THE WORD OF THE CROSS

^[p. 384] THE WORD OF THE CROSS

John 18:1-5; John 18:15-18; John 19:25-27

These scriptures indicate positions occupied in relation to Christ, extending down the history of christendom and particularly bearing on our own times. The first is the position of Judas, who is said to have “stood with them”, that is, with those who were avowed enemies of Christ. Although himself having had the status of apostle, and disciple, and companion of Jesus — for the Lord speaks of him in Spirit in the Psalms as one with whom He “held sweet intercourse” — he is now seen as standing with the avowed enemies of Christ. Peter, in the same chapter, is seen “standing with them and warming himself”. Then we have the three Marys — the Lord’s mother, and her sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary of Magdala — standing by the cross of Jesus. These severally represent persons, or sets of persons, to be observed now, and bearing on the last days, that is, our days peculiarly. It is for each of us to see which position he occupies.

Judas would represent the great system whose importance is largely based on its antiquity and on the professed possession of all that attaches to Christ. It claims everything, and excludes all others, repudiating any claims but its own. It is said of Judas here that he “knew the place”; he knew the garden where the Lord had often spent seasons with His own. That is exactly what attaches to the system of which I have spoken; they are in possession of all the secrets; they have used these professed secrets for their own enhancement as assuming to be representative of Christ, but in truth they betray Him. It is a solemn matter that this system exists, and it is standing openly and avowedly as with the enemies of Christ. It has taken up a position internationally and politically as amongst the nations; it is one of them.

^[p. 385] Simon Peter, who had a heart that really loved Christ, and who had been outstanding in his service to Christ, represents here another set. He followed Jesus, and so did another disciple, of whom it is said that he was known to the high priest; and they went into the palace of the high priest. One of them was known to the high priest; that is the link, I believe, the key to this position. We have a great system around us which knows the lovers of Jesus. There were two who loved Jesus, Simon Peter and another; and of the other it is said that he was known to the high priest. If we pride ourselves on our acquaintance with such persons, we are in danger; we may be sure we shall be led into a false position in regard to Christ. That disciple was known to the high priest, and he went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. He is in surroundings that are most dangerous, and the result shows that his influence, his leadership, caused another to come under the influence of the world. I speak of this, dear brethren, because we are so prone to court acquaintance with persons such as the high priest. Such acquaintance is dangerous, and particularly as one uses it to gain an entrance into the palace of the high priest. Can we stand in the palace of the high priest, can we be loyal to Christ in it? We may; one may stand, but another may be led into it and fall. Hence the importance, dear brethren, of avoiding all such acquaintances and friendships and associations as the palace of the high priest would suggest. We are likely to think well of the high priest if we are in his palace, whatever our more inner thoughts may be; we are pretty certain to come under his influence whilst in his house; and that, of course, includes all such acquaintances that we may form and pride ourselves in. They may be very little above us in this world’s rank; but however much or little it may be, as entering into their palaces or houses on the grounds of personal friendship, we are certain to come under their influence; indeed we may go further, and stand ^[p. 386] up and warm ourselves there. Warming ourselves — for here it says, “it was cold” — is innocent enough, but the point is the connection in which we are. It is very subtle, courting a person’s friendship who is above us, and coming into his palace or house, and then sharing with him, even a cup of tea or a meal, but on the ground of personal friendship. It does not end there, because in the case of Simon Peter it culminated in being identified with the world, and in that position denying the Lord. That is a most serious matter, it is certain that if we are pursuing that line we shall suffer damage ourselves, or influence others so that they suffer damage.

Peter is seen here standing with them and warming himself. In the book of the Acts there is the instance of the great servant Paul, landing on the island of Melita; it was cold there, too, and the barbarians showed them no common kindness. They are called barbarians, and they lit a fire; it was an act of kindness, and not intended to influence the servant of God; that can be accepted. We can add to that. It is important for any of us who move about in service to add to what is found in the places we visit. It may be small, the fire may be weak, but it is no discredit or dishonour to the servant to gather sticks and add to what is there. There was a little heat, and the point was to add to that, and to share it; and that is what Paul did. He added to what was there. How different was the fire lit by those barbarians, having no distinction religiously at all, from the fire in the precincts of the palace of the high priest! Peter stood with them and warmed himself. It was the society that was there. Then the denial of the Lord Jesus — how solemn that is! We have often spoken of this; I speak of it now, dear brethren, as representing a certain division of christendom. I have spoken of it in detail as applying to us, showing the danger to ourselves or others of cultivating such society, but I speak of it now as representing a great subdivision ^[p. 387] of christendom. I have spoken of the greatest subdivision, represented in Judas. Peter represents another great subdivision, which is characterised by a high priest, and there are those who enter into his palace.

