual. Quickening, and so on, must be individual, but then it all comes in to pave the way for the flock; and then, when you come to chapter 10, the flock comes into view, and, most undoubtedly, when you come to chapters 13, 14, 15 and 16, it is not individual. And in chapter 17, what the Lord is praying about is unity, "that they all may be one" -- that is the burden of His prayer.

Here, in verse 9, it is no longer a question of His entering into the fold, but, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture". He is not now leading out of the fold, but it is a question of entering in.

Ques. What does He refer to in verse 8, "thieves and robbers"?

F.E.R. I do not know much about it, but I suppose there had been people who had come with certain pretensions.

Ques. They were not the appointed ones. What about David?

F.E.R. Oh, but this refers to false Christs, to all

those who had come with pretensions that they were Messiah, or something of that kind. You certainly never read of a true prophet setting himself up to be any one.

Rem. As the prophet Amos says, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son".

F.E.R. Quite so; any true prophet would have disclaimed being anything at all, like John the Baptist.

Rem. There is some meaning in the expression, "a stranger" (verse 5).

F.E.R. I suppose the flock come to know the voice of the Shepherd; they have a kind of instinct, and the voice of a stranger means nothing to them.

Ques. Is the Lord referring to His death in verse 4?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. He left the fold by death, and we go the same way.

Ques. His death?

F.E.R. Yes, it is really so. The point is this: what Christ came into actually, we have to come to in mind. There is nothing for it but that. What I mean to say is this: He came into actual crucifixion and death, but we have to come into it in mind, and that is a very tedious road oftentimes, and we are not very willing to enter upon it. Every one has to come to it that there is nothing for sin but death, and that there is nothing for the flesh but crucifixion. It is not possible for God to do anything on the side where sin and the flesh are. All blessing is on the other side, the side of resurrection.

Rem. Like "through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead".

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. If God operated on that ground, and you are set upon being on that ground, then you have to reach death and crucifixion in mind.

Rem. That is a very important point to reach.

F.E.R. Yes. You will never get on to the truth of resurrection ground if you do not come in mind to

crucifixion. A man has to be set free from sin and the flesh, or he will not know at all what it is to be on resurrection ground with Christ.

I think the Lord speaks of Himself here as being the door of the sheep, because in death He would open a way for them: "By me". A man must enter in individually, but then if he does enter in, he gets to the other side, and finds himself in company. I know that these things are beset with a certain amount of difficulty, because we want to get everything on this side, but it is impossible. God cannot establish anything on this side, everything has to be wrought and effectuated on the other side -- the resurrection side. There are two things after all: first, everything must be effectuated where Satan has no power or rights, and, secondly, where there is nothing but the divine nature. That is what you come to on the other side -- Satan has no rights there, death cannot come, and everything is formed according to God in the divine nature. "He shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture".

Ques. How far does this go -- "he shall be saved"?

F.E.R. Well, I have thought that salvation really means that you are free from the judgment of God, and from the power of Satan. You are saved out of the midst of a scene where sin and Satan's power and death are.

Ques. What is the idea of a hireling?

F.E.R. What I see in it is that, in the present state of Christendom, there are plenty of thieves and plenty of hirelings. The people who came before Christ were thieves, and those who come after are hirelings. A hireling is one who serves for wages; people take up the position of "shepherds" for wages.

Rem. I suppose thieves and robbers and hirelings form one class.

F.E.R. Yes. The state of things may be different at different times. At one time there may be thieves,

and at another hirelings, but what marks them both is that they care not for the sheep.

Rem. That is practically what the Lord found in the temple. He speaks of it as "a den of thieves".

F.E.R. Yes. People -- the mass of clergymen, for instance, if they can get a better "living", do not hesitate to give up their present flock, they look upon it as a very proper advancement. There may be, and are, bright exceptions (I have known some of them), but still, they will, as a rule, leave a flock without very much compunction for a good "living". Of course, looking at it from another point of view, I think it is very unwise for any devoted Christian man to limit himself at all to one little flock, for if he has any gift whatever it is for the good of the whole flock. If a man understood the reality and purpose of the gift he would not care to limit himself.

