THE PROPHETS (2)
THE PROPHETS (2)
JT Some further remarks are needed to clarify the passages read this forenoon in the New Testament before we proceed to this chapter. The account in Luke 9 stresses the humanity of Moses and Elias; they were two men, which would be intended to remind us, as to Elijah, that he was not a mythical personage, but a real man, in truth, a heavenly man. Matthew 17:10 - 13 confirms that he is to come. The disciples asked, “Why then say the scribes that Elias must first have come? And he answering said to them, Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias has already come, and they have not known him, but have done unto him whatever they would. Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer from them. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the baptist”. The Lord confirms the Old Testament prophecy as to Elias, who indeed comes first and will restore all things. So that much of what we may call mystical truth arises in the mind as to Elijah; first, that he is actually now a real man, What his occupation may be we have to leave, just as we have to leave the statement as to the Lord that He is received in heaven pending certain coming events. Of course it is said that the Lord is at the right hand of God, but that is general; it is not a specific statement as to His position, but a place of great honour and power. Mark says He “sat” there. He is operating in relation to the disciples and what they are doing. But as to what Elias is doing there is nothing said. He is said here to be a man, and he appeared with Moses talking with Jesus. It says in Luke 9:30, “And lo, two men talked with him, who were Moses and Elias”. It is no question of mere apparition, but actual persons, two men talking with Jesus. It seems as if there is instruction in this as to the present state of things in heaven. We spoke this morning of certain who came out of their tombs after the Lord arose, and [p. 297] entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.
CAM It says that Elijah restores all things. That is a remarkable statement. Matthew seems to agree with what you are calling attention to in Acts 3, the restoring of all things, and then the Lord comes.
JT What he is doing now is the mysterious side for us; also where Abraham is according to the Lord’s references in Luke 16; and then what we have as to Moses here, one of the two men; one of them having gone to heaven without dying and the other being concealed by God in burial, Michael contending with the devil about His body. I am referring to Scripture, the very suggestions of which are food for holy thought. It is clear the Spirit of God intends that we should be impressed with the fact that they were two men and that they appeared: “And lo, two men talked with him, who were Moses and Elias”. There is no question as to this, it is a fact — “who were Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure [p. 295] which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem”. The speaking is all on their side, they were two men talking with Jesus. It goes on to say they appeared in glory, and we are told what they were speaking about: they “spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem”. That is, they are presented to us as persons fully fitted, representing a prime thought in this great scene next to the fact of Jesus being there and changed.
CAM Mark’s gospel, which we regard as a prophetic gospel, puts Elias first. Would you say [p. 294] that shows that these personalities have some present effect on the saints?
JT Well, Luke’s account is to stress especially the persons and their importance at the time. Mark 9:4 says, “there appeared to them Elias with Moses”, that is, Moses really has the first place; the preposition ‘with’ shows that Elias is there with the great mediator. But Luke says “Moses and Elias”. That is very greatly stressed. It is not the existence of persons who were once Moses and Elias, they are really the persons themselves. The persons were there as men and they talked with Jesus and spoke of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. The existence of these men is seen here in heavenly glory, clearly not presented in any mythical or mere apparitional condition, but literal persons.
HB Is that emphasised by the note which reads, ‘who were no other than’?
JT Yes, no other than the very persons. The Spirit of God would tell us that the very persons were there.
GMcP Matthew and Mark leave out the word ‘men’.
JT Luke stresses the idea of humanity. He does it again in the appearance in chapter 24, “two men suddenly stood by them in shining raiment”; the context, however, indicates that these were angels, and so also the “two men ... in white” in Acts 1. But Moses and Elias were real men. They appeared in glory and talked with Jesus about an event that was to happen in His own history.
AAT I notice it is worded that His death was to be “accomplished”. That is not the way we customarily speak about death.
JT It is “his departure”. Of course, it is death, but it is a going out of the position. It is really the word ‘exodus’: they “spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem”; it was an actual exodus that was in mind. Really the whole book of Exodus is involved in the Lord’s going out.
AAT Is it not said rightly of His departure that He had ability to accomplish it? That could not be said of us.
JT Yes; the word ‘accomplish’ is a full word. It is not a mere effort, it is a strong word under special circumstances.
