MARK 14
CAC This incident of the woman shows that the gospel is to have its answer, and I think that would be the desire of every heart that had been affected by the gospel. There was the ability of affection here to perceive in the Lord that which commanded it in contrast to the whole character of things here, because it is not a resurrection scene here, as it is in John 12.
The house of Simon the leper seems to suggest a scene that had been marked by uncleanness, but there was a heart there that had become impressed and commanded by the holy purity and perfection that she had considered in Him. This scene only served as a background to bring out the wonderful purity of that holy service which had been rendered so delightfully to God, and the holy affections that could appreciate it. I think the woman had considered things; her affections had been active in considering, and she realised in her affections that there was that in Him that could not have any place in this polluted scene. He must disappear from this world, so it says, “She has beforehand anointed my body for the burial”. What a blessed thing it is when a heart gets a sense of the preciousness of Christ, and the contrast in Him in this scene, so that there could be no place for Him here. It is not a question of doctrine, or being enlightened in terms, but the Lord would have us feel intensely in fervent affection that there could not possibly be a place for Him here. In her affection I think the woman had touched that; love makes us have quickened affections, and the Lord says, “She hath done what she could”. It would be good for us all if our affections outran our intelligence; what we have to mourn over is that we know so much and yet there [p. 160] is so little movement in our affections. We all know a great deal more than this woman, but how far are we moved so that there should be an unrestrained outpouring on Him? She breaks the flask; there is no retention of the vessel to be ever used for any other; it is an act never to be reconsidered. We might all covet to get a name that way. This woman gets a wonderful name, what a renown she gets! It was an act of affection that knew no reserve. I have often thought there is a moral correspondence between the woman breaking the flask and the Lord breaking the bread; it was the same kind of unreserved devotion that would not contemplate the possibility of reconsidering a final act. A committal like that would be delightful to the Lord, and it is open to us all to get that kind of name.
I think we ought to be much affected by the thought that there is only a brief space in which affection for the Lord can be evidenced in the very scene where He is to be buried, in the place where He is not allowed to have one inch above ground. What an effect this would produce on the hearts of lovers! We consider in our affections His wonderful service — this is the aspect of it in this gospel. When everything in Israel was marked by uncleanness, there was One who passed through it in the holy purity of divine love, and gave Himself in an unmeasured way for the needs of men — that commanded the heart of the woman. The flask is filled with all she had gathered up of Him, and there is no reserve. One cannot think of true devotion making any reserve, so she breaks the flask; it is a final act, she gives herself in affection wholly to Him, and there is no reserve for self.
Ques Will you tell us your thought about the Lord breaking the bread?
CAC I was thinking of it as the expression of unreserved devotion. It was unreserved devotion when the Lord took the bread and broke it; it was an intimation of how He was about to surrender His body — He gave Himself. It was giving His life, His all, giving Himself.
There is nothing more marvellous than that there should be something in you and me that is worthy to be put alongside of the gospel. Nothing could be more touching than to think that He gave Himself for us.
Ques Would it not sober us in our position here in this [p. 161] world to think He must go out because He could not remain, so we could not seek a place here?
CAC Yes, that is the only right way to go out — in affection. This woman reached the full extent of the possibilities. It is a very affecting question for us to ask ourselves. Have we really reached what is possible in the way of devotion, and if not, why not? It is an exercise for us as to why we have come so short of the possibilities. The woman had reached it, she had been brought to it in affection that there was only one Person for her. The widow, also, who gave the two mites had reached the limit of possibilities on the line of devotion. This woman gets a wonderful memorial.
Ques What do you mean about the name?
CAC The Lord says, “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, what this woman has done shall be also spoken of for a memorial of her”. That is her name, her renown. I think God would put this alongside the gospel to show to any young convert what is possible, what the right effect of the gospel is. There is not only the gospel shown to us, but the effect the gospel has produced. We leave that out sometimes, but we are hardly justified in leaving this woman out; she had a great name. A great many leave her out; that is, they leave out that element, but the Lord says you are not to leave her out. Wheresoever the gospel is preached you are not only to tell the glad tidings, but the effect the glad tidings are to produce on those who receive them. The two things should always go together; if not, it is like the old proverb, “The legs of the lame are not equal”. It is a great thing to see what is the end of the gospel, it is an immense help to the soul. It would save much trouble and exercise if we understood at the outset what the end of the gospel is.
Ques Was it affection that drew the woman to the Lord in Luke 7?
CAC Yes, the Lord says, “She loved much”. The woman sets forth the subjective side, and there is nothing that satisfies the Lord on that side but love. The Lord must have the love of those He loves so intensely Himself; He must have response, as the old monk said:
‘The hart panteth after the waters,
The dying for life that departs;
The Lord in His glory for sinners,
For the love of rebellious hearts’.
[p. 162] It is beautiful to see the gospel and this woman put together. I think Paul’s affection was entirely commanded from the outset, so the gospel was identified with him in a way that it never was with anybody else — he can say, “My gospel”. He was another vessel identified with the gospel and we can only get that gospel from Paul. That was a glory and a distinction put on Paul. Everyone who gets the gospel of the glory of the blessed God gets it from Paul.
Ques What is the difference between His head being anointed in Matthew and Mark and His feet in John?
CAC The Lord is viewed officially in Matthew and Mark, so it is His head that is anointed; but when you come to what He is personally it is His feet.
When they spoke angrily to her the Lord threw His wing over her and said, “Let her alone”. He would not have a movement of affection checked or interfered with.
The Lord is showing a state of heart that would be ready to enter into the thought of His own love, and so be prepared for what comes out in the Supper. The Lord gives a living example of the kind of affection that could respond to Him and take up His thought. When the Lord sits down with the twelve at the supper table the first thing He does is to tell them that one of them would deliver Him up. He raises the question with every one of them; He avoids telling them here who would do it. He leaves it to work in every one of their hearts, the possibility of one of them delivering Him up. He raises the question of their affection and devotion. The Supper is not worth much apart from affection; it is a festival of love, and nothing else suits it, so the Lord raises the question, “One of you shall deliver me up”. They all began to say, “Is it I?” It was one of the best moments in the history of the disciples. I think you see in the woman the kind of affection that would gratify the heart of Christ and be able to take things up in true response. The Lord raises the question affectionately with them whether they were true in response to His love, or whether they were prepared to deliver Him up. We do not want to be set on what is great in this world, and we shall not think of it for a moment if we have anointed Him for His burial. It is not the moment for being great in this world: we want something great in relation to Christ; everything gets its measure according to what it is to Christ. What is the value of our coming together if there is not something in it for [p. 163] Christ? The whole question is that there should be something for Him: He says, “Where is my guest-chamber”?