Rem. A shepherd must know these things for himself before he can lead others.

F.E.R. Yes. And, after all, the essence of Christianity is that it raises the question, not of what you know, but of what you are. And a man's serviceability does not consist of what he knows, but of what he is -- he is not effective beyond that.

Rem. With the hireling, when the crucial moment arrives, he flees.

F.E.R. Yes. There is the possibility of the wolf coming in to scatter the sheep, and the hireling flees because he is a hireling; but if the shepherd is the leader of the sheep, he is the first one to be exposed to the danger; he is before and not behind, and therefore he is exposed to any assault. That is evident enough. The hireling flees to take care of himself, and leaves the sheep to take care of themselves. That only proves what he is.

Ques. What is your thought about the "abundant life"?

F.E.R. Well, life has to come in, and they were to

have it, not in any stinted measure -- there is no limit to life now. The only limit is the Holy Spirit, and you cannot limit Him. He is a "well of water springing up into everlasting life", and the water is inexhaustible. I think life depends on what God makes known, what the Holy Spirit makes known, in us. What limit could you have to the love of God? And it is the love of God which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts. There is no life except in the Holy Spirit.

Rem. And that is eternal.

F.E.R. Yes. Because it is the other side of death. If you learn the love of God you are out of death. Death is annulled where love is revealed. Death was annulled in the cross, and Christ brought in the love of God, the testimony of God's love. "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". He died for us to abolish death, and if we live we live in the love of God, which is inexhaustible, immeasurable.

Rem. It is important to see that things are not repeated, and in chapter 4 the believer is looked at as having the Spirit.

F.E.R. Yes; that is my firm conviction. A statement is made, and you have to bear that in mind all the way through, the same ground is not gone over twice.

Ques. What about chapter 20, "He breathed on them"?

F.E.R. Well, He had spoken in anticipation, but when redemption is accomplished He makes it effectual. Everything in John is anticipative -- this whole chapter presupposes His death. His death proved Him to be the good Shepherd. Here He says, "I am the door" -- not "I am going to become the door". The idea is, I think, that it shuts you up to Him, there is no other door. I do not see how a man could possibly be saved except through His death.

Ques. And there is no other way of entering in but by His death?

F.E.R. No: "I am the door". I think He bases His title of good Shepherd on the idea of His giving His life for the sheep; it is expressive in Him of divine goodness.

Rem. It says, "more abundantly" in verse 10. It would read better, "very abundantly".

F.E.R. "More" gives rather a wrong impression in regard to it, as though there were two stages -- "life", and "more abundantly", but that is not the idea at all.

Rem. But we used to think that we had "life" here, and the "more abundantly" in chapter 20.

F.E.R. Well, the secret of that was that it was not seen that life was in the Holy Spirit.

Rem. Yes; it was "life" in the old order that people had, and then "more abundantly" was the gift of the Holy Spirit: that when He breathed on them it was "life more abundantly".

Rem. The New Translation puts it very simply, and confirms fully what has been put before us.

Ques. What is the idea of "go in and out"?

F.E.R. It is expressive of liberty. They used to say, "went in to worship, and out to service". I do not care for these expressions myself. The idea is simply liberty.

Rem. I never was very happy about it myself, because I wanted to know where it was I went out to service. There is no reference to place in it, or of service.

F.E.R. Now the wonderful thing is that you are kept by what is within you; the Jews were kept by the fold, but now you are kept from within, you do not want four walls.

Rem. I suppose the fold was the system of ordinances, etc. The sheep were kept guarded in that way.

Ques. Does the "middle wall of partition" refer to the same kind of thing?

F.E.R. Yes, in some respects; but then it was an enclosure in which God saw fit to keep His people; it was a middle wall of partition between them and the nations, but now that is broken down. The passage (Ephesians 2) goes on to say, "Through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father". It is in the Spirit you have everything now -- salvation, liberty, and pasture -- so that you do not want any enclosure. Men have been busy in building up enclosures for themselves. The Roman Catholics will tell you there is no salvation outside the church, and neither is there, at all events there is none outside the Holy Spirit.

