THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (1)
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (1)
Matthew 26:36 - 46; Matthew 27:32 - 56; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22,23
JT Feeling that the Lord would remind us that this subject is to be approached in an intelligent and sympathetic manner, I thought it would be helpful, by reading the verses in chapters 16 and 17, to call attention to the Lord’s preparatory instruction to His disciples in view of His suffering. It is to be dealt with in no sense academically, but reverently, sympathetically and feelingly, for it concerns a Person known to us and whom we love and adore. The verses in chapter 16 call attention to the Lord’s thought for His own in view of His sufferings, so that they might be able to enter into them in some measure. He looked for sympathy from those that were with Him, and therefore instructed them as to His sufferings and death beforehand. In entering Gethsemane He made provision that there should be selected ones near Him in His agony. He says to the disciples, “Sit here until I go away and pray yonder;” then He takes the three known and trusted ones to be nearer to Him. It seems to me that the Lord would press upon us that the subject is to be considered by us as being feelingly interested, sobered, and holy. The apostles Paul and Peter would be representative of the saints in this sympathetic way, especially Paul who shared more than anyone in the sufferings of Christ. Peter refers to them very touchingly as a witness of them. The Spirit tells us in chapter 17 that the disciples “were greatly grieved”. There were two instrumentalities of suffering: first, He must “suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed”; then in chapter 17, “The Son of man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him”; that is, you have the Jews and their leaders, and then men, so that the race, as well as the Jews, is brought into responsibility for the killing of Christ. In Mark 8, He teaches them about it as if to fix it in their minds; and in Luke 9:22, He says, “The Son of man must suffer”; and in John 3:14, “thus must the Son of man be lifted up”. All these statements are to impress upon us the character of the sufferings of Christ, and to draw us in accord with them.
WB-w Is chapter 16 the first reference He makes to His sufferings? It says, “from that time Jesus began to shew”.
JT Yes. After the truth of His Person and of the assembly came out, He began to speak of His sufferings. That subject stands peculiarly in relation to the assembly. In chapter 17 He is seen as coming in His kingdom, then as descending from the mount He says, “Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer”.
JS Is it as the Son of man you view His sufferings here?
JT The Lord uses that designation of Himself as over against His special relation with Israel. He stands related to the whole race of mankind, which would include Israel as well as ourselves. It ought to touch every man, woman, and child, that the Son of man had to suffer.
AFM It is as the Son of man that He is on the side of man.
JT Yes, He is the only hope of the human family; the light that shone in Him was the light of men. The race must have gone into utter oblivion apart from the Son of man taking on its obligations. This should touch every one [p. 3] in the world.
CAM In chapter 16 the Lord refers to the religious element.
JT Yes; it is in keeping with Matthew, to call attention to Jerusalem in this way. “He must go away to Jerusalem”, it says, as though it had become the place of opposition to Him, and consequently the place of suffering. It had become that — a terrible fact. Elsewhere He says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those that are sent unto her”, (Matthew 23:37). It is called “the holy city” even as Satan takes the Lord to the temple, in chapter 4:6; it is also called “the city of the great King”, in chapter 5:35. These are abstract thoughts, but the murder of the Son of man in that city is all the more dreadful in view of its place in the counsels of God.
FHL Is there any significance in the elders being mentioned first in chapter 16?
JT I suppose the elders represent the responsible element in the people; the chief priests have the official place with the scribes, and would represent the religious side. The whole system was thus embodied in these three classes; so that there is no escape for that nation in the day of judgment when this crowning guilt of Jerusalem, and of that nation, will come up. This crime of murder was done after full deliberation; the leading classes of the nation were all in it, and since the crucifixion of Christ was accomplished by their united and determined decision, what must have been the terrible state of these heads of the nation! You see the chief priests and scribes taking a judicial attitude, in formally condemning Him to death, but in verse 22 of chapter 17, it says, “The Son of man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him”. The killing would be the act of the nations of chapter 20:19, but here it is men. The race [p. 4] is guilty.
ABP Is there any significance then, in the article “the” coming before “Son of man”?
JT I think so. One Man only is in the Spirit’s mind, whether the title occurs in the Old or New Testament.