I think this exposed Judas. It is exercising to see that the Lord so orders things that what is in our hearts comes out. What was in the woman’s heart came out; what was in the heart of Judas came out; and what was in the Lord’s heart came out. The disciples took up the exercise, and each said, “Is it I?” For the moment they were affected by what the Lord said, and they thought what a terrible thing it would be if it should be “I”. For the moment they were all in true exercise of heart about it, so that every one said, “Is it I?” The Lord puts that on every one of us; it corresponds with 1 Corinthians 11, “Let a man prove himself”. No one should think of coming to the Supper in any other spirit than proving himself. The Lord puts it on us to do it. In this gospel the Lord does not say that it was Judas; He leaves it to work its own heart-exercise with every one. He puts it to each one to test himself and prove himself — “Let a man prove himself”. The word ‘prove’ here is the same as used for testing the purity of metals, throwing them into the crucible. The Lord insists that we should each one test ourselves like that; He would say, ‘Are you doing what you do in real devotion to Me or not?’ Then we see the Lord providing certain conditions suitable to Himself and to His disciples; and as we are found answering to these conditions there is that which is morally for Christ. It was the first day of unleavened bread: that was a great moment in everybody’s history. You may depend on it there was not a bit of leaven left in the house where the Lord had His guest-chamber. If affection for the Lord is to be preserved in purity, there must be the exclusion of leaven: all that which gives place to the flesh, that which inflates man and makes him large and important, all that is to be refused — “Put away leaven out of your houses”. Then one admires the exercise of the disciples as to the place where the passover was to be prepared: they realised that any sort of place would not do, and they said “Where?” Some people think you can remember the Lord and answer to Him under any sort of conditions, but that is not possible. This leads on to what is proper to christianity. It is remarkable that the Lord should take the place of having a household. The passover is a household feast, and the Lord calls on the master of the house for what He speaks of as “my guest-chamber”; that is, He takes the place of being Head of the house for the pleasure of God. It is wonderful to recognise that the Lord has a household. The prophet says, “who shall declare his generation?” Outwardly He was a man without a family, which was a terrible thing in Israel, for a man lost his place and inheritance in Israel if he had no family. The prophet said, “who shall declare his generation?” Isaiah 53: 8. Now you find He has a generation; He has children and a household and He is going to eat the passover with them. He has a spiritual generation. The Lord spoke of the disciples several times as His children. They were His generation; they were divinely taught to recognise that He was Head of the house and they took their direction from Him. They gave way to Him and were divinely taught in their affections, and they realised it would not do to go anywhere, so they say, “Where?” It is very important for us to say, “Where?” There were many houses where they had a guest-chamber, but there was only one spot in that city that the Lord indicated.
Ques You connected the guest-chamber with the woman. Would you enlarge a little upon it?
CAC I think what I said was that the woman reserved nothing for herself. That is morally preparatory to reserving for Him. You find the master of the house reserved his guest-chamber for the Teacher, so that the Teacher could send in at the last moment, when the passover was about to be killed, and every corner was crowded out in Jerusalem — He could send in and find it all reserved for Him, everything provided that was suitable to the occasion and that corresponded with all that He had commanded as the Teacher. It is beautiful that He had a secret disciple like that, and could bring him out to view at the last moment. The Lord indicates the conditions; they were to go and look for a man with a pitcher of water; that is, there is a man who has been to the spring and come back with a fresh supply of what is purifying and refreshing. It is a great thing to look out for where that man finds access, and you may depend on it that is where there is access for the Lord. I should like to look for a spot like that where there is free access for all spiritual ministry that is purifying and refreshing. Where in christendom is there any access for the man with a pitcher of water? Where is there scope for a purely spiritual ministry that would cleanse away every element [p. 165] of what is worldly and earthly? You cannot find it in the great profession round about; there is no access for it. If that kind of ministry were let in, it would bring the whole thing down; it could not be admitted into the great profession because it would destroy it. If you find a place where there is access and liberty for spiritual ministry, you may depend on it there is access there for the Lord and for the disciples. The guest-chamber is there; there is a place for Him. If you let in the pitcher of water you are bound to send out the man after the flesh; the pitcher of water washes away everything of that man and of the world; it will not allow you to follow the fashions of the world.
The master of the house seems to represent the responsible element, and he can be appealed to as one ready to answer at once to the claims of the Lord. It is a great thing when the responsible element is ready to acknowledge His claim, and we should look for that. We look for moral conditions, we must not expect to find the Lord everywhere, and I am sure the Lord has indicated the moral conditions to us in this way. There must be unleavened conditions, access for spiritual ministry and the responsible element that holds what it has in reserve for Christ and makes it available for Him the moment it is called upon. To find such conditions as that is the answer to the “Where?” Then we see the large upper room furnished — everything suitable. This seems to indicate that this man had been under the tuition of Christ in secret, and learning what was suitable to Christ — perhaps for years putting everything in the guest-chamber into suitability for the Teacher when the moment should come that it should be required. Everything there was in suitability to Christ and the disciples. What an exercise for us to have and preserve a place where everything is suitable to Christ! He puts His claim in and, if the conditions are there, He makes use of the guest-chamber, He does not leave it empty. I remember a brother who used to tell the Lord about the little upper room! But when there is a place for Christ it is a large place, and there is room there for all the disciples. It is a “large upper room”. In the spiritual sphere you do not find small things: if the guest-chamber is for Christ there is room for all the disciples, and you love to tell Him what a large room it is. It is not cramped by any of the things which go on on the ground floor! The upper room is elevated above the level of the earth and the [p. 166] world; we are lifted above human order, traditions and earthly religion. In Acts 1 we read of the Lord being taken up and, when the disciples had seen Him taken up, they went to the upper chamber — they put themselves into correspondence with the fact that He has gone up. So now there must be an elevated character of things which is in correspondence with the fact that He has gone up. If you take up current religion you are down on the ground floor.
Rem I suppose it should be an exercise with us that these conditions should be always with us, so that whenever the Lord requires it it is ready for Him.
CAC Yes, we must not think we have reached the spot and there is an end of it; the exercise has to be kept up all the time.