It is not now the so-called vicar of Christ that I am speaking of, but the high priest with a palace, and the danger of linking up with that. The second great subdivision of christendom is marked just in that way; it does not show open opposition to Christ, but it is marked by worldliness. What the Lord Jesus said about Sardis will help us: “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come upon thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know at what hour I shall come upon thee”. The Lord’s remarks to this assembly point to its state in the world; it is not in open opposition to Christ, as Thyatira, where there was a vicious woman who taught His servants wicked things and practised them, but here it is deadness, and the Lord says He will come on them as He will come on the world, as a thief. It is worldliness, dear brethren. Those Peter is sharing with here are said to be servants and officers, they are not leaders, they are the servants and officers, servants of the leaders. Peter is sharing with them; it is a state of worldliness that is in mind; and the outcome of it is the denial of the Lord Jesus. It may not be an out-and-out denial as, alas, with Peter, but it is certain that worldliness will end in the denial of Christ in some degree.

In chapter 19 we have the other side of the picture, which is indeed what one would rest in — the three Marys. Their name denotes suffering. As early as the passage of the Red Sea, Marah appears in Scripture; it is the idea of bitterness, and would point to true loyalty of heart at the present time. That is what these three represent; and I am speaking to those who may be classified as standing by the cross of Jesus — standing by. Judas stood by with the open enemies of Christ; Peter shared the world’s fire with the world, and denied Him; these three women are standing by the cross of ^[p. 388] Jesus. We may introduce here the idea of the cross. There are those who use it; these systems of which I have spoken use it freely, but only to add to the evil, to adorn it. It is simply to adorn religious wickedness; whether it be those represented in Judas, or those represented in Peter, it is used to add to and adorn and accredit wickedness. So that to understand aright what is meant by these three women standing by the cross, we must have “the word of the cross”. The words I have used are found in 1 Corinthians, very properly. Paul might allude to those women in his ministry. John would be very conversant with one of them, with the Lord’s mother, and no doubt he at certain times would allude to the scene depicted in these verses.

Paul says, “the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness”, 1 Corinthians 1: 18. He does not say the cross is foolishness; the cross is used, as I said, by those systems. They adorn themselves with it, they do not regard it as foolishness; but “the word of the cross” is foolishness. In the Authorised Version it is “the preaching of the cross”, but the proper expression is “the word of the cross”, that is to say, the unfolding of it. We may rightly introduce that into this circle of the three Marys. How they would understand it, the word of the cross! This is foreign to the systems I have spoken of. They give no place, characteristically at least, to the word of the cross; they do to the literal thing, but not to the word of it. We may well inquire, dear brethren, how much we know of the word of the cross. The apostle Paul said to the christians at Corinth that he determined not “to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified”. That is not a popular way of presenting the truth. We may speak about the cross, and adorn ourselves with it as with jewellery; but to bring in the word of the cross would remove all that jewellery, it would bring out what the cross means; and that is what is needed. To those that perish it is foolishness.

^[p. 389] If any are not interested in the word of the cross their christianity is questionable. One would think of the class, “them that perish”. How solemn it is that there is such a class as that! There are two expressions, “them that perish”, and “those that are lost”. Paul uses both expressions; he says, “The word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness”, and then, in 2 Corinthians, he says, “If also our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those that are lost”. There is a class of people known in heaven as lost. So that “the word of the cross” becomes a searching thing, as to whether we care for it; and if we do, it will class us with the three Marys. I hope every sister aspires to that, to stand with them by the cross of Jesus, not in a literal way, of course, but according to the word of the cross. They would listen with the keenest interest to every word of Paul as opening up the teaching of the cross, what it really means. Not only is the cross solemn in itself, but it is said in regard to the Lord’s death on the cross, “Cursed is every one hanged upon a tree”, Galatians 3: 13. What humility and reverence is needed to ponder that fact, that the Lord Jesus hung there, and that the Man who hung there as crucified was accursed! One would hesitate to use the word, but that is the fact: “cursed is everyone hanged upon a tree”. What are these three Marys saying as the word of the cross develops in the teaching of the apostles, and particularly the teaching of Paul? It meant that that precious Saviour, whose cross they stood by, was there under a curse; He was made a curse for us, dear brethren, for us. Would not they say, Yes, He was that for us? No one would say it more freely than the Lord’s mother, despite what is said about her in the religious systems. What was it for? “That the blessing of Abraham might come to the nations in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”, Galatians 3: 14.