Referring again to Gethsemane the pressure would be dreadful, as the facts show: “Then all the disciples left him and fled”, (chapter 26:56). These were the Lord’s own picked men, but they all forsook Him and fled! The pressure was so dreadful that man, aside from the possession of the Spirit of God, could not stand it. No creature under any circumstances could endure Gethsemane and the cross.
AFM Would you please distinguish for us the sufferings of Gethsemane from those of the cross?
JT The sufferings in Gethsemane were anticipatory, occasioned by the pressure of Satan — “the power of darkness”. He was bringing to bear on the Lord anticipatively the terribleness of death as the judgment of God, of which he had the power; it was the penalty of sin, and Satan pressed it on the Lord.
AFM Do you think the reference in Matthew to “a place called Gethsemane”, and not to a garden as in John, would be significant? The name itself would have some meaning.
JT It is possibly meant to convey the idea of pressure. He “comes with them to a place called Gethsemane”. It was deliberate; He had been accustomed to go there. Luke 22:39 says, “he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives”, and John 18:1 says, “beyond the torrent Cedron, where was a garden, into which he entered”. But the point here is in the word “Gethsemane”. It is found only in the “pressure” gospels, Matthew and Mark. The instruction is in the word “Gethsemane”, suggesting the pressure the Lord went through with His Father beforehand, all that the cross would mean. Satan’s power, as we [p. 5] have said, entered into it — Satan bringing this to bear on Him; not through human instrumentality, but direct, as in the beginning, after He was baptised, when He was driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Here the devil comes back again, as the Lord said, “the ruler of the world comes” (John 14:30), which alludes to this particular time.
APT “My soul is very sorrowful”, He says. Would this refer to His inward feelings?
JT Yes; whereas, verse 47 looks at the external instrumentality: “while he was yet speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and sticks from the chief priests and elders of the people”. Swords and sticks are weapons to affect Him externally; but Gethsemane was not that. The battle there was spiritual and inward.
JS Sufferings in His spirit.
AFM Was the conflict intended to divert the Lord from going into death?
JT Yes; to divert Him, if possible, from the path before Him of God’s will; that was the enemy’s intent; which if he had succeeded would have been a great triumph; it was what he looked for, having failed in his first effort to turn the Lord aside from the path of obedience. Satan, at that time, had offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if He would worship him, but now he endeavours to divert Him by pressing upon Him what He was about to suffer at the hands of God. Hence the Lord’s terrible anticipatory agony. It says here, “taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed”. The word “depressed” should be specially noted. Being truly Man, He was capable of that here, for He could not but recoil from the judgment of God. What unspeakable pressure was brought to bear upon Him, causing Him to be deeply depressed! The power of darkness
[p. 6] was there! Satan was pressing the thought of death as the judgment of God. The causes of judgment had accumulated; besides the wrath of God on account of sin, there was also before His soul the special wrath on Israel on account of a broken law, which He was about to bear. All that could but profoundly affect Him. The more we think of who He was, the more we understand how these things would affect Him.
JS Because of the condition into which He had come?
JT Yes; He was a real Man; perfect humanity was there. He felt as man should feel in view of all that He should have to undergo. All the wrath of God against sin was about to be poured out upon Him.
AFM Was all that of which you have spoken, condensed into the form of a cup? The Lord says, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; but not as I will, but as thou wilt”.
JT Yes; it was not to be extended over months or years, but, as it were, compressed to the period of an “hour”. In Gethsemane, He is not undergoing the actual suffering. It is what He went through spiritually there, Satan bringing the judgment to bear upon Him, and the awfulness of what He would have to face. He Himself knowing, as no mere creature could know, what it meant. He went through it anticipatively with the Father, taking the cup in infinite obedience from His hands.
WGT Does the presence of Peter, James, and John show they are brought into it?
JT Yes; He did not ask for their presence or support when on the cross; they could have no part in that. Here He is going through conflict with Satan. It is not yet God pouring out judgment upon Him; but Satan against Him, seeking by the terror of death as the judgment of God to divert Him from the path of obedience He had entered [p. 7] on,
knowing, as Satan could not know, what it meant.
CAM It would almost look as though Satan had anticipated another season to tempt Him when he left Him as stated in chapter 4; having in his mind another occasion when the Lord would perhaps be under more oppressive circumstances than mere hunger.