ABP Would not the disciples be impressed with the way Moses and Elias could speak with the Lord about this great matter, and would they not have a sense of who the Lord was as being with Him in that way? It would always keep them humble in regard of any place they had in the testimony.
JT Just so. The fact is that the whole matter is for them. While He was praying the disciples were with Him (verse 18). Then again in verse 28: “And it came to pass after these words, about eight days, that taking Peter and John and James he went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed the fashion of his countenance became different and his raiment white and effulgent. And lo, two men talked with him, who were Moses and Elias who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem”. That is, the appearing was for them. The Lord had said that some should not taste death “until they shall have seen the kingdom of God”; what happened was for them. The great scene was brought in for them, and they surely would take account of it and speak of it afterwards, as Peter does in his second letter. He speaks of it most beautifully and touchingly, that they were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). The thing took place for them so that they might be witnesses to it for others.
CAM The Lord would not have to open up [p. 296] things to those two great persons. They would have a full knowledge of the death of Christ and of all that He had to do.
JT How well able they were to speak about it! Peter and the others could not speak about it as they did. They were speaking to Himself about it, and surely that is to remind us of the intelligence they had.
FC Verse 28 says, “after these words”, that is, after the words that “There are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God”. Is it to fix our minds on this matter of words, referring to what the Lord had said, that it is all one matter?
JT Exactly. “And it came to pass after these words, about eight days, that taking Peter and John and James he went up into a mountain to pray”. The thing happened in regard of the words, it is one whole. Surely the disciples, in subsequent relations and conversations with one another would dwell on these two persons and the intelligence and liberty they had in speaking with the Lord.
JB Moses and Elias are known by Peter, but his intelligence is not great enough to know why they are there. It does not say who told him their identity but he knows them.
JT Yes The Spirit of God through Luke says, “two men talked with him, who were Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure”. Then Peter says, “let us make three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias”. That is, Peter knew the persons. It was intended that they should be apprehended by Peter and the others.
JWD Are you looking at these as special cases, or are you inferring that others apprehend them in a corporeal way now in heaven?
JT Certainly; I am inferring that Enoch is in heaven, and these two, and those that arose and entered into the holy city and appeared to many after the Lord arose from the dead.
JWD Do you think it is especially to bring out some feature of the dispensation?
JT I think the intent is that we might know that eternal conditions have already begun. We are already in the light of the fact that eternal conditions have begun, and men are in them and enjoying them.
AAT You refer to these two as men. I thought a man had three parts, body, soul, and spirit. Do you think they were men after and before this appearing?
JT Luke stresses that point. It is specified that they were actually Moses and actually Elias.
TW Moses had been buried.
JT That is a mysterious fact, too, and God buried him. No one knows where he was buried, only we are told there was a conflict: that Michael contended for the body of Moses. I do not infer anything different as to Moses, only the facts recorded suggest a thought as to whether God acted specially in this case in view of the mount of Transfiguration.
GMcP Is it your thought that we should arrive at manhood now, and enjoy eternal conditions in the assembly?
JT Quite so. You do not want to enter in as a boy but as a mature person. You want to be able to share in that scene.
SRMcC Is not that what James stresses, that Elias was a man of like passions to ourselves?
JT That is a point not to be omitted; James implies that he was not a mythical man. He was a real man like ourselves, a man of like passions to ourselves. Now he is in the glory, a real man. When we see him presently he will be as real as any of us.
RWS “We speak God’s wisdom in a mystery”. Even the speaking is a mystery; and then the apostle goes on to say God has hidden it: “that [p. 298] hidden wisdom which God had predetermined before the ages for our glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7). Would that bear on the subject? We are so natural, and these mysterious things require spirituality, do they not?
JT Well, in this scene the idea of divine testimony is that the real thing is presented. There were two persons who were Moses and Elias, and they appeared in glory and were talking with Jesus. Surely the intent is testimony. If there were a million men it would be the same thing — testimony as to what is there and what will be there eternally. That testimony is brought to us by Peter and others but it is brought to us so that it shall affect us, because that is the divine purpose. I am sure the idea is to bring out that the thing exists. Eternal conditions exist, and the Spirit of God is here with a perfect knowledge of their existence and is telling us that we are coming in touch with them now in the assembly; not that we come in touch literally with our brethren who are gone, but Christianity involves what is real.