It would seem to be necessary to connect verses 22 - 31 with what we have been speaking of, and that is what may be called the spiritual condition of the occasion, the exercise that all should be suitable to Him; that seems to have been the exercise of the disciples. They were exercised about eating in conditions suitable to Christ, because they say, “Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover?” It was a question of what was suitable to Him. There is the thought of its being the first day of unleavened bread, and then the Lord indicates that the place would be where the man with the pitcher of water went in; it is a place where there is access for spiritual ministry. There is a need for purification and refreshment; there was something the Lord could use to wash the disciples’ feet. It suggests a great thought of purity; there was that there which could remove all the soil of the world from His loved ones. There was a place where the Lord could suitably entertain His household, and He could call it “my guest-chamber”. It is so connected with Himself that it is a scene controlled by Himself, where all is suited to Him. And it is furnished — “a large upper room furnished”, which seems to suggest that there has been consideration about it; all had been considered that everything might be suitable to Him and to all His thought in regard to His own. These things are not put down in Scripture as a little bit of ancient history, but that we might pick up spiritual suggestions in them and give them a practical place so that we might know what it is to have things in order for the pleasure [p. 167] of Christ.
Ques How do we learn what is suitable to Him?
CAC Only as He becomes the Teacher to us. “The Teacher says, Where is my guest-chamber ... ?” We must get impressions from Him; He is the Teacher. There is no Teacher like Christ, and no one else can give us the sense in our affections as to what is suitable to Himself.
Ques What is indicated in the pitcher of water?
CAC The presence of the pitcher of water seems to indicate that there is a desire to be purified from everything unsuitable to Christ; we want the word to do its work with us and there is no resenting the action of the word.
Rem The disciples’ thoughts seemed to go no further than the passover.
CAC No, I do not think that they could until the Lord expanded them. I think the Lord is ever ready to add something. The disciples might have said that they understood the passover — that was part of the pleasure of God. But when they prepared suitable conditions and sat down, He could spiritually add to the passover. I venture to say that, however far we have got in our knowledge of divine things, it is possible that the Lord could add something to us, perhaps tonight! The Lord is always ready. The principle of addition is an abiding principle in the ways of God; the whole Scripture is built up on that principle. God began by giving light in the garden of Eden, and for four thousand years He had been adding to the light, and now that the Lord has been here there has been great addition to the light, but the Spirit is here at the present time so that we may look for fresh impressions.
Ques Does enlargement come as a result of revelation?
CAC Yes, it is the Lord’s great pleasure to add something to us so that we might come more into the precious light of God and be affected by it. As they were eating, the Lord took bread — He introduced a new feature in connection with the passover. In Matthew and in this gospel the Supper is not separated from the passover, but identified with it. As they are eating, the Lord brings in a new feature, what I regard as a great spiritual addition.
The passover speaks of Christ in His ability to take up the whole question of sin for the glory of God, to bear the judgment of sin so that the ground is cleared from God’s side, and on the people’s side, too; and the love in which Christ bore the judgment becomes the nourishment of His people; they eat [p. 168] the Lamb roast with fire. That in itself is a great apprehension of Christ, and I think nothing brings us to self-judgment but that. A person who does not know self-judgment has never eaten the passover lamb. That shows in the most touching way that what attaches to us in the flesh is of such a character that it necessitated the judgment of God, but One came in love under the judgment and was sacrificed for us, and the love in which He did it becomes the food of our hearts. I have no doubt the disciples needed to be instructed in the passover as we all do, and then as they were eating it the Lord introduced a new figure of Himself: that is, there must be a marked difference between Christ as the passover and Christ as the bread.
I think we lose by running the accounts in the gospels all together. I think the blessing lies in distinguishing them. We would not expect to find in Mark the Lord’s supper, but I think we get there an apprehension of Christ that we need to prepare us for the Supper. There is no thought of remembrance in Mark and Matthew, but in Luke there is the remembrance. The thought in Matthew and Mark is that we should get an apprehension of Christ in our souls individually. In Mark the Lord says, “Take”; He does not say ‘eat’ in Mark; that is in Matthew, and in a sense we must take before we can eat. It is a great thing to take the bread. The Lord brings it out in connection with the passover; “Take this: this is my body”. It is more apprehension in Mark and appropriation in Matthew. Appropriation is more connected with eating, but taking is what I should call apprehension; that is, we spiritually apprehend what is set forth in that bread as His body. We have to take first and then eat. There is great spiritual instruction in this, for my impression is that if we do not understand the divine teaching of Matthew and Mark we shall not come on to Luke.
Ques How would you speak of the bread as contrasted with the passover?
CAC I think the passover brought the blessed Lord before us in His suitability and capability to deal with the whole question of sin for the glory of God. He comes in as the One who is able to take up that question and bear the judgment of what dishonoured God so as to remove it. As has often been said, ‘The man under judgment has gone in judgment in the death of Christ’. That is the passover: it [p. 169] does not go any further than the apprehension of the wondrous ability of Christ to deal with the sin question, and how He has dealt with it by bearing the judgment so that the ground is cleared. But when the Lord says, “This is my body” — what wondrous thoughts are suggested to faith! There is no longer any question of the removal of sin, but all that is positive is suggested, the bringing in of all that is pleasurable to God in this world. In Mark’s gospel particularly there is suggested what Isaiah had prepared the people for when he spoke prophetically of “My servant”: that is, One has come in who is the Servant of divine pleasure in every step of His pathway here — that is more than the passover. No one but Christ could have brought in this wondrous addition; we have got to the positive side and that is never again to be dissociated from the passover. For faith it is connected with the passover now, so that not only is the question of sin settled, God glorified about it, and divine love satisfied, but all the divine pleasure and delight is come to light in a Man. Now He says, “Take”. The ground must be cleared, but the One who has cleared the ground fills it. What is of an entirely new order is introduced in the bread, and He is saying to us tonight, “Take”.
Ques What would the Lord breaking the bread intimate?
CAC No doubt it intimated that the divine pleasure could only take effect in regard of us through His death.
Ques If in Mark it is the servant character, what about Matthew?
CAC In Matthew He is seen in His kingly rights. He was Emmanuel, God’s Anointed, and He comes in to assert all the rights of God, so in Matthew He asserts Himself in regard to the guest-chamber. In Matthew we see the authority of heaven set forth in Him, but in Mark it is the service of God. The Lord in calling attention to His body in Mark would connect it in the minds of those having the Spirit with Psalm 40, a prepared body to do the will and pleasure of God, and would connect it too with those chapters in Isaiah which speak of “My servant”. The effect of His coming in is to introduce every element that is delightful to God: that is the positive side. If we sat down in holy conditions to eat the passover, I am sure the Lord would lead us to this additional element. When the Lord says, “Take”, He is saying, ‘I want you to pass over from all connected with yourselves in your service God-ward to apprehend all that is connected with the service of God in perfection in Myself’. I think that is worth taking. It depends on the fact that a divine Person has come in manhood, the second Man out of heaven. Israel now will have to take up everything in relation to Christ; they will take up the law as having been made good in Christ — He made it honourable. They will take up the promises, but as all substantiated in Christ. They will take up everything in the Old Testament as seeing it made good in Christ. I think all that was in the Lord’s mind when he said, “Take”. But none of it could be available for us apart from His death. Just as they could not take the bread actually until He broke it, so spiritually we could not take His body apart from His death. I do not think the remnant of Israel will ever go back to the law, the promises, and the sacrificial system, apart from Christ.