JT After the first temptations he had departed from Him “for a time”, (Luke 4:13). He had now come back in other circumstances with suitable and dreadful weapons. According to Luke, He was forty days in the wilderness, tempted; apparently the temptation covered the whole forty days. It was an extended period and afterwards He hungered; but here the temptation is very short. It is like the Jordan as compared with the Red Sea, it is condensed, Satan bringing every bit of pressure he was capable of bringing upon His spirit. It was not a question of mere physical death, but the judgment of God, which the Lord understood infinitely and from which He could not but recoil. His perfection involved this.
CAM Satan makes his supreme effort, so that if possible He should be diverted from the will of God.
JT Yes. We see here how the Lord disposes of His forces. He told certain ones to “Sit here”. He was not calling upon them to do much, but they were to be there. Then He takes with Him the three selected ones and began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed; but He went a stone’s throw from them. So that there were three distinct steps, for finally He is alone, although they are regarded as near, and were to be a support to Him as there. He was looking for their sympathy as Man, and even their presence would be a comfort.
JS “Taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee” — did He take them because of their special place in [p. 8] the testimony?
JT I think so. They had been on the mount with Him, and in the house of Jairus. They evidently had a special place, like “the first three” of David’s mighty men.
AFM Why do you think the Lord prayed the third time, “saying the same thing”?
JT On the principle, I think, of “two or three witnesses”; there is full testimony, in these three prayers, to what was in His heart, feeling tested in the presence of God as to the work He had undertaken. On the one hand, He could not but shrink from the forsaking of God, and on the other, He would be absolutely obedient to His Father. It was infinite perfection in man.
RAL Does He allude to His sufferings in saying, “But ye are they who have persevered with me in my temptations”, (Luke 22:28).
JT Yes; only that was said before He entered Gethsemane.
RWS What does “even unto death” mean?
JT It is the expression of His extreme grief, the pressure extending as a complete test; death itself was being tasted anticipatively. All was felt extremely in the most perfect way. The experience affected Him physically, but He speaks of what was inward: “My soul is very sorrowful even unto death”. He tasted death literally on the cross. Here, He is touching death in anticipation.
AP Does the brazen altar connect with Gethsemane?
JT I think so. Gethsemane would disclose the great moral power that He had to go through these things and to endure the judgment of God. The anointing oil was sprinkled upon the altar seven times, which is a very remarkable thing. It is not said of any other item of the tabernacle. Scripture does not say Moses was told to do that; it is, I think, expressive of the spirituality of the mediator, as [p. 9] seeing instinctively what it meant. The act was prophetic of what is before us.
AP Would not the suggestion of suffering be implied in the altar being of brass?
JT Yes, brass implies judgment, involving, of course, suffering. In Genesis the details of the altars were left to the altar-builders. When you come to Exodus you get the measurements of the altar as well as the materials for it.
WB-w Isaiah 53:4 says, “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows”. That would hardly go as far as Gethsemane, would it?
JT It is connected with the Lord’s ministry of relief for Israel (Matthew 8:17), which was earlier. In relieving men of their sorrows and diseases He felt and carried them in His own spirit. All this did not cease in Gethsemane, but was absorbed in His own sorrow. The cross was now before Him on which He would bear, not “our infirmities” and “diseases”, but our sins, involving the judgment of God. Gethsemane involved a change of position in our Lord’s life; hitherto He had been engaged in service according to Luke 4:16 - 22, but now His arrest and the cross were at hand and the disciples, instead of relying on Him, must look after themselves; (Luke 22:35 - 38). Satan was coming in all his power and the cup which the Father would give to the Lord must be drunk. In the garden, He looked for comforters; His sorrow is in evidence rather than the sorrow of His own, although, of course, this would not be overlooked.
AFM He came to Gethsemane with perfect intelligence and understanding of all that lay before Him; and then, when He came to the cross, they offered Him a stupefying mixture to drink, but He refused it.
JT When He tasted the vinegar mingled with gall, He would not drink it, showing that He knew [p. 10] what it meant. In Gethsemane, and on the cross, it was evident that His mind was perfectly clear.
AP Scripture speaks of Him as the Leader of our salvation through suffering. He is taking the lead here.
JT Yes; He is like the ark. He is, as it were, two thousand cubits before them, so that victory was assured. When the Lord spoke of His death to the disciples, He usually added that on the third day He would be raised up, implying that the victory was sure. It was the same Person who comes out of heaven by and by with the armies which are there following Him. Here He disposes of the disciples.