AL Would you help us as to this thought of “appearing in glory”? “Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure”. Later it says, “Peter and those with him were oppressed with sleep: but having fully awoke up they saw his glory”. Is their glory linked only with the Lord’s presence?
JT Well, it is there; and then they are withdrawn and the Lord comes back and is seen in normal conditions in testimony down here. But their presence is important; the scene is important as bearing on what real Christianity is. It is a heavenly matter already effected through Christ’s resurrection and presence in heaven.
AL Is the reference to Moses and Elias as “two men” representative of the heavenly?
JT Quite so. They are representative of the heavenly. “Such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones”; not Jesus alone but they also are heavenly. So it is a real thing already existent above, it is only a matter of adding others. The thing is already there, is already set up.
JWD Will the status of those of the assembly be greater than that of Moses and Elias?
JT Well, that is another matter. It is a great fact that “such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones. And as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one”. The apostle sees the thing in those men. Clearly those forming the assembly have a unique place, and Moses and Elias have not part in it, as Matthew 11:11 shows.
JHE Peter, as having the Spirit later on, could speak intelligently of the Lord in the glory. He had seen Him on the holy mount.
JT Quite so. It is well to notice the language he uses; it is the acme of Peter’s language. He was about to put off his tabernacle and to enter into that eternal world, too, only in a disembodied state. He says, “For we have not made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly imagined fables, but having been eye-witnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). It was with the natural eyes. There was no change in the disciples; they were the men that were actually here in the Lord’s company in everyday life. Peter says further, “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain”. All that is to make Christianity known to us as it is in heaven. These words I am speaking of really mean that it already exists [p. 300] in heaven.
JRH The note as to ‘eyewitnesses’ confirms what you say, “’admitted into immediate vision of the glory’, a word used for full initiation into the mysteries”.
JT Very good, that is the note to the passage in Peter. The idea is that we should be initiated into things. Peter does not allude to this before; he never speaks of the Lord as seen in this way except here. But he is letting us into the Pauline truth, and that he is a witness to it himself. Paul tells us later that he also is a witness, not in what he saw but rather in what he heard, which converges on the same thing.
Rem All this would greatly accredit the ministry of these two men. They were talking with Jesus, not with Peter and the others; but their ministry would still speak. The ministry that comes from Elijah in the book of Kings would speak to us with a loud voice. It links up with this majesty.
JT Yes; we shall see more of that later, what he and Elisha did together, how they walked and talked together. The point to impress us now is that eternal conditions have already taken effect. They are not simply future, they have already become a fact, and what we are going on with down here is of a piece with what is up there. “Such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones” (1 Corinthians 15:48).
JRH Luke 1 speaks of the spirit and power of Elias. These will be seen in him personally.
JT Yes; that was alluding to John the baptist, how he walked in power. It was the impersonation of Elijah in John the baptist. We have to bear these things in mind. The Lord says he will certainly come and restore all things.
CAM In our service Godward we sing hymns written by such a one as J.N.D. and we sing them with the knowledge that that great servant knew the Lord intimately; we voice that knowledge and it [p. 301] forms part of the service. The knowledge that he had of Christ is in the saints now.
JT Christianity implies what is effected from heaven, although affected as by the Spirit down here. The last Adam is a life-giving Spirit and He is operating up there in relation to the whole assembly; so that things are going on. We have limitations. But we are not ‘intruding’ into things we have not seen in speaking of these matters, because the Spirit of God bears witness of what is up there.
GMcP Does Stephen’s outlook help us?
JT He did not see anyone but Christ, but Peter and John saw others. They saw real men that, we are told, were in the days of their flesh of like passions to ourselves. These are up there, and it is only a step until we too shall be there. What is going on in the assembly now is of a piece with all that. Compare John 14:18,19.
AP-f Are they different from the three men who appeared to Abraham in the tent door?
JT They are different, certainly. I would say the suggestion there is Deity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit coming to Abraham; we are plainly told that One was the Lord and the other two were angels, but the primary thought is three Persons together. The intent is to impress us with the thought of God pending the time of the incarnation, when there would be full revelation in the Father and the Son.
AAT Is there any instruction in the fact that Peter talked about the three tabernacles? I was wondering whether that is the negative side.