What a wonderful thing it is to take it and to realise that all the pleasure of God has been secured! All that God could delight in has come here in One who had a body in this world, and He went into death in order that the pleasure of God could take effect in us. The bread brings in all that is positive as food for us so that we might get a constitution from it. When the Lord says “Take”, He puts all within our reach that is in Himself, which was about to be dedicated to God in death.
Ques Here in Mark ‘for you’ is not added. Is it really for God?
CAC Yes. When you come to that “for you” it is the special place of the assembly; in Luke the bread and cup are “for you”. I think that is limited to the assembly, it is the peculiar character of the covenant as known by the assembly; but here it is the blood shed for many, it is a wider outlook than Luke.
Ques How far does all this apply to us as remembering the Lord?
CAC My impression is that all this is what we have to take up as preparatory to coming together to remember the Lord. Individually it is what we have to understand in relation to the ways of God in Christ. We have now not only the passover but we have this new thought of the whole pleasure of God having come in in Christ; it has become available for us through His death, and now He says, “Take”.
Ques Would you say it was wrong to bring in any passover thought in connection with [p. 171] the Supper?
CAC I would not say it was wrong to bring in any apprehension of Christ; it is very suitable that we should start on passover lines. That is, there is a blessed sense in the soul of how the ground has been cleared. The Lord Jesus has dealt with the offences, He has borne the judgment and removed it, so the ground is clear, but on the other hand all the pleasure of God has come in. One has come in of whom Jehovah can say, “Behold my servant”, Isaiah 42: 1. He comes to bring in all the pleasure of God and that is the positive side. It was something quite new which superseded the law, the sacrificial system, and the whole system of judaism. It is really starting entirely afresh. If I have taken the bread I look at the law, the promises and the sacrificial system, and I see the pleasure of God has been absolutely secured in Christ. He has gone through death so that it might be secured in a sanctified company that God has given Him. We are to be identified with the positive delight of God in Christ. That is how God looks at us, but we do not realise it until we “Take”. The moral instruction is that we take all that and realise how the pleasure of God has been secured and substantiated in the fullest way in Christ. He has gone through death in order to substantiate it in us. He has taken away the first, but it does not end there; He establishes the second: that is, the pleasure of God is to be continued in the saints. When we come to that we come to eating. In Matthew it is, “Take, eat” — that is another thing: it is not only to apprehend it as true in Christ, but as true in Christ in view of being true in us. When you come to eating you come to the positive power by which it is made true in us, so there is a building up of a new constitution. If we eat it simply means,
‘Not we may live while here below,
But Christ our life may be’.
That is the idea of eating. We must first “take”, that is apprehend, and then we must eat; we realise there is nothing at all in us for the pleasure of God which does not derive from Christ and of which Christ is not the strength. Christ is to be practically the life of the saint, that is the meaning of eating. The saints are to move on the line of meekness, lowliness, obedience, separation from the world and love; the saints are devoted to the pleasure of God — all that is involved in eating. We first apprehend it, and I suppose in some measure we have all known what it is to “take”, but we feel how little [p. 172] we know of what it is to “eat”. In “eating” it becomes me. If I eat the thing I must have first apprehended it, taken it.
Ques Is the Lord presented in a different character in Matthew and Mark?
CAC Yes, because in Matthew we have the moral character of Christ, and in Mark His service. In Matthew we have the moral character of the King, so we have the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes, the delineation of the moral character of the One who brings the influence of heaven to bear on everything under heaven. When this is brought out it becomes a necessity for the pleasure of God that it should be perpetuated in the saints, and the power for that lies in eating. If you apprehend the pleasure of God in Christ and that He has gone through death for the service of God so that He might be perpetuated in the saints, then you have the truth of the position. You may have to bring in Matthew as power for feeding on Christ as the only source of moral strength; you cannot carry out the service or reproduce the character of Christ apart from eating.
Now we can see how to link the gospels together. Suppose you have a company of persons who have taken according to Mark and eaten according to Matthew, and they find themselves left in a world where Christ is not, what an affectionate delight they would have in calling Him to mind — that is Luke. They have taken, they have “eaten”, they are morally formed after Christ; therefore they feel His absence, that He is not here. But He can be remembered here; therefore they come together for affectionate remembrance of Him; so we come to eating the Supper. There is no institution of the Supper in Matthew and Mark, but the institution is in Luke. I have been exercised to see why we have these different accounts, and I have come to this conclusion that morally we reach Luke through Mark and Matthew. God does not put it down haphazard.
Then we see there is the “cup”; it speaks of His blood, but not like the blood of the passover Lamb, which speaks of being sheltered from judgment. The cup is the blood of the covenant shed for many: the cup is the setting forth of the blood of Christ as a righteous ground on which God can set up relations between Himself and His people which give the greatest pleasure to His love. With the first covenant God found fault; the fault He found with it was that it did not make His love known to the people, and it did not put them [p. 173] into suitability to His love. This covenant does both; it makes known the love of God and furnishes a righteous ground on which the people are suitable to His love. The bond of agreement between God and His people can never be altered or flawed. It is a faultless covenant: there is no fault on God’s side and none on ours; and it cannot be altered, the blood seals it. This is a new thing altogether. The disciples were familiar with the thought of the covenant, but we only have the new covenant in Luke. It is ‘the covenant’ here; the word ‘new’ should not be there; it is the general thought of covenant or bond between God and His people.
Ques How do you mean it is perfect on our side?