AFM To the eight disciples He said, “Sit here”. To the three He said, “remain here and watch with me”. That was beyond what the eight were asked to do. Would that indicate the special confidence our Lord placed in them?
JT I think so. It is a question as to whether or not we can enter into this matter, whether we can be disposed of by the Lord in relation to His sufferings; for He would dispose of us according to what we are.
AP I was wondering whether there is here an allusion to the disposal of the army in Joshua 8, where Israel took Ai. Joshua, it is said, went that night into the midst of the valley, having disposed of the armies.
JT That is right. Jehovah directed him to stretch out the javelin that was in his hand, which he did, and kept it thus until Ai was destroyed. Christ is in principle in the valley here and does not withdraw His hand until the enemy is destroyed. Through death He annulled him who has the might of death.
As regards our part in the sufferings of Christ, I was thinking of Saul; the Lord says, “I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name”, (Acts 9:16). The suffering side was an important [p. 11] matter with the apostle, and so it should be with each one of us.
AFM Is that why he speaks of filling up that which was behind of the tribulations of Christ? It seems as if others were not taking their share.
JT I think so. I suppose there was very little acceptance of suffering. Paul enjoins Timothy: “Take thy share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”, (2 Timothy 2:3).
CAM God has a wonderful way of estimating our service and devotedness as indicated in what is said of David’s mighty men. Much is made of “the first three”, and what is written is written according to the divine estimate.
JT “Jehovah will count, when he inscribeth the peoples”, (Psalm 87:6).
WB-w Do you think these are the first three — Peter and the two sons of Zebedee?
JT Well, I think they have that place; you may be sure that they came up to it in some way; otherwise the Lord would not give it to them anticipatively. We know that Peter suffered martyrdom. He tells us that himself, the Lord having shown him. The Lord told John and James that they should drink of His cup. We know that James suffered martyrdom by Herod. Whether John suffered martyrdom is not said in Scripture, but tradition says he did. Scripture says enough to show that the beloved disciple had his share of sufferings. Our last view of him is as a sufferer in Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus; (Revelation 1:9).
ABP But in these sufferings, they did not pass through what pressed upon the Lord’s spirit here.
JT No; the spirit is willing, the Lord said to the disciples, but the flesh weak. So we have to wait for their position in the testimony until after the Holy Spirit had come down, for these men were to take their part in suffering. This evidence of weakness [p. 12] suggests our incompetency without the Spirit, however much we may be subjects of the work of God.
APf In this case the disciples all fled.
JT Yes, which brings out the incompetency of the flesh to enter into what the Lord suffered.
ABP The expression “My Father” here would show the Lord’s sense of a relationship which He would not have when forsaken on the cross.
AFM Do you agree with that remark, involving the Lord being forsaken by the Father on the cross?
JT Certainly; that is, the sense of His relation with the Father would be broken; for the abandonment would be complete.
APT The intimacy is sustained in Gethsemane throughout. There is no suggestion of abandonment there.
JT No. The relation with His Father is there in full consciousness, and after the abandonment on the cross He says, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”, but as abandoned, He says, “My God”, not “My Father”.
AP Is the Trinity involved in the expression, “my God”? I am seeking help as to the relationship with the Father being broken.
JT The Person who was dying was divine, but a divine Person as Man. We must not attempt to enter into the inscrutable. Here we have before us God and Man. Christ having taken a vicarious place on behalf of men on the cross, is forsaken of God. He says, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Christ is as man in man’s place. It is not a son with a father, but Man asking God, as His God, why He forsook Him. He was dying as Man, but He never ceased to be a divine Person. To represent Him as having active part in the Deity while He was on the cross is confusion of thought and weakens the reality of the forsaking which He was enduring. The consciousness of relationship could not exist during [p. 13] the forsaking, otherwise the word could not apply and hence there would be no atonement. The abandonment was absolutely and infinitely real.
WB-w He died as the Son; not merely as Man.