JT Well, it is the negative side. It is a man who did not know what he was saying. There is a good deal of that; we say things we do not understand. “Not knowing what he said” (Luke 9:33). He ought to have known. Why should Peter put the Lord Jesus on the same level as Moses and Elias?
[p. 302] He did not do that according to what we have in his last letter; he makes no reference there at all to the tabernacles of Moses and Elias. They are not objects of worship. The greatest saint, the greatest angel, is not an object of worship. This condemns the whole Romish system.
ABP Would this regulate us in relation to impulses? In meetings we often feel that we should like to say something, but that in itself is not sufficient. Should we not analyse impulses, as to whether they are merely mental connections or whether the Spirit is behind them?
JT Yes. Peter was inspired later in his epistles, but here he does not know what he is saying. It is idolatrous to put the Lord on the same level as Moses and Elias.
HP Would you say this departure is to have a bearing on us? As Elisha takes up the ministry of Elijah it is a question of his departure, and Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. It should be granted if he saw him go up. Did the point of departure spoken of here have an effect on Peter, John and James?
JT They were to have part in the Spirit of Jesus. Philippians 1:19 speaks of “the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ”. Is that what you were thinking of?
HP “And lo, two men talked with him, who were Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem”. The disciples would take account of what was being talked about. Then in 2 Kings 2:9,10 Elisha is to take on the ministry of Elijah: “And it came to pass when they had gone over, that Elijah said to Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I am taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee”. Elisha saw him caught up and he would have an impression of a man in heaven, would he not? Elijah was a real man caught up into heaven.
JT Quite so. How very real the whole matter was!
JTJr The service of Moses and Elias is finished as far as the earth is concerned, but what is in them now is substance and what they said would be weighty. This would help those three men in what they were going to say and it would help us in our meetings in what we say.
DrW Although the vision was real, the manner of exit of these two men was rather mystical just as our manner of departure from this world will be mystical.
JT The thing to be impressed with is that they were there. It was not a mere apparition; it was real. The men appeared and Peter saw them with his natural eyes, the very eyes he always used.
FC In relation to his own words and departure, Peter says they had not followed “cleverly imagined fables” (2 Peter 1:16). This incident would be real over against fables and imagination.
JT Showing that we are of a piece with it all. The Christian system includes the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. John 4 shows how individuals like the woman of Samaria come into it. Of course, we have all come into it; and the presence of the Spirit in us makes it possible that we already have part in eternal conditions, but not as to our bodies. We are awaiting the redemption of our bodies, that is one side; but the other side is sonship and all that is already existent.
JWD It says they talked ‘with’ Him which is greater than talking ‘to’ Him.
RWS Should each assembly service yield some touch of these eternal conditions?
JT [p. 304] Yes. The more spiritual we are the more it is so. J.N.D. says: “And see, the Spirit’s power Has ope’d the heav’nly door”. (74:5)
CAM What had the Lord in mind by saying they should not taste death until they saw this remarkable matter?
JT I think it is to show that Christianity has come in in men of flesh and blood like ourselves. The apostles and others should not taste of death until they saw this; therefore apostolic testimony is valid. It is not simply a person that has risen and gone into heaven, but the point is that Christianity has come in in men like ourselves in flesh and blood, and that the testimony to that is in these three men. They did not taste death until they had seen the transfiguration. It is mentioned in the three synoptic gospels: Mark 9:1 says, “the kingdom of God come in power”; and Luke 9:27 says, “the kingdom of God”. He had seen it in itself, in all its environs and ramifications. New birth enables us to see it, and so also as to all the testimony that we have in men in flesh and blood conditions.
JWD What about the scripture in 1 John 3:2, “What we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”? Would that infer something further than Luke?
JT I think it is further than the transfiguration. It is not what He shall be but what we shall be. That is to say, what we are going on with now is in flesh and blood conditions; Christianity is at present in that, so that what we shall be is not a matter of manifestation. Christianity was set up here in men like ourselves, that is, in the apostles; but at the same time heavenly conditions are already existent up there in these Old Testament saints.
JH-t Do the words, “they kept silence, and [p. 305] told no one in those days any of the things they had seen”, link on with what you are saying about the conditions needed for the opening up of these heavenly things? “In those days” conditions were not suited. Did it await the coming in of the Spirit and conditions as they are among us now for the opening up of these things?