CAC Of course it is, because the saints are subjects of the work of God; that is what makes it perfect on our side. We may not arrive at the perfection of it in our apprehensions, but that is the character of it; God has revealed Himself in the perfection of love. He says, ‘It is the great yearning of my heart to be known in my love, and I am going to work with you so that you may be stripped of every bit of self-confidence, self-complacency and self-satisfaction; I will empty you of everything you have ever trusted in or thought of value, and I will give you ability to appreciate the love in which I acted to bless you’. God will bring about in His people and in Israel a new heart and a new spirit — He will bring about faultless conditions. The effect of knowing this is that you cannot keep away from that love of God; it is a powerful attraction operating on you, your conscience is clear as heaven’s unclouded day, and you can enter His courts with thanksgiving. There is the love of God known in the covenant and the attraction of the Priest — a great Priest over the house of God — and our calling is set forth in the Priest and maintained in the Priest, so the nearer you come to the Priest the more you are in the perfect rest and complacency of the position which the calling gives you. J.B.S. used to say that the nearer you get to the blessed God the better off you are, and if you come right into His presence you are received with acclamations. God does not surrender anything which He claimed under the old covenant, but He has secured the establishment of it all in Christ. He dealt with the man who utterly broke down under the first covenant, and set him aside, and He says, Now I will enable you to live from an entirely new source, from Christ. As we begin to live from Christ we can say, ‘We live [p. 174] of Thee, we have heard Thy quickening voice’. That is the idea of eating; we live of Him, and, if we do not, we do not live for the pleasure of God at all.
This principle of the covenant will spread out the love of God in its covenant action to many; it will reach every family, it is for many. The church knows the covenant at the present time in a peculiar and more blessed way than Israel will ever know it. The church knows the covenant as giving access to the holiest; Israel will never know that. The covenant for us is glory, but not for an earthly people; but the principle of the covenant spreads out to many. Every family will be characterised by the knowledge of God in love; what God is in His nature will be known to every family of the redeemed, and what He is in His nature will become the unalterable bond between the blessed God and all those who are brought to know Him. We have to take this up morally; it is a preparation for remembering the Lord according to Luke. It would give us such an appreciation of what He has brought to pass that we should feel His absence; the more we learn His preciousness the more we should feel His absence in this world, and we should find our delight in coming together in an affectionate way to call Him to mind collectively. It would become a paramount influence and the irresistible claim of divine love to put us in concert with each other in the remembrance of Himself.
Ques What is the Lord referring to in “the fruit of the vine” (verse 25)?
CAC He is intimating there was to be a period of Nazariteship. The natural thought of the disciples would be that the coming of the Messiah would introduce the kingdom, and that the earth would be so ordered for the pleasure of God that it might be the proper scene of the joys of God’s people. But the Lord intimates here that there was to be a time of Nazariteship, there was to be an interval, “until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”. It is a very important and necessary intimation to those who love Him that the Lord is at the present time standing aloof from joys of an earthly character; it raises the question in our affections as to whether we would care to go on with things in which Christ has no part. The Lord does not say, ‘You must be apart’, He does not put it in that way; He says, ‘I am going to be apart, that will be my relation to things’. Nothing could be more affecting [p. 175] to us than to think of the relation in which Christ stands to things.
Ques Would it include natural affections?
CAC It is more that as regards the earth the Lord is waiting until the kingdom of God comes in; that is, that until things are taken up in relation to God He can have no part in them.
Ques Does “no more” suggest He had been drinking of it until that time?
CAC I think it was an intimation to the hearts of His own that He was to take up a peculiar position quite different from anything they might have anticipated. He connects the enjoyments of the saints with another scene. The point is that the Lord is seeking to connect our joys with Himself, and with that position which He has taken up as outside this world altogether. It is not possible for Him to participate in things in which God has no place. Israel yielded no pleasure to God; it had been proved that God had no place in Israel. His kingdom was not there, and there was no part, or place, or portion for Christ except in the kingdom of God. As to anything outside the kingdom of God He was in Nazariteship from it, in holy separation to God — that is the thought in the Nazarite. His vows were taken to Jehovah, He was separate to Jehovah. It is an appeal to every one of us that we cannot have the companionship of Christ in this world because the kingdom of God is not there. It is going to be; there is a day coming in which the kingdom of God will be brought in and every earthly joy will be taken up in relation to God. Then Christ can have His part in it and the day of His Nazariteship will be over. When the people of God take up their earthly blessings in relation to God they will have the companionship of Christ in the enjoyment of everything that God has given them. No doubt there is a present application of that — we only have the companionship of Christ in the kingdom of God. Do you think a person has the companionship of Christ when doing his own will?
If things had been right the Lord could have set everything in relation to God, and He could have shared everything that was a source of happiness with His people, but all that was impossible under the conditions that existed, so the Lord takes up this position of Nazariteship. The vine was a figure of Israel in relation to the pleasure God looked to have in Israel;
[p. 176] He did everything to make it productive so that there might be pleasure for Himself. Scripture says that wine “cheers God and man”, Judges 9: 13. But the rejection of Christ proved that all that for the present was a complete failure. The people broke the law, despised the promises, refused the convicting word of the prophets, and finally rejected the beloved Son; so it became manifest that God had no place or portion, and the Lord took up definitely a place of separation from all which yielded no pleasure to God. That is the only position for the saints. If we go on with what yields no pleasure to God we cannot have the companionship of Christ, because He is in separation from it. The Lord defines His portion and leaves us to define ours. Where we come under the lordship of Christ there is the kingdom of God, and we can have the companionship of Christ in the kingdom of God. While the kingdom has not come publicly, and the Lord is publicly in separation from all that refuses the rights of God, yet spiritually the kingdom has come in and, as far as the blessed rule of God is known, there is pleasure for the Lord, that with which He can identify Himself. If a saint is doing the will of God he can have the companionship of Christ; Christ does not stand apart from what is pleasurable to God, He identifies Himself with it.
Ques Would taking His body lead to this?
CAC There is a beautiful moral order in all this: the feast of unleavened bread, the passover, and then the Lord introducing in the bread the thought of His own blessed character as Jehovah’s Servant, bringing in all for the pleasure of God. He says, ‘You apprehend that, take it’. No doubt it is divinely intended that what is presented in the different gospels should be carried on; we do not have the same thoughts of the Supper in the different gospels. In Mark what is presented is an apprehension of the character of divine pleasure that has come here in Christ.
Ques What do you mean by carrying on?
CAC You must not drop out Mark in being occupied with Luke; every aspect of the Supper must be carried on, the aspect that Matthew and Mark present as well as the aspect that Luke presents. What is presented in Mark and Matthew is preparatory to what we find in Luke. It is only when we come to Luke that we have the institution of the Supper; there is no intimation in Matthew or Mark that it is to be done again.
[p. 177] Ques Have you any thought as to the difference between blessing and giving thanks? In Luke the Lord gives thanks; here He blesses the bread and gives thanks for the cup.
