THE HOLY MOUNTAIN AND ITS FEATURES
[p. 16] THE HOLY MOUNTAIN AND ITS FEATURES
Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1 - 8; Luke 9:28 - 36
JT Each of these records has a particular character in relation to the gospel in which it is found, the first, I thought, having in mind personality, both in Christ and in the saints, in view of assembly formation and service, this gospel having the assembly particularly in view. In Mark, the Spirit has levitical service in view, service in the sense in which it is carried on by qualified persons, gifts. Luke is concerned about the moral side of the position set out in the kingdom as it is seen down here: first of all in Christ — as He said, “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:21); or in the saints now, as the epistle to the Romans presents it to us, and which requires new birth, that it might be seen and entered into. It is hoped that the Lord will show us certain features in each account that corroborate what has been remarked.
Matthew clearly has personality in mind, because he begins with the Son of man coming in His kingdom: “Verily, I say unto you”, the Lord says, “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. The idea is, the Person of the Lord Jesus, in this title, but coming in His kingdom; it will be displayed — involving a great personal distinction. So we have, as distinctive to Matthew, His countenance as the sun, and the bright cloud, and the voice saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight” (chapter 17:5). We may look at Matthew first, having the features in mind to which attention has been called. Does this outline of the three accounts strike you as right?
CAC Yes, indeed. I was wondering whether you had in mind that this element of personality should characterise [p. 17] the assembly?
JT Yes. The remaining part of Matthew 17 seems to emphasise and enlarge on the thought, for it introduces sonship, bringing the disciples into association with Christ, as He says to Peter: “Then are the sons free”; He associates Peter with Himself in connection with the piece of money; saying, “take that and give it to them for me and thee”. It elevates us in our thoughts and affections, too, as we humbly and yet really accept this dignity that the Lord puts upon us, especially in assembly service.
EBI “Whom say ye that I am?” the Lord said.
JT Yes; the revelation to Peter in chapter 16 precedes this. There the Lord includes Peter in the same sort of dignity that attaches to himself as the Foundation — that is, in the sense of material, “Peter”, as no doubt all understand, being “stone” — part of the rock. So that the personal dignity afforded in the revelation enters into the assembly viewed as a structure. It is however more than a structure, it is a vessel of service, and it is as in this relation that we have the idea of personality in the end of chapter 17 — sonship, required both for service Godward and manward.
FWW Are we to gather that these records of the transfiguration have a very definite bearing on the assembly at the present time, and are calculated to affect us?
JT I think so. Matthew brings out the idea of personality — obviously not what we are in any way after the flesh, but what we are according to divine counsel and work, divine counsel as to us, and divine work in us, and the education that goes with it. Hence we have the names of the persons here who appeared without saying they were men, and in Mark also; whereas Luke stresses they were men — “two men” — their names are secondary. These are outstanding persons in the Old Testament, and their appearance here is to remind us of the heavenly side of our position — those who are of the assembly, heavenly personalities.
[p. 18] Angels are heavenly, too, but not the personalities which the counsels of God had specially in mind as the occupants of heaven. Moses and Elijah here are typical of these, for man, as in Christ, has gone beyond angels.
RC In connection with what Peter said to the Lord just previously, “God be favourable to thee, Lord” (verse 22), would that show our great need of being brought into this instruction as to the greatness of Christ’s personality?
JT You mean that it was a natural trait working out in Peter to prevent the Lord from fulfilling the work which He came to accomplish; his assuming to know better than the Lord — that what the Lord had spoken should not be? That certainly is not a trait of heavenly personality, for the will of God is to be done here as up there. That will is to be known fully in man, not in angels, although they fulfil the will of God; but we learn the will of God from Man, that is, in Christ, and now, in measure, in those who are of Christ.
RJD When the Lord says, “some of those”, does He introduce the idea of dignity there? Should that not raise questions in our minds that we might be among the “some of those”?
JT Yes, it would challenge us as to whether we are of them.
WR Has new birth a bearing on personality, as far as the saints are concerned?