JT Quite so. Christianity requires the Spirit down here. But what has been said as to the scripture that “what we shall be has not yet been manifested”, is not to be passed by. I would not say that “what we shall be” is fully manifested in Moses and Elias. They represent the heavenly saints, but there is more than that to be seen in heavenly saints. Christ in glory is the full expression of what we shall be, “we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is”. That is Christianity in the full thought, so that we shall be changed into the image of His body of glory. The likeness of the present body of Jesus above is what we are to be changed to; that is what we are waiting for. When we shall see Him we shall be like Him. What we have here on the mount of Transfiguration is not just that; it does not say more than that it is the kingdom of God come in power. But full Christianity was still a secret because it was still a mystery hidden in God.
GMcP When the apostle speaks of heavenly places does he have something like this in mind, that which corresponds to heaven?
JT Yes. The expression ‘heavenly places’ is only in Ephesians, I believe; it is peculiar, and would appear to convey that the thing we are brought to is very near. It is not simply heaven, but heavenly places. We have in Genesis 1 the word ‘expanse’, it is an addition to what is in the first verse, that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. We are told that the expanse was in the second day’s work; it would appear to reach down to where we [p. 306] are and include the atmospheric heavens where they saw the Lord go up.
JRH Would it be right to say the transfiguration is the full height of display?
JT Of course, we must bear in mind that the display is of the kingdom; more particularly in Matthew, the Son of man coming in His kingdom. Sonship is there: “Such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; and this voice we heard uttered from heaven being with him on the holy mountain”. But, although the heavenly saints are there it is only as filling out the scene, not as a family. Peter could say much more in his epistle than he could before the Spirit came down, but he confines himself to what the prophetic eye could see, stressing the majesty of the King in Sonship.
Ques How does this compare with Paul being caught up?
JT Well, they are corresponding ideas. If we were to hear Peter and Paul talk about their experiences, would Peter not speak to Paul of all that he experienced on the mount? Paul, in his first visit to Peter, remained with him for fifteen days. Can we not imagine that they talked about that? Paul could not then say anything to Peter about his experience in Paradise, but suppose we think of them later talking together: Paul would say, I heard wonderful things, Peter; things “which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Corinthians 12:4). But he was there in Paradise, and surely something remained with him to affect him in his testimony. I think in that way the Lord encourages us to go in for heavenly things — for ecstasy, and for part in the things we shall soon be brought into.
JHE Would it be right to say that Paul in spirit never left Paradise?
JT In spirit — that, of course, is a modification;
[p. 307] but we must remember Paul was a man like ourselves. It is said of Elias that he was a man of like passions to ourselves. We must leave room for what the brethren are able to do; but undoubtedly Paul never lost the impression of what he received up there.
JB How does John on the isle of Patmos fit in with this?
JT Well, he was “in the Spirit” (Revelation 1:10). I would say that is an actual state that belongs to a spiritual man, but what he saw was a vision. What the apostles saw on the mount is more than what is ordinarily called a vision; it was a vision of course, but it was a scene of real persons. In the first chapter of Revelation John says, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, but in the fourth chapter he is taken up to heaven. I do not suppose he was taken up in a literal sense; Paul was literally taken up, but John does not speak of himself as if he was physically taken up. The difference between an actual sight and a vision is that the vision may all happen while you are asleep; God may cause you to see things then. But the mount of Transfiguration is more than that; it involves seeing these two men so that there should be real witnesses of them down here.
CAM As to this matter of sonship and the way it impressed Peter — in his second epistle he speaks of prophecy and immediately after that of holy men of God. Do you think this matter of the truth of sonship is awakened in us through prophecy? Is there a link there? I was wondering whether the prophetic ministry such as in the chapter read, 1 Kings 17, would show that prophecy has great power to bring sonship into conscious reality.
JT Yes, I would say that, prophetic ministry as we have it in John 4. There is point in what the woman discerned: “Sir, I see that thou art a prophet”. Prophetic ministry is not only the foretelling of events, but bringing God into the soul, and exposing one’s self to one’s self, to prepare him for the heavenly things which are involved in the Spirit — the springing well in John 4.
FC Although Paul’s experience would be special, do you think we are entitled in measure to go in for what he had?