CAC Yes, there is a simple difference. If anything is blessed it is invested with a divine or spiritual character; it is clothed with the divine value of what is contained in the blessing. When the Lord took the bread He took it from the furnished passover table, and He blessed it, He clothed that bread with a new significance that no bread in this world ever had before. That is the thought in blessing; it is putting a new and divine and spiritual character on the thing or person, whatever it is that is blessed. It is putting that thing in relation to a spiritual order of things in an entirely new way — that is what the Lord did with the bread; He blessed it and clothed it with a new character. What a marvellous thing that He should have taken bread! It was not only that He was capable of bearing the judgment of man under judgment, and clearing away all that was offensive to God — that was the passover, and He was able to do it all in the capability of His own Person; but He could also bring in everything that was positively delightful to God, everything for the pleasure of God, and when He said, “this is my body”, He clothed that bread with all the spiritual significance of what came into this world in His own body as Jehovah’s Servant, One who came here to bring in the pleasure of God and to secure it in every detail. It is not only a question of removing what was offensive to God but of bringing in all that was for God’s delight. That is the point in Mark. Now the Lord says, “Take this”. We are to take it and carry on the significance of it. Every individual soul must take that bread in the character which the blessing of the Lord has invested it with.
Ques Would it be discerning the Lord’s body?
CAC Yes. It might be possible for the saints to come together for the Supper and eat their own supper. The point in 1 Corinthians is the contrast between the saints eating their own supper and eating the Lord’s supper. If I am eating my own supper I am doing something in relation to myself, but if I am eating the Lord’s supper I am doing something in relation to Him, and for that there must be the distinguishing of the body; if there is not that all the moral value is lost. The Lord came here according to Hebrews 10: “a body hast thou prepared me”, and that superseded the whole sacrificial [p. 178] system; it has all been taken up in Christ, all for the pleasure of God is there. Now He says, ‘Take it, apprehend it’. The pleasure of God can only take effect in regard to you and me through the death of Christ: He came in not only as the Object of eternal pleasure but as the Servant of eternal pleasure. Isaiah tells us so much about “my servant”; everything is to hang on Him. That is the aspect of the body presented to us in Mark; it is the blessed humanity of the Lord viewed as Jehovah’s Servant, carrying out His pleasure, and going into death that that pleasure might be effected in the saints. It is a great thing to take that.
Ques. How about Matthew?
CAC Matthew adds to it the thought of eating. What has come in in Christ is not only to be apprehended but appropriated, eaten, so that we delight on our part to speak well of it; we clothe it in our affections with all the value it has on God’s part. The saints are intelligently and affectionately capable to bless the cup — what a dignity it puts on us! We can give the cup in our minds and hearts the character that attaches to it.
Ques Is there a reason why in Luke the Lord gives thanks for both the bread and the cup?
CAC I have no doubt that it is in the perfection of wisdom that all these things come in. In Luke the Lord gives thanks for the bread because it is a question there of appropriating to the saints all that was expressed in His body; He takes it up on our side in thanksgiving. In the midst of His saints He gives thanks; He is the first One to appropriate for His saints all the precious value of what came out in His body; He appropriated it on our behalf in thanksgiving. In Luke we have the institution of the Supper and the continued affectionate remembrance, and it is touching in that connection that the Lord should take a place on our side in thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is on our side, blessing is more God’s side; the difference is important. The Lord could give the bread its character, that is one thing; but then in Luke we find Him giving thanks for the character He has put on it, so we can join Him in that.
Luke anticipates the assembly; it is addressed to a gentile; it has in view assembly truth taking form among the gentiles, the affectionate remembrance of the Lord among the gentiles. Luke’s account of the institution is almost identical with the previous account which Paul received from heaven. The first [p. 179] knowledge of the Supper which we gentiles got came direct from heaven to us. Think of the Lord telling us gentiles from heaven what happened in that upper room! 1 Corinthians was written before Luke’s gospel. It is interesting that it should come from heaven first, that the Lord should give it to Paul to deliver to us gentiles. The Lord directly tells Paul what happened in that upper room.
The saints are put in an extraordinary position spiritually; they are able intelligently to speak of the cup according to the blessed character it really has. One can see that a soul standing in the value of all that would be quite prepared for Nazariteship, to understand that there was a whole system of things in which Christ had no part. It is very suggestive that this hint comes in. The Lord intimates to them that He was to take a place of Nazariteship and not drink of the fruit of the vine. Now the thing for us is that we do not want to have our place or portion in things from which Christ is holding aloof. Men may say that they are very good things, which minister to their pleasure and advantage, but what relation has Christ to them? What is His attitude? If He holds aloof it is right for the saints to, and if not holding aloof they cannot have the companionship of Christ.
It is very beautiful to see that in Matthew the Lord speaks of drinking it with His disciples in the kingdom of His Father “until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father”, Matthew 26: 29. What a delightful thought that gives of the kingdom! The Father’s kingdom brings in the thought of affection. If you want to know what the Father’s kingdom is, you must learn it in Christ; it will take form in the sons. The Lord says, “the kingdom of my Father” what a blessed place it had in Christ, everything there under the rule of the Father, and what complacency there was for the Father’s love in that blessed One! What satisfaction He had in having such a Son! His drinking it new in the Father’s kingdom suggests that the saints are brought into the same place and complacency with Christ before the Father; so the saints are to stand in the same holy relationship that He was in. The Father’s kingdom is to take form in the saints. It has come about just so far as we have been formed in the spiritual affections which belong to sons. Wherever you find the saints formed in the spirit of sonship there is the kingdom of the Father.
[p. 180] It is very interesting to see that the kingdom of God has come in spiritually, and it is possible now for saints to take up things in relation to God so that even natural things are taken up in the kingdom of God. The way the households of the saints are conducted, and the way they conduct their business, and all the character the saints take in their responsible lives — all these things are taken up in the kingdom of God and then the companionship of Christ is known. He comes near to us in our personal and family exercises; He does not stand apart from anything in the kingdom of God, but He stands apart from everything that is not according to that kingdom.
It is wonderful to think that there is a sphere where the character of the Father is known and where there are affections such as are found in the Son who ever delighted to do the Father’s will. The Father’s kingdom is perfectly set forth in Christ. When the Lord told the disciples to ask for it to come, they had watched Him three and a half years and seen the Father’s kingdom set forth in Him, so they might well desire it to come. Matthew is the gospel which tells us of being brought into sonship; the Lord says to Peter, “take that and give it to them for me and thee”, Matthew 17: 27. Peter was to be with Him in sonship. It is wonderful to be taken into that blessed partnership with Him so that we are going on with things in which we can have His company; there is no true happiness outside that. Things may be gratifying to you according to the flesh, but there is no happiness in going on with them if we cannot have His company.