JT It has; it is the foundation of it. It is the foundation of our personality and refers to the family feature of our position. New creation, of course, also comes into it. It seems as if new birth is the foundational thought that culminates in the personality that God has in His mind. It seems as if generation is greater than new creation, for generation refers to persons only; creation refers to lower living creatures and inanimate things. Would you say that?
CAC [p. 19] Yes. Generation would involve stature in accord with the first thought, would it not? Creation is more the completed thing, a thing completed by the act of God.
JT Generation therefore involves development. The model would be Christ, that is, the Adamic figure of Christ; God had Christ in mind in Adam. In Genesis 1, of course, it is a creatorial thought alone: “male and female created he them”; but in chapter 2 He formed Adam, and breathed into him, so that according to Luke’s account of the genealogy of Christ, Adam is “of God”. I suppose the line of our Lord Jesus as in Luke 3 goes back into Genesis 2 rather than chapter 1. So Eve is formed, too — builded, alluding to the assembly.
CEB The result is reached here: “they saw no one but Jesus alone”. Every other man disappears, leaving only one object.
JT Mark says, “Jesus alone with themselves”, meaning the servants down here have Him in the discharge of their service. Matthew, I suppose, would put Christ outstandingly before us, the great thought of personality being in mind throughout his gospel. So he adds what had been already announced at the Jordan, that the Father has found His delight in the Son; and he tells us that His countenance shone as the sun. He is about to appear in that sense in royalty and government. The Spirit of God seems to keep that thought before us to imbue us with the idea of personality. Great as it is in Christ, there are two men seen talking with Him, as if He is accessible in this great thought — not that they are called men here, they are called by their great names. Applying the thought to ourselves, we, as His brethren, have liberty of access to Him to speak to Him. We are not told here what they spoke of; it is simply that they had that liberty as heavenly ones. I suppose the idea is that the great personalities of heaven are known in their distinctiveness,
by their names. It is simply “Moses and Elias”, not “two men ... who were Moses and Elias”, as in Luke.
Ques Do we see also personality coming out in Peter, James, and John? So that the idea is that we all may have personality in the sense of which you are speaking?
JT It is for ourselves — Peter and James and John are not here now. It would not be written if it were only for them. It is written for us who are here, that we may take in the divine thought in personality, supremely seen in Jesus, and yet in two men who are known in this scene of glory by their names.
JEB Is the thought of personality to be connected with “the crowd of names” in Acts 1:15?
JT Yes. The word “crowd” would stress the thought, for only by distinctiveness is one known there; each is known by his name.
PEHW Does this thought commence in the history of Paul when he says, “So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law” (Romans 7:25)?
JT That is a basic thought of personality, that you arrive at a consciousness of yourself as in this relation. It is a moral thought there, that there is the resolve, as reaching self-consciousness through the process indicated, to serve God’s law, whatever it may be — not any specific law, but whatever it may be. It is evidently the basis for all personnel. Paul works it out in himself in several instances in which he says “I Paul”. He speaks to the Corinthians and Galatians in that way. He throws in the weight of his personality with what is said; that weight would be recognised in heaven, and by every spiritual person. In speaking to Philemon, he throws in the weight of his personality, adding his age to it, in order that the work of God should be respected by Philemon, for it was the question of the work of God in Onesimus, which was liable to be under-rated by Onesimus’ master. The relation of [p. 21] master and slave would tend to belittle, in the mind of the master, the work of God in the slave, and it seems that the apostle throws his personality, inclusive of his age, into the scale so as to ensure the recognition of the full worth of the work of God in a believer.
CAC Is his personality in that sense, “I Paul”, a little different from the thought, “I know a man in Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:2)? Is not the latter a little more abstract?
JT Will you enlarge on it?
CAC I was thinking “I Paul” was the living person known as moving amongst the brethren, and having a certain character discernible by the saints; but “a man in Christ” is a little more abstract, is it not?
JT Giving him a status in heaven?
CAC I wondered whether “I Paul” is not his status among the brethren, but “a man in Christ” his status in heaven.