JT I do not see why not. We can at least say that ecstasy was possible in the beginning; indeed that it was nothing so very extraordinary. It says of Peter that “an ecstasy came upon him” (Acts 10:10), as if he had had such experiences before. If these things were then, if the apostles had them, they belong to Christianity.
JWD Do you think Isaiah 6 is a vision or a reality? You do not think the prophet actually came in touch with the seraphim and so forth?
JT I do not think so; I would think it was a vision. He tells us, however, that the year Uzziah died he saw the Lord. I think that was just a vision, as Genesis 15 also was; there God spoke to Abraham in a vision.
JTJr I suppose Genesis 14 would hardly be a vision — Melchisedec, an actual person, was there, a king. Indeed, a whole system of things was there.
JT Melchisedec is spoken of as a real person in Hebrews. Surely the suggestion in what has come before us is that we should be awake to the fact that Christianity involves these things, and that the Holy Spirit is here personally and ready to serve us and use us. Any experiences of this kind, however small comparatively, only increase the reality of Christianity and assembly service and make us more fitted for it. It is a question of what the Spirit can do for us.
CN We read of the two olive trees and the two lamps which stand before the Lord of the earth, in Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11. Is the idea of standing before the Lord of the earth connected with what you have in [p. 309] mind?
JT We have there what has been already touched on, the impersonation of Elijah. These two witnesses contemplated in Revelation act like Elijah and cause the heaven to be shut up that no rain may fall, and fire to go out of their mouth. We shall have to touch on that later, as to how Elijah may be coming in. The book of Revelation contemplates how he will come in, not so much in his person but in his ministry. These two witnesses suggest to us what is coming as corresponding to Elijah.
CN Therefore it would fit in with Peter’s testimony in Acts 3, that “times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord”.
JT That is all future, and Elijah is going to have part in it according to Malachi. We have a formal statement in Malachi 4:5 alluded to by the Lord: “Behold, I send unto you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of Jehovah. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse”. That is a mystery that is to come. Scripture does not say much of Elijah having to do with children, but Malachi implied that he will serve children specially.
TW Why does the Lord Jesus in Matthew 17 refer to John the baptist as Elijah?
JT Because he was Elijah if the state of the people was such as to receive it. So that the impersonation of the ministry awaits certain conditions and therefore the matter is still open — that is, what is coming in view of the times of refreshing, and the great care that will be taken of children. Elijah will be a children’s man; he “shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers”. It is very important that the hearts of the children shall be turned to their fathers. Children are rebellious now, but in the future there is going to be a powerful ministry [p. 310] bearing on children, indeed, bearing on the whole family.
GH I suppose what Moses and Elijah represent in the way of ministry always continues to the end.
JT Not always; they do link with each other, however. Personally they are only seen together on the mount of Transfiguration. Elijah’s ministry is calling people back to the law; that is what we need today — the recovery of right principles. Moses was the mediator, to bring in divine principles, but Elijah seeks to bring Israel back to principles they have departed from, and he does bring them back according to what we see later. Also, as we have seen, he is going to do great things among the children according to the book of Malachi. All that opens up a great deal as to how ministry may be repeated. Elisha was very much like Elijah in his ministry.
CAM I suppose that is seen in the prince of the house of David in Ezekiel. There will be one like David by and by.
JT Quite so, Ezekiel has one who is called David “the prince”; not the literal David; no doubt it is Jesus.
CAM This shows that in all these personalities it is Christ in some way.
JT We should not be ashamed of imitating a brother if he is like Christ. Elisha surely acted like his master in much of his service, so that in that way there is a continuation of Elijah in the ministry. If a man is impressed with ministry and takes it on, God would use him in that sense.
CAM Do you not think that in those cases it is necessary for the love element to be very prominent? It is no use to take on another’s ministry in a mental way. I am trying to guard the fact that you might have great respect for a ministry and yet bring it out to advertise yourself. All that comes to grief. There is such a thing as Paul handing on to his son Timothy what he had [p. 311] taught.
JT That is what we see in Elisha calling Elijah his father: “My father, my father!” These are respectful terms, and you can see how God would honour that in Elisha. He was greatly impressed with his father; he poured water on Elijah’s hands — evidently that he might serve better.