Ques Is the Father’s kingdom a greater thought than the kingdom of God?
CAC The kingdom of God is the moral side — “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”; but the Father’s kingdom is a different thing. The Father’s kingdom in a rightly ordered house would mean that everything there is according to family affections and relationship; affection is the thought in the Father’s kingdom.
Ques Why did the Lord give the cup to the disciples when He did not drink it Himself?
CAC The Lord was leading them, and is seeking to lead us, into the character of the blessing of which the cup speaks. It is joy of a spiritual order connected with the kingdom of God, an entirely new character of joy connected with the knowledge of God revealed in love. He was bringing that in [p. 181] through death. The blessing we have now has come through death and cannot be connected with this present world.
We can understand they could sing after all this. How could they help it! No doubt the Lord led the singing. Then they go out to the mount of Olives. It is a wonderful thing to be able to take common ground with Christ before God; that is the thought of singing a hymn.
Ques Have you any thought what the hymn was?
CAC It might have been the usual paschal hymn the Jews were accustomed to sing on that occasion from Psalm 113 to 118; it might have been that hymn ending with ‘Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar’. It would have been a very appropriate hymn.
Ques What about going to the mount of Olives?
CAC It suggests heavenly associations: it was from the mount of Olives the Lord ascended later on and it was the place of His retiring. When others went to their homes, He went to the mount of Olives.
Rem “His feet shall stand ... upon the mount of Olives”.
CAC Yes, He is coming back to the mount of Olives and then the saints will come back with Him as a heavenly company. The wonderful thing suggested here is that where He goes His loved ones can go. Think of that as coming in after the Supper and the singing of the hymn! Singing is that they are able to take common ground with Christ or that He is able to take common ground with us in singing to God, and then we should have the privilege of going with Him where He goes. He came into death for that purpose.
Ques Ought we not to be in expectation for a word from the Lord?
CAC It is very delightful if the Lord does give a word, but it is wonderful to be able to move with Him. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. It is all a question of the movement of affection and it cannot be imitated. You cannot go to the mount of Olives because you make up your mind to; it is all a question of the movements of affection. It is impossible to lay down rules if you recognise the headship of Christ; you cannot prescribe what is going to take place or where He will lead us. It is a question of the wisdom and activities of His love, and nothing but love can follow the lead of Christ — we are all tested as to that. A word of exhortation at such a time is out of place. The only [p. 182] word that is suitable from the standpoint of assembly privilege is a word that will qualify us for the mission on which He sends us into this world. It is not exhortation or rebuke, but a word to qualify you to represent Him in the place where He is not. In John 20 He not only says, “I ascend” but ‘I send’ — “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you”. Any word in keeping with assembly privilege would qualify the saints for the mission. One would not like to set any limits to the Lord’s prerogative. If saints are not up to privilege they might get something else, but we ought to see that there is the privilege of singing a hymn and going to the mount of Olives. Nothing delights the heart of God more than that we should be in spirit in liberty for the Head to lead us.
Ques I suppose the first verse we read is quoted from Zechariah 13: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd”?
CAC Yes. The smiting of the Shepherd was the greatest test that had come upon the disciples. The Lord rightly measured the severity of the test, for He says, “All ye shall be offended”. That the service of the Shepherd could end in that way was a very great test. The natural thought, and the thought of faith, too, would be that, if the Messiah came in, that would secure everything. “I will smite the shepherd” was a solemn testimony on God’s part that even Christ after the flesh could not be the gathering centre. The association in which Christ had been with His own and in which they had been with Him was about to terminate; it was not by the wickedness of men but by the call of Jehovah that the Shepherd should be smitten. It shows that if the flock was to be gathered for God’s pleasure it must be on the ground of resurrection. The earthly association which had continued some years was not an abiding one; it was to terminate by the smiting of the Shepherd. Even Christ after the flesh, Christ as having come into the condition of flesh and blood, could not be the centre and gathering point for all that was in the mind of God; all must be on the ground of His death and resurrection.
Rem He said, “After I am risen again I will go before you into Galilee”.
CAC Yes. It was a great test to the disciples to give up all the flesh, but then even Christ after the flesh was to be removed — “I will smite the shepherd”. It is exceedingly solemn. He is not here cut off by the wickedness of man but by the call of Jehovah, showing the utter hopelessness of setting [p. 183] things up according to the flesh. Things are not set up for the pleasure of God even by Christ after the flesh.
Ques What connection is there between this and the mount of Olives?
CAC The moment we get a hint of accompanying the Lord into heavenly associations there follows the break-up of all earthly associations. If we are to have part with Christ and pass with Him to the mount of Olives, that necessarily involves the break-up of earthly associations, even the blessed association the sheep had been in with the Shepherd for three and a half years. The only good and perfect thing there was on earth had to be brought to an end by the smiting of the Shepherd; if things are to be gathered up for God it must be in resurrection. It is Christ as having died and risen again who is the gathering centre for the flock of God, and sheep gathered on that ground are never to be scattered.
The Lord said, “All ye shall be offended” — they would find an occasion of stumbling. Are we prepared to accept and follow God’s way though it is altogether different from anything we supposed or expected? The disciples were all looking for things to be set up according to the flesh, but that was not the divine thought at all. If they forgot that Israel, as well as all other people, were under death, God never forgot the real state of things.
These chapters in regard to the Lord’s death are most affecting. While they secure Him a very precious place in our affections, they become a very real test whether that is the Christ we are identified with and followers of, and whether we are committed to all that is involved in His death. Peter thought he was equal to any test, and the others seem to be of the same mind.
Rem Nothing is more affecting than that the One whose life was so perfect had to die.
CAC Yes. In seeing that Christ after the flesh has gone, we learn the setting aside of the order of man after the flesh much more solemnly than by seeing the failure of the children of Adam. If the perfect Man after the flesh has gone, what about the man of sin and shame? To really understand it takes out the very roots of self-confidence. The fact that Peter and the disciples all said that they would not deny Him and were prepared to die with Him, shows how little they had taken in the Lord’s words.
[p. 184] He went into death to establish the pleasure of God in such a way that it never could be disturbed again, where there was no failure and no scattering; all was to be gathered up and carried over in resurrection and Christ was to be the beginning, the starting-point of everything for God.
Ques Why did the Lord lead them to Galilee?
CAC It intimates that the Lord would lead them to a place of reproach. He does not say He would go before them to Zion; it was not to lead them to the kingdom, but to that place of reproach and lowliness where the light of God should be found when all here waited for the kingdom. As the risen One He leads to Galilee. Everything had failed on their side, and we see the Lord indicating the right path.