The "hireling" principle prevails to a very large extent in Christendom today. Now suppose you were to be joined to some chapel, and had a paid minister (and that minister might be a godly man enough), and you may look to him for guidance, but what security have you for doctrine? People get to depend upon their minister for doctrine. That has been proved abundantly to be a rickety foundation with ministering brethren of any kind, You may depend upon the power that is within you. Christ is the Object of faith, and you are, at the same time, dependent upon the anointing you have received from the Holy One. The Spirit keeps you in the faith of Christ, and in liberty too. Christendom has gone back to the very thing the Lord died to deliver the flock from.

Rem. Only now it is not one fold, but many.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so. I only mentioned it to show how folds and enclosures have been set up; but now, in contrast to that, a man is kept by that which is within him -- the Spirit of God. It is only by the death of Christ, of course, that you can come on to the new platform.

Ques. What is the idea of the good Shepherd in verses 11 and 14?

F.E.R. He is laying the foundation in verse 11, and in verse 14 He is bringing them into all the good of it. In verse 11 He is giving distinct proof that He is the good Shepherd, but in verse 14 He tells you very much more what the good Shepherd means. You get the full expression in Him, the perfect expression of divine goodness. He knows His sheep, but knows them as God knows them in divine goodness. You would not know the Shepherd unless you loved Him, and His knowledge of the sheep is in divine goodness -- "as I know the Father" -- it is all divine goodness in character.

It is noticeable that when the young man came to Him, calling Him "good", the Lord turned it aside -- "Why callest thou me good?" If they addressed Him as a man, He would not accept the title "good", but, on the other hand, if they regarded Him as the One in whom divine goodness was expressed, then it was a different matter altogether. It brings in, as you see, the mutuality of affection between the Father and the Son -- the bond of love. No one could gainsay that for a moment: "love, which is the bond of perfectness" -- and what could you have more than "perfectness"? It is all of that character -- it is the knowledge of the divine nature: "rooted and grounded in love".

It is wonderful to hear the good Shepherd saying, "I know my sheep". Think of what it is to be known of Christ, and then, too, "I am known of mine"; but we only know Him as we are responsive to His love. To believe in Him is one thing, but it is by love that you know Him -- not by faith, but by love, and no one knows Him any other way.

Ques. When the statement is repeated, it is, "I lay down my life for the sheep". Is that the measure of His love?

F.E.R. Well, it is the expression of it, it is not the consummation of it. It is a circumstance in the pathway of love. There is no greater love than to die for one's friend, but with Christ Himself it is a circumstance (and withal how wonderful!) in the pathway of His love. The consummation of love is properly to bring them into the Father's house. I believe it is most important for us to see this, because, do you not see love preceded His death, and love follows it? there is no change in the love. What is expressed abides as an unchanging love. Although it has such a wonderful expression, the love is not gone in death. I attach as much importance to His death as anybody, but what I would press is that it is a circumstance in the pathway of His love.

Ques. A means to an end?

F.E.R. Yes.

Rem. David, in Psalm 78, is spoken of as a good shepherd, but then he was prophetic of Christ.

F.E.R. Yes. I may say that there cannot be anything more awful than the attitude of the Jews in this scripture. All testimony is rejected, and you see nothing but poor, contemptible cavilling on the part of the people, who did not understand one bit of what the Lord was speaking to them.

Rem. Redemption brings everything to those who know their need of it.

F.E.R. Exactly. That is the whole secret of blessing.

Rem. That verse in Corinthians, "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God" comes in here.

F.E.R. Yes, quite so; "they are spiritually discerned".

Rem. One characteristic of the sheep is that "they know his voice".

F.E.R. Yes; and that was the fruit of divine

work in them: "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all".

Rem. He rejects the Jews with all their pretensions; they said that they saw, which only proved their blindness. It is not that the Lord ever rejects people because they are poor, miserable sinners.

