READING ON MARK 14
[p. 92] READING ON MARK 14
JT We dwelt on a previous occasion on the earlier and closing verses of chapter 13, first dwelling at length on the Lord, as it says, “going out of the temple”, (verse 1) and the remark of one of His disciples as to the stones and buildings, as if to call attention to the things considered of value in that which the Lord was leaving. Then the Lord answering said, “Seest thou these great buildings? not a stone shall be left upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down”, (verse 2). The overthrow of what seemed so important in the eyes of the disciple is announced, and that would deliver the disciple — or those whom he represented — from the thing the Lord was leaving. Then the Lord takes a seat on the mount of Olives, regarding it, I believe, as the representation of christianity as centring in the Spirit of God. “He sat”, as it says, “on the mount of Olives opposite the temple”, (verse 3). Sitting means in this connection not a temporary position but an abiding one; and there are four persons, not called disciples, who express in their names four distinguished things amongst the saints, who come and ask Him privately when these things should be. He warns them at the outset to be on their guard that they should not be misled. The first great suggestion as to taking up a position according to light is to be on our guard that we be not diverted from it. Then we spoke on the closing verses as relating to the present time also, the body of the chapter having reference to the prophetic side of things which was in the hands of God. The Lord tells His disciples those matters were in His Father’s hands, even He did not know, which points to the book of Revelation as coming from God to Christ, and from Christ to John,
[p. 93] and from John to the assemblies. We spoke about the authority, which I think was interesting and important — giving them the authority, that which was to remain. We dwelt on the side of moral weight; on this ground there are mandates from Christ at all times; we can always reckon upon that authority. I think that was about what we had.
HH I do not know whether you were interrupted when speaking about the porter.
JT There is importance given to it here. The Lord in the figure says, “and commanded the doorkeeper that he should watch”, (verse 34). It was a command showing that it was of the very greatest importance there should be watchfulness on the part of the porter, because among those coming in as a result of the gospel there might be an unreal person hidden. In the Acts we find persons distinguished in this world converted — Barnabas, the eunuch, Saul and the centurion. Then there was also Simon who, although ostensibly converted, was not real. He eluded Philip’s eye, but was detected by Peter; that is, I think, an important side, because a man of that type would be hailed perhaps as a great trophy of the gospel, whereas he was not so at all. He had slipped in, as far as Philip and the others were concerned, but was detected by Peter and exposed. So that I think perhaps there is a suggestion of the need of carefulness as to persons who might have distinction in this world. They are apt to be over-estimated, yet they may be subjects of God’s grace.
JJ Is there anything of importance in the divisions of the night — evening, midnight, cock-crowing and morning?
JT I suppose there is a good deal in that. It is for spiritual discernment as to where we are in the periods of the night. Cock-crowing time ought to be the time of repentance. The point is, “lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping”, (verse 36). There is danger in [p. 94] settling down, and therefore the need of wakefulness is insisted upon under all circumstances.
Rem I should like to know your point as to repentance.
JT Well, it was in Peter’s case. I suppose there has been such a time as that. Peter, I think, represents Protestantism, as Judas represents more the Romish system. There has been a measure of repentance in regard of the former, but in regard of the latter there is none, because the Lord says, “