So you can see how these three Marys would listen to the word of the cross. Would that I could enlarge ^[p. 390] on it! I hardly know a phase of truth more important at the present time than the word of the cross. It cuts at the very root of everything in the flesh, not only that death has been meted out to man in the flesh, but crucifixion. One who loved the Lord Jesus said, “I am crucified with Christ”, Galatians 2: 20. He also said, “Our old man has been crucified with him”; that is a collective thought and one would that we might all subscribe more freely to it and say, “I am crucified with Christ”. The more we learn the flesh, the more we realise its meanness, how it is desperately wicked and utterly untrustworthy; for even a devoted servant like Peter could deny the Lord Jesus. As you think of the capabilities of the flesh, how important it is to look into the “word of the cross”, because that signifies the unfolding of its meaning and bearing and full significance.

That is what comes out in the three Marys; but then the Lord sees another there, another who is standing there. The Spirit of God does not formally state at the outset that he was there. With suitable humility, because John is no doubt the writer of this gospel, he does not say he was there, he says that Jesus saw him there. That is beautiful. It is a question of what Jesus sees, and He sees everything, and every person. He is watching over us, and perhaps He gives us more credit than we think, at times. Whether John was just as near as the others, I cannot say; but Jesus saw him there. There were four there, thank God; and now the Lord is able to open up, as hanging upon the tree, a line of truth to us. He calls His mother “Woman” on the cross, He does not say, Mother. He is not calling attention to her; He is calling attention to that brother there. There were three Marys, but there was another. One would like to think of ourselves in that way, though feeble; how the Lord would love to accredit us with the fact that the shame of the cross is felt in our souls. John, as we are often reminded, in his writing views things abstractly; that is, if at any time the truth has a place ^[p. 391] in my soul, the Lord reserves the right to accredit me with it and to disregard all else for the moment. It is not that all else is to be always disregarded, as we see in Peter’s case. There was someone else whom the Lord could see standing by His cross, and He seizes that fact as an opportunity to unfold the truth. He has always the right to do that. The Lord does not forget one in the ministry He gives. He saw John standing there, and He is able to say something that He could not have said if he were not there. He says, “Woman, behold thy son” — not Mother, but “Woman”. That is to say, He places His mother according to the flesh in relation to John in holy affection.

The Lord has in mind to set us in relation with one another in holy affections. The words, “Woman, behold thy son”, had not been said before; they could not have been said before. The Lord was setting aside all natural relationships: He was not to be known henceforth after the flesh (2 Corinthians 5: 16). John’s relation to the mother of the Lord Jesus is one of holy affection: she is to be his mother, and he is to be her son. Great and permanent gain accrues as we renounce what is natural — not legitimate family relations, but what goes beyond that. If we make something of our family after the flesh, we are losing all the time. The Lord’s desire is to set us in relation with one another in our affections; not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The expression “Woman” may seem a hard word, but it is true, for the Lord is terminating all natural links; He is to be known in another way, and the brethren are to be known in another way, in the light of that, so that our affections go out in that way. It is another order of Man, the Holy Spirit in us maintaining us in that holy way. It says of John in this passage that “from that hour” he took her to his own home. Something accrued at once. It is not simply that he did so later on, but the Lord spoke to him and he acted on the spot. If the truth lays hold of us, breaking ^[p. 392] all natural relationships in this sense, then what will happen? We shall take one another up in that light henceforth, not allowing natural things to interfere with our great heavenly calling. Are our distinctions too much for us to take certain ones to our own homes? That is what I had in mind as to the “word of the cross”; it helps us to take all saints into our affections. They are to be viewed in the light of the death of Christ, and not only that, but in the light of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. In Luke 15 the father said, when his son returned, “Bring out the best robe and clothe him in it”. That means that I have to bring the clothes, and clothe the saints with them. It is a question of the apprehension of Christ as He is, there; and our relations with one another are to be in that light — the best possible. We could take all such to our own homes, could we not? That is how the dispensation is ending up, dear brethren. The Lord is drawing us together in holy affections so that we see our heavenly calling, and how the word of the cross settles the whole matter of man after the flesh and the relations attached to it.