Rem If every link is broken for us He becomes the door where we can join Him in another place.
CAC The way to join Him is by coming under the influence of all it cost Him to reach the spot. These chapters that bring out the sorrows of the Lord are most important in a practical sense because nothing will draw us after Him but the sense of His love. We have to learn the reality of His love by the depth of the sorrow He went through. That practically is the only way to follow the Lord; there is no other. We do not follow Him to resurrection except by way of the sorrows of His love. My feeling is we do not dwell enough on the sorrows of Christ; I think we have perhaps recoiled from the sentimental way in which some would occupy themselves with the sorrows of Christ, but nothing should rob us from dwelling spiritually on the sorrows of Christ. I think we have to do spiritually what the disciples failed to do; they failed to watch. He called them in the garden to watch; it was a call to be observant of the depth of His sorrow. We find they could not watch; they went to sleep. I am afraid that is often our condition; we fail to be observant of the sorrows of His love. With the disciples the spirit was willing but the flesh weak; and we are controlled practically by what is fleshly rather than by what is spiritual. Nothing could affect a spiritual mind like the sorrow of the Lord. His triumphs, or His glory, or all the wider stretches of kingdom splendour, or even the blessedness of heaven, could not move the heart like the depths of His sorrow. We all dread the way of suffering and death, but that way becomes very blessed to us when we see it is the way His love has taken. It is the way He has gone, what He has felt;
[p. 185] it is how He has had to express the deep emotions of His soul to His Father. In thinking of Him we get practical deliverance from ourselves and from thinking of ourselves.
Ques What was the cause of the Lord’s sorrow here?
CAC The cause was the unspeakable cost at which alone the Father’s will could be carried out. The service of the Father’s pleasure could only be carried out at infinite cost to a divine Person come in manhood, and what is brought before us here by the Spirit is to give our affections a deep impression of what it cost. “He began to be amazed and oppressed in spirit. And he says to them, My soul is full of grief even unto death”.
Ques Do the sorrows bring out His perfections as a Man?
CAC They do. They bring out His preparedness to surrender all, so that the Father’s will might be carried out; and this service cost untold suffering. The Lord was the only One who could estimate what death was, and the only One who could estimate what sin was or Satan’s power. The Lord is found in these circumstances, not simply by the necessity of man’s state, but by the necessity of the Father’s will. It is a question of the Father’s will entirely; everything is referred to that. He says, “all things are possible to thee”. The Father’s will is not controlled by any circumstances. Everything is seen to hang on the Father’s will; that was the only reason why He was there, because of the Father’s will. That will which was absolute, sovereign and free, under no restraint or constraint, that will had determined that things should take that course — the Father’s will was the only reason why He was there. I think what the Lord would bring before us is that the Father’s will alone determined all the conditions of His path and all involved in that path. The Father’s will was carried out at the utmost cost to Himself: His will was that His Son in manhood should go that way of sorrow, and suffering, and death. What was it to the Father to devote such a Son to that pathway, and what was it to that Son to take such a pathway! We see the infinite cost in His prayer; it shows the intensity of the sorrow of His love. He says, “all things are possible to thee: take away this cup from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt”.
Ques He speaks to God as Servant?
CAC Yes — “not what I will, but what thou wilt”. He speaks as the Servant Son. He speaks in all the intimate [p. 186] confidence of the relationship, but as feeling all the cost at which it had to be carried out. It was His perfection to deprecate the drinking of the cup. If He had not been who He was, His whole soul would not have recoiled from the drinking of the cup. It involved being made sin, being forsaken of God. All His perfection would have been belied if He had not shrunk from drinking the cup, but His recoiling from it only serves to bring out the absolute devotion of His heart to the Father’s will. It was the perfection of His will as Man to shrink from drinking the cup, but that serves to bring out His devotion to the Father’s will — “not what I will but what thou wilt”. One feels the need for intense personal holiness if we are to take account of it, to watch such a scene, and the Lord desired that His disciples should watch. They could not watch because they had not the Spirit, but we can do spiritually what they could not do. We can watch and take account of the scene, of the sensibilities of the holy Sufferer and the sorrows of His love, and find Him endeared to our hearts in such a way that we can be drawn after Him right through the sorrow to a scene of cloudless joy. We lose sight of the power of it if we lose sight of the sorrow through which it has all been secured.
What we see here is not atonement, but it is the Lord going through it all with the Father and calling His own to be observant of it and to watch. He calls His own to take account of what He goes through with the Father and what He and the Father alone could fathom or measure. He calls us to take account of it so that we might know the way He has gone, and the feelings of His holy soul in going that way, so that we might contemplate Him and watch with Him. I doubt if we take sufficient account of the sufferings and sorrows of Christ; it demands a degree of holiness that perhaps few of us are up to, and it brings us down as nothing else can.
Ques Why do you think that the Lord took only Peter, James and John with Him?
CAC The Lord on several occasions selected them. He took them with Him into the chamber of death when He was about to raise the damsel, so that they might learn there His complete power over death. Then He took them to the mount of transfiguration, that they might learn the holy splendour of the kingdom as centering in Him. And He took them to the garden, that they might learn to go behind the scenes, and [p. 187] learn the sorrow and the expense at which His love could meet death and bring in the kingdom glory. In Gethsemane they learnt the secret of what it cost Him to bring the dead to life, and what it cost to gather up in His own Person all the kingdom glory. What did it not cost Him to do it!
Ques Is this, “I have trodden the winepress alone”?
CAC No, that is an action of judgment; His garments are red there with the blood of His enemies. Gethsemane means the winepress, but what we see there is the personal cost to the holy Sufferer. What we see in Bozrah, where He treads the winepress alone, is the unsparing judgment and destruction of His enemies. Those who are not subdued, and humbled, and touched by the sorrows of Gethsemane will ultimately come under His feet to be trodden down in judgment. His glories appear and the greatness of His strength in which He travels in judgment — they are just as real as the deep sorrows of His love. All will have to confess Him and bow the knee to Him. Those who do it now are touched by the sorrows of His love, but those not melted in that way will have to be crushed. Every knee shall bow. Everything that is true joy and spiritual power comes by the sorrow of His love.
Rem The Lord felt the disciples not watching.
CAC The Lord turns to think of their side when He finds them asleep, and He says, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation”. How often the Lord has to do that! When we do not watch with Him He turns to consider our side and our needs, and how to keep us out of trouble.
(Notes on chapter 15 are not available.)