JT I am sure that is right, and it will help us in looking at Luke 9, for that presents the moral side of the kingdom. It is in such men as Paul that the kingdom is seen down here in a moral sense. The idea of the kingdom of God comes out in what the Lord said, “nor shall they say, Lo here, or, Lo there; for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:21). It is the thing working next door to you, so to speak. That is the idea — “in the midst of you”. What a man is morally is worked out here in the government of God, the service of God, and the discipline of God. I am sure that is what “I Paul” means, and it brings out the importance of men of weight, not only gift, not only ability given of God, but moral weight, to be thrown into the scale, if needed, in a crisis. Whilst it is right that we should be governed by principles and truth, we cannot omit the importance of persons: that is, those in whom God has wrought and whom He has used. It is more than hearsay; it is seen in “being such a one as Paul the aged” (Philemon 9).
[p. 22] Ques Do you get the thought of personality in Revelation 1:9? “I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus”. In the scripture you have referred to, “Peter, and James, and John his brother” are spoken of. Is it a further development of personality in Revelation 1?
JT Yes. The idea of personality in a moral sense is a very interesting line of thought.
CAC You have made it clear to us that heavenly status is “a man in Christ”, but in a moral sense, men who can call attention to themselves are of importance, because they are of moral weight and, if thrown into the scale at times, weigh it down in favour of what is right. It is important to have distinction in that way. It is important in the testimony, for at times the saints are simply governed by the weight of a man of God like that; if they cannot see principles clearly, they know him.
JT So, as you say, we have the idea in John in Patmos, and even in Jesus — “I Jesus” (Revelation 22:16). What He is as known thus is in mind. Daniel is an outstanding man: the Spirit alludes to him in that way in his book frequently. “Go thy way, Daniel, ...” the angel says, “thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot” (Daniel 12:13). Ezekiel refers to Daniel as of importance in a moral way.
EBI Is there a group of such persons found at Antioch — named at the beginning of Acts 13?
JT Yes; though they do not commend themselves. It seems a man is entirely free of himself when able to say, as the apostle did, “I Paul”. You might say, That is an egotistical man! No, he is not; he is so beyond that, that he is free of himself, and the Spirit causes him to speak thus.
EWB Is the instruction to “make disciples” based on the thought of personality?
JT That is right. “Make them”. No one can make them unless he has personality. That is what is needed: influence is implied.
AJH Is “Listen to Israel your father” (Genesis 49:2) on this line?
JT Just so; such a man as Israel, and his being in that relation, added to his greatness as Israel — “your father”, the parental thought.
Now, as regards Mark, the idea is, as has often been said, that there are those who are to serve in a levitical way. In this gospel the Lord goes up into the mountain and calls to Him whom He Himself would, appointing twelve that they might be with Him, that He might send them forth to preach (chapter 3:13,14). Mark, in giving the account of the transfiguration, quotes the Lord as saying, “... the kingdom of God come in power”; and he says, “Jesus takes with him Peter and James and John, and takes them up on a high mountain by themselves apart”. Earlier, Mark says the Lord, having gone up into the mountain, called whom He Himself would, and appointed twelve that they might be with Him, that He might send them forth to preach. They are viewed as a class; and here these three are taken “by themselves apart”. All this is peculiar to Mark, showing that servants have to learn to be apart with Christ; not as a clerical set, of course, but nevertheless servants of a peculiar kind. “With him” they learn true personality. They are not to be rivals, they have the same opportunities, all chosen of Christ, and all with Him so as to come under His influence, and all sent forth to preach: they are commissioned men. So the end here is, “suddenly having looked around, they no longer saw any one, but Jesus alone with themselves” — not “and themselves”, but “with themselves”, a great comfort to those who are in any way commissioned, would you say?
CAC The greatest comfort!
EBI Does that correspond with what comes out at the end of the gospel, “the Lord working with them”?
JT That is right, that is the thought exactly — “with them”.