JT Yes; sonship alludes to Him as Man, but implies that He is a divine Person, a divine Person in human condition; for none but a divine Person could effect atonement. We must have our minds controlled, by Scripture — the way the Spirit of God puts the truth. Scripture speaks of God not sparing His own Son, and of the death of His Son to show what God surrendered in love, also to show how great the Person given is; but this does not weaken the fact that on the cross Christ was meeting God about sin on behalf of men as Man; and that He was thus regarded and dealt with as if the sins He bore were His own. It is impossible to introduce conscious relationship with His Father or active part in the Deity into this position. Nor can we rightly say that Christ died only as regards His humanity, that Person died. He committed His spirit to His Father. His spirit was Himself, but as Man and without His body He went to Paradise, and so opened up the place for man; the saved thief would be with Him there. In all this He was working out the counsels of God and hence retained man’s place — His divine Personality — being unchanged.
AP In Colossians 1:22 it says, “yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”. Who does the “it” refer to?
JT The “it” there is the “fullness”: “for in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”, verse 19. The words “of the Godhead” are not in the original, they are put in to make sense in English; but it means that all that God is, was there in Him. The neuter is employed in the New Translation, but it is the Deity that is acting. One of the divine Persons became Man to effect God’s [p. 14] thoughts, but the Deity remains; it is not impaired at all, even though One of the Persons of it has become Man and hence is great enough for the Deity to dwell in Him as Man. You bow to that, owning at the same time that it is beyond you to compass.
ARS The Lord took a body in order that He might die. Doing so enabled Him to die as in flesh and blood condition.
JT Quite; and in that body, He has never ceased to be a divine Person; but to talk of Him as being God actively, as forsaken on the cross is confusion. He speaks as Man to God; He says, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
JS So that in His coming into manhood, we are able to follow Him intelligently in all that He does from the manger to the cross.
JT Quite so; we have to apprehend Him as the Spirit of God presents Him to us. We are not great enough to hold Him in our minds as God and Man at the same time. One divine Person becoming Man, does not alter or weaken the Deity. But all this is too vast for us to compass; our wisdom is to think and speak as Scripture presents the truth.
Ques Does, then, the abandonment mean that the link between Father and Son had ceased?
JT The relationship, of course, remained, but the conscious link must have ceased, for He was bearing the judgment; He was made sin; communion had ceased. You cannot bring in communion with God there. He was actually made sin. He was the Victim as in flesh and blood, and that condition was laid down and not revived. The Person who laid it down as under the judgment of God was raised, but in another and wholly new condition. The condition to which our guilt and the state that occasioned it could be attached, was laid down never to be revived. But the Person who died was victoriously raised [p. 15] in a condition of manhood answering to the eternal purpose of God.
CAM As in the type of the sin offering, the victim’s blood was carried into the holiest, and its carcass was burned outside the camp.
JT Quite. That means that the judgment was absolute; it is a complete termination of all that we are as affected by sin.
AFM Might we go back to chapter 26 to ask whether the Lord in coming to the disciples the third time, came as victorious over Satan?
JT Yes; He was perfectly calm; henceforth you hear nothing more of depression or of sorrow or of sweat as great drops of blood falling to the ground.
Ques Why did the Lord not awaken the disciples the second time?
JT Their inability to watch with Him was clear and He leaves them. Having prayed the third time, He says, “Sleep on now and take your rest”. That phase is completed.
JS That conflict is over.
JT Yes; He is perfectly composed now to face the judgment of God and all that Satan and men, as let loose, could do against Him. He speaks, too, in perfect obedience; He had settled the whole matter with His Father. He wanted them to be with Him in it, but they had failed Him; nevertheless He settled it absolutely.
Ques “And going forward a little, he fell upon his face” — There seems to be much meaning in that expression?
JT The agony was most intense; falling on His face, would show how He accepted things and felt them before God. The meaning of this action is clear from Old Testament examples, especially those of Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16.
WB-w There is the settling of the matter [p. 16] with His Father in Gethsemane, and then actually being forsaken on the cross.
JT He also met Satan in Gethsemane as remarked already; Satan was pressing Him, He prayed, and finally Satan is defeated.
CAM So that the cup was taken from His Father?
JT Yes, Satan would put it into His hand, but it was taken from His Father.
AR In Matthew, you do not get any mention of the angel strengthening Him, as you do in Luke. Does that emphasise the pressure?
JT Luke brings out the sympathy side. There is no forsaking recorded there. The Lord makes the way for us, more, to come into it in martyr character.