F.E.R. No, indeed; the Lord never rejects such; it is people like those in Laodicea whom the Lord rejects, because they say, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". Then "their sin remaineth".

Rem. I have sometimes wondered that it should say here, "it was winter".

F.E.R. Well, morally it was winter to the Jew -- the Lord was leaving them. It is like that verse: "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved".

Rem. You have said nothing about verses 17 and 18, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again.... This commandment have I received of my Father".

F.E.R. I think it is that He does nothing whatever independently of the Father; but here He was acting as a divine Person, and as such could claim to do anything that God did. But He never took the place of God here, although a divine Person. As He says in chapter 2, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". He could claim to do all that God might do, but He never took the place of God, He ever was in the truth of the place He had taken as Man.

Rem. And yet there were things He could not have said except as being God. He could not be other than He was.

F.E.R. Yes. Whatever ground He took as a Man here, He could claim to do all that God did. "This commandment have I received of my Father". You see that they never understood, in all these statements, that it was really the Father who spoke; whatever the Lord said, it was the Father who spoke.

There is another remarkable thing in this chapter: all through His death is not attributed to man, it is the good Shepherd laying down His life for the sheep in divine goodness. The object the Lord had before Him was to bring the sheep out -- He ignores man completely. "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself". Divine goodness expressed itself in that way.

In verse 16 it is the entire flock that is in view -- Jew and Gentile. "I have other sheep which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd". There can be no difference between that and the thought of the one body -- it is only a different figure. A shepherd is a head, only the thought of the Head brings out the pre-eminence of Christ, just as a husband supports a wife; whereas the idea of a shepherd is that He leads the sheep. It is in that way that the sheep are led really into worship, and it may be into the light of divine counsels. That is where the Shepherd comes in. The Shepherd dies for the sheep; Christ dies for the church. Every figure serves to bring out some more wonderful phase. All these different ideas converge towards the same point, and merge in one another. If you could get them all as a whole, you would have a perfect blaze of light; but the only one who could do that is the Holy Spirit, whose work is to put them together in you, as you are able to take them in.

CHAPTER 10: 22 TO END

F.E.R. The controversy which goes on in this part of the chapter only tends to make the rejection of the Jews more distinct.

Rem. I suppose they would think that if any people in the world were the sheep of God, they were the people.

F.E.R. Yes; and the words of the Lord caused a division among them. Some said, "He hath a devil and is mad: why hear ye him?" while others said "These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" People carp at the Scriptures in exactly the same way today. Their great anxiety seems to be to get rid of the authority of the Scriptures, and yet they cannot leave them alone. They do not like the Scriptures any more than the Jews liked Christ.

Rem. And it was just the same with the Lord, they could not let Him alone. Would you say it proved their hatred of God?

F.E.R. Yes, I think so. The great idea seems to be to get rid of any light from God, any testimony from God.

Rem. The time will come when the Lord will let them alone. He did this with the Jews even here in a certain sense.

F.E.R. Yes: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind". A great many people in the present day think they have disposed of the Scriptures, but they will find out their mistake. There is a living character about the Scriptures; the moment they come in contact with faith they become living. "The word of God is living", it has that character. Of course, as far as the mere book goes, that is simply the "letter", but the moment you get the Scriptures in contact with faith, then it becomes evident that the word of God is living, faith can use it in that way; it is the living word of God.

Rem. What you said about the Scriptures having a certain character about them, which is undeniable, could be said also about the Lord Himself.

F.E.R. Yes. There were certain things about the Lord which made Him totally different from anybody else, and it is the same with the Scriptures; they are totally unlike anything else. No human composition,

for example, has such a character as the Psalms, neither is there any human composition which can compare with the Proverbs. Plenty of proverbs have been written, but they have evidently no common ground with the Proverbs of Solomon.

Rem. But what was of that character in the Lord was only seen by those who had their eyes opened.

F.E.R. But there must have been certain features which marked the Lord off from other men -- I mean purely moral traits.

Rem. As when the soldiers returned and said, "Never man spake like this man".

F.E.R. Yes, and that was from His opponents.