EBH In Matthew it is stated that His face shone as the sun, but here in Mark the shining is only connected with His garments. Has that to do with the way He is specially presented as the Servant in Mark’s gospel?
JT No doubt alluding to the garments of those of us who serve. And the young man at the tomb (chapter 16), is clothed in a white robe — an important suggestion as to those who are serving as commissioned men, that their circumstances are pure. The enemy often damages a real servant through his circumstances, through his not attending to his garments, his household affairs, and his business affairs. Many a man has been brought down by neglecting to attend to his garments. The peculiar words used here as to whiteness are strong: “his garments became shining, exceeding white as snow, such as fuller on earth could not whiten them”. They must be from heaven to have such whiteness; no seminary training, no clerical training of any kind, nor monasticism, can produce such garments as these.
CAC Is it not remarkable that that is the evidence of the power of the kingdom?
JT I thought that. It is a question of power. I suppose you have often noticed the frequency of the word “power” in the Corinthian epistles. It was really the test of things at Corinth — men were assuming to be ministers without power, and, of course, that implies, without white garments. Certainly the garments of at least some of them at Corinth were filthy, not only those mentioned in the first epistle, but others, as he tells them in the second letter (chapter 12:21).
CAC Would you say we need this in addition to personality, personality coming first as in Matthew, but power is a most important requisite?
JT We surely do, and you rejoice, I am sure, as looking on the field, to see the number of young men taking an active part in the service. What a word there [p. 25] is in this account as to garments, as to the circumstances in which we appear, whether in household affairs or business matters, or personal links! The power goes with the white garments.
CAC That is an essential support in relation to all exercise of gift.
JT It seems to me that in youth it is one of the most important words — “in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). The young man in a white garment at the sepulchre is certainly very suggestive; he was in the full knowledge of the Lord’s position as risen, but clothed with a white garment. Timothy is a model; and yet he is enjoined to flee youthful lusts, and to follow righteousness, faith, love, peace with others; showing that however gifted and honoured a man may be in his youth, he is exposed in this way.
JEB Elijah is mentioned before Moses; is there any connection here with his mantle?
JT It is “Elias with Moses” — not Moses with him. I think Moses has the distinction in all these accounts, but Elijah’s garments, as you say, are mentioned in Scripture.
WW I notice in each case it says, “hear him”. Is that an essential to acquiring the qualities spoken of?
JT That comes into each account. They are enjoined to hear the Lord, from the standpoint of the greatness of His Person in Matthew, and from the standpoint of His servant character here in Mark. If you are in service as called into it in this special way particularly, you are to hear Him in regard to that, and take account of Jesus as the perfect Servant. “My servant whom I uphold”, says Jehovah, “mine elect in whom my soul delighteth!” (Isaiah 42:1) We surely ought to consider Him, and look into all the facts relative to Him in that light, if we are to be true servants.
AC Would the word to Timothy bear on it — “Keep thyself pure” (1 Timothy 5:22) — suggesting that if that were not so his personality would be impaired?
JT Just so. Again, “Take heed unto thyself”. It is a constant thing; that is, it is a question of taking heed to yourself and all that attaches to you, “and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Timothy 4:16). So that attention to oneself is most important; of course, it is so to all christians, but particularly to those in any way commissioned, because the saints look at us, and expect us to give them a lead, not only in what we say, but in what we are, each in himself. It is very striking with regard to Paul in his first missionary tour, on meeting with Elymas the sorcerer, how he dealt with him, how penetrating he was as to that man’s personality and origin. “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10). Then immediately after the deputy of the island of Cyprus (being astonished at the teaching of the Lord) is secured for the testimony, we have “Paul and his company” — a safe company to be in, that of such a man. Not that he was a party man, of course, but the Spirit of God is pleased to honour him in that way as worthy of the saints taking notice of him and being near him. Surely, as living in his day, you would be near to Paul if possible, and obtain what you could of his company.
EBI Would that be a cause of Mark withdrawing from the work?
JT Evidently it was not the company he liked in his service at that time — a very humbling thing for him. How ashamed of himself he must have felt in later years! He must have said, What opportunities I had in service with the apostle Paul, but I did not value them then.