JS I suppose the spiritual sufferings of the Lord are more difficult for us to apprehend than the physical sufferings of the cross.
JT I think so. That is why I thought we might dwell on Gethsemane. Those who go forward in the testimony of the Lord, have to suffer the exposure, for there are the direct frontal attacks of the devil on your spirit when there is no one near you at all. If you are really in the conflict the pressure is there night and day. As in the conflict, the pressure upon you continues, whether through men or direct from the devil.
AFM Would you make the thought of continual pressure upon us a little clearer? Possibly some of us do not know much about the conflict in relation to the testimony.
JT Well, connected with the tabernacle there were eleven curtains of goat’s hair for a tent over the tabernacle, the extra one was to be doubled in the front of it; suggesting that those who are in the forefront of the conflict have to meet the enemy as he comes, even before others know anything of the attack. Gethsemane implies this. You would like [p. 17] to have the brethren with you, but they may not be ready.
JS So the nearer we are to Christ, the more we should feel things in our spirits.
JT The enemy would say, You had better compromise or turn aside altogether; but you have recourse to prayer.
JS Hence the great privilege that these three had of being with the Lord in the conflict.
JT Well, they would encounter the enemy themselves later. The Lord knew that, and would bring them into the conflict with Himself. No doubt they would revert to this great event.
AP Would you distinguish between suffering on account of righteousness, and the sufferings in Gethsemane?
JT “Suffering on account of righteousness” would be from man. The sufferings in Gethsemane were mainly from the pressure Satan brought upon the Lord’s spirit; He went through it in prayer and came out victorious.
TH Should the three disciples, being with Him on the mount, have been helped in view of these sufferings?
JT Yes; that is what the Lord intended; as they came down He spoke to them of His sufferings; (Matthew 17:12).
RDG Just what is involved in “watch with me”?
JT How great the privilege to be called to watch with Him in that hour! It was outwardly the hour of His enemies and the power of darkness. It is a military position: the enemy is attacking; and we want to be intelligent as to things — for it is a question of temptation — “that ye enter not into temptation”. The enemy would say, Compromise; Do not go so far ahead; You are too extreme; that he might [p. 18] turn us aside.
JS You are giving it a present application now?
JT Yes, the temptation was there for them, but we must learn from what is recorded, for we have to meet the enemy too.
AFM The position is like being baptised for the dead; we must fill the ranks, taking our place at the front as in 1 Corinthians 15.
JT Yes, it is a military position; and the utmost vigilance is required. Warfare means vigilance. “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation”. The enemy’s attacks take the form of temptation.
JS How do you view the temptation that the Lord had? Was it a question of whether He should take the cup from Satan or from His Father?
JT It was a question as to whether He should take it at all. It was right that He should shrink from it, but He accepted it from God, in unswerving obedience, which is the ground we should always take.
WGT What is your thought about His not getting any answer to His prayer?
JT Well, there is no outward answer as, for instance, in John 12:28, but the will of God that He should drink the cup was clear. Our Lord’s exercises and prayers here present infinite perfection in Man and should command our profoundest spiritual admiration and reverence. It was perfect manhood.
AP Would you say that moving in the will of God keeps us in the boundaries where the sufferings might be encountered? We encounter other sufferings outside the will of God.
JT The latter may be sufferings for sin; Peter says Christ suffered once for sins, so that we do not need thus to suffer. But the government of God may require this because of bad conduct. The path of the will of God brings in sufferings from men and Satan.
Before we close, it may be pointed out that there three groups at the cross: First, we have those that do not understand the Lord’s language. He cried out saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” and then we have the interpretation of those memorable words, of which we should take notice. They are the actual words He uttered, quoting from Psalm 22. Then in verse 47 it says: “And some of those who stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calls for Elias. And immediately one of them running and getting a sponge, having filled it with vinegar and fixed it on a reed, gave him to drink. But the rest said, Let be; let us see if Elias comes to save him”. One would call attention to that first. This group of persons does not understand the Lord’s words on the cross, yet the Spirit of God gives them in the original language in which the Lord spoke, and then the translation of it is given in Greek. Now, of course, we have the latter in English.
JS Lest there be any misunderstanding as to what it meant.