JH-k His garments had become whitened at the time when Paul says, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11).
JT Evidently they had. “Paul and his company” would really synchronise with the Lord in the mount in Mark 3, when He chose certain that they might be with Him; it was Christ’s company then. The idea is companionship with such a servant as Paul. Of no one else is such a thing stated. Is that right?
CAC Yes, I think so.
FH Would you say that the garments of Paul and Silas, in prison in Philippi, were shining resplendently in their service, the power of the kingdom being there?
Ques And Peter and John in going up to the temple?
JT Quite so; and they were so entirely “apart” as men. I believe the idea of Nazariteship enters into all this. It is the secret one has with God in His service, and the garments that are needed to maintain that secret, and the power that goes with it, for power is with Nazariteship.
CAC Is there something distinctive in the Lord’s action here? I was thinking of the principle of selection as seen in His taking twelve to the mount, but selecting three. Is there any principle like that today?
JT I think there is. There is considerable concern about invitations to special meetings, and the same principle might be applied. I am not saying that the invitations and selections now are so accurate as this, but still they ought to be based on known qualities in the persons invited. There ought to be no question about them. The idea of selection is divine, and cannot be quarrelled with in itself; our judgment in the selection may be, but not the principle.
CAC This principle of selection would, I suppose, apply to all service. Is it not a matter of the Lord’s own choice and selection as to each one, whether the measure be great or small?
JT Just so. He uses this principle in selecting these three men to accompany Him to the house of Jairus, and again here. There it would be evidently to form a spiritual atmosphere — a most important [p. 28] matter in special meetings, to make the atmosphere as spiritual as it can be made by the persons invited. The Lord chose these three, and put out others whose presence vitiated the atmosphere — the flute-players and the like. Here He would refine these men more, and make them more than they were. Surely the process of refinement is important in relation to those who serve, so that the saints might be better served; nobody should quarrel with what results in better service to the saints.
Ques Does the principle of selection bring out His sovereignty — choosing whom He will?
JT Some are left behind, though already selected as having been made apostles; they are not taken on for this special refinement, this special view of the kingdom. The Lord would have it rightly presented, and He decided that those three men would be the best vessels for that purpose. It is a question really in each case of the greatest good for the brethren. So in 2 Peter you see how Peter shines in the light of this vision which he had on the mount. He speaks of it most beautifully and forcibly, “having been eye-witnesses of his majesty”, he says, in keeping with Matthew’s record; “being with him on the holy mountain”, he adds (2 Peter 1:16,18), as if they needed to be with Him to see it, for it was for the good of the whole assembly; each one of us has gained from it. Peter, as about to put off his tabernacle, is able to speak well, too, of the most spiritual of the levites, of the great servant of Christ, Paul; how beautifully Peter speaks of Paul, and of his writings!
CRT There was a lack of white garments at Laodicea, and the Lord in His word to the assembly there appeals to anyone who would hear His voice.
JT Quite so, and He says He is ready to sell them these white garments, that is, one can have them on that principle, if not otherwise; but the Lord makes it imperative that they should have them.
Then Luke’s description of the transfiguration is in a way the most important as representing the moral [p. 29] side: that is how the kingdom of God is seen. There the Lord says, “There are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God” — that is, the thing itself, not in any particular feature, but as known down here in a moral sense, practically worked out in persons.
ASK Does this presentation involve more responsibility than the two previous?
JT It is more what men are in a moral sense, what anyone of us is; and hence Jesus is presented as going up to pray — that is the first thing. A Man who is known to be a praying Man, moving up so high to pray, surely there is something of God to be seen in that Man! It is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is to be seen in persons who are dependent on God, not on themselves and their own ability, but on God. Jesus goes up to pray: that is what is in His mind. He is not going up to be transfigured, but to pray. That is how Luke gives the facts. Then he says, “as he prayed the fashion of his countenance became different and his raiment white and effulgent”. Jesus is different from the ordinary man, and notice is to be taken of Him; it cannot fail to be taken if He is so different from the ordinary. The kingdom of God, the rule of God, is seen in that Man. Applied now, that includes not only levites, or commissioned men, but all saints; for every one born anew, born of water and of the Spirit, sees and enters into the kingdom of God; so that he in turn becomes visible in it.
Then it is stated that two men talked with Him, not, first, these great personages, but “two men”, and we are told what they were talking about, too — another trait of persons in whom the kingdom of God is to be seen. They were talking about what Jesus would accomplish at Jerusalem, that is, the great work of the cross. That is the theme of conversation, not ordinary matters. That is another thing that enters into the [p. 30] kingdom here in a moral sense, what people are talking about.
JHB Does the fact that the kingdom is referred to in each of the scriptures, imply that we need continually to get fresh thoughts about the kingdom in order to function rightly in assembly?
JT That is right, and what is before us now is important in that respect. It is what you are in your profession, what you are in your house, and on the street, and it includes brothers and sisters alike, persons who are born anew, who see and enter into the kingdom of God. The Lord called attention to it: “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:21), seen in the midst of them in such a lowly Man. Well, I want to be like that! The idea comes out in prayer, and it comes out in the fact that I am different. The passage says, “the fashion of his countenance became different and his raiment white and effulgent”. Then He is accessible to two men, bringing out an additional feature. One of those of the kingdom may be head of a business, or a distinguished professional man, or a man of ancestry, as we may speak: whatever he is that is regarded as distinction in this world, yet he is accessible — you can speak to him, you can approach him, and he is ready to listen to you.
AFB He took them up into the mountain on each occasion, involving elevation; such moral elevation is needed on our part for us to see the kingdom.
JT Moral elevation certainly attaches to the kingdom itself, and our going up to see it. But now it is a question of what is in the midst of men: “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you”. The Lord was the thing, He was there in their midst. It is not, “Lo here” nor “Lo there”. It is not a question of some great thing happening according to man’s natural way of thinking, but it is in a Man like Jesus, a Man who prayed, and who was the most accessible of all men; we never read of His turning any away, He was always [p. 31] ready to receive people. It is said too of Paul, “he ... received all who came to him” (Acts 28:30); not simply that he allowed them into his house, but he received them; an important matter, because if we get on a bit in business, as men and women in this world, we are apt to put on natural features that convey a certain haughtiness and distance; whereas the point here is, “two men talked with him”. Their identity is stated afterwards, but the primary thought is that they were men, and were talking with Him, and talking about what He was going to do in Jerusalem; that was the theme of their conversation.
FWW John is mentioned here, and as one who in the Lord’s bosom, found the Lord peculiarly accessible.
JT The Lord was peculiarly accessible to him; and the word “bosom”, as you know, refers to receptiveness — not simply that one takes the place, but you are received there. The idea of the breast is firmness: John leaned on the breast, but he was in the bosom of Jesus.
FH What was the service of God that the Lord was rendering in this mountain? You spoke of the service of the Lord and the service of the assembly Godward and manward.
JT He was praying; He was praying when He was changed. It brings out that side, not simply the service of God, but the thought of a dependent Man, qualifying to represent God. The moral side of the kingdom is seen in Him in the very fact that He is praying. He is dependent upon God, not on Himself. The kingdom of God is the power of God, not as seen in the kingdoms of this world now, where everything hinges on the head, as one who said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?” (Daniel 4:30) Jesus is not like that; He is dependent, so that He is a Model for us. It is largely a question of the word of God and prayer, with the practical result — “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).
FH That very attitude of prayer is service to God.
JT It is His kingdom as seen in those thus characterised; and He acts for them, for His kingdom is in power.
SC Is there a suggestion of this in Acts 3 — Peter and John say, “Look on us”? It is at the hour of prayer that they were going up.
JH-k These two men on the mount were seen not only speaking with the Lord, but they “stood with him”.
JT Just so; there is there what is suggestive of God’s kingdom. That is the kind of thing.