JT And this all enters into what we were saying; it is the realisation of what the abandonment meant. There were persons there who did not understand this language; they said, “This man calls for Elias”. Of course, there is a relation between Eli and Elias; but they made the Lord an idolator. “This man calls for Elias”, they say — a group of persons making Him a mere man calling on another man. Then the passage says, “And Jesus, having again cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost. And lo, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many”. And then in verse 54 it says, “But the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things that took place,
[p. 20] feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God”. That is another set of people — the centurion and those that are with Him; they are not misunderstanding the language; but are affected by the testimony and say, “Truly this man was Son of God”.
And then there is the group in verses 55, 56. “There were there many women beholding from afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee ministering to him, among whom was Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”. I thought it well to consider these three sets of persons seen alongside of the cross, as you might say, one set of persons that did not understand the Lord’s language, although He spoke plainly; and another set of persons, military, who were actually affected by what happened, and made a confession; and a final set of persons that followed Him from Galilee and were there in sympathy. I believe that is the position today.
JS The mother of the sons of Zebedee is mentioned here. Her presence here is remarkable.
AFM This military group own Him as the Son of God; they confess who He was even as on the cross. Over against them there were the passers by who said, “If thou art Son of God, descend from the cross”. They, with the chief priests, scribes and elders, ridicule His claim to sonship, whereas these military confess who He is.
JT These military Romans are capable of being affected by the testimony rendered. This indicates the position today; there are those that do not understand the language, and they ridicule, and would make the Lord an idolator as calling on another man in heaven to help Him; and there are those that are there officially (they are not mere sightseers), and they are affected by what happened. There are actual persons affected by the testimony; so that we [p. 21] need not give up at any time; at the darkest hour, you may look for results.
JS Would this first group represent the Jewish race in responsibility?
JT No doubt; they are the ones who do not understand, although they should, because what the Lord cried out is a quotation from the Psalms. They thought He was calling for Elias, which exhibits the state they were in, for ordinarily they should have understood it.
It is very remarkable that the Romans should come in here. Not only the centurion confesses that Jesus was Son of God, but those also that were with him.
JS Would the light reaching that officer’s heart, indicate that the light was going out to the Gentiles?.
JT Well, no doubt; these are the first Gentiles in Scripture to confess the Son of God. But note what is presented in verses 51 - 53; it is to call attention to the testimony. The passage says, “the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. But the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things that took place, feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God”. Hence it is the idea of testimony affecting them; so that we should never give up; in the darkest hour, the testimony will yield results. The next group is the women, who represent fellowship; with these I think the scene at the cross properly finishes.
JS Does it not show remarkable progress in the testimony in spite [p. 22] of the opposition?
JT It is the beginning of a great harvest. Matthew tells us earlier about “the field”; in this passage it is yielding.
CAM It would seem as if God would cause creation, as well as this Roman — representing the powers that then were — to pay a tribute to His Son.
ABP Does the fact that the two Marys are mentioned suggest that these women had been brought into fellowship with His sufferings?.
JT I think so. The name means bitterness. John gives three Marys at the cross. They are truly in fellowship; they had followed Him from Galilee ministering to Him, and are here because of their love for Him.
JS They are in the fellowship of His death.
AP Philippians speaks of the “fellowship of his sufferings”. These women had part in this.
WB-w Do you think these groups would run on to the present day?
JT I do. We should belong to the third. They represent the love side. They followed Him from Galilee, ministering to Him. John says they were standing by the cross of Jesus.
APT Is not the title of Psalm 22 feminine. It has an excellent finish: “They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it”.
JT Yes; “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation”. Such a generation will be to His credit. “And shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it”.
JS It seems the earthquake specially moved the military.
JT Yes; “and the things that took place”. The point is — the testimony there was not fruitless.
FHL Was there intelligence in the second class and love in [p. 23] the third?
JT That is right; the former determined by what occurred that “Truly this man was Son of God”.
JEH Referring to the Lord’s words, “If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”, (Matthew 16:24). Would that be illustrated by the women here? They were publicly identified with Christ as crucified.
JT Yes. In chapter 16, where the Lord tells about His sufferings, Peter says, “this shall in no wise be unto thee”, (verse 22). He would turn Him aside; he was doing what Satan sought to do in Gethsemane, and so the Lord says, “Get away behind me, Satan”. Any one of us might turn another aside from the sufferings involved in the path of the will of God, so the Lord says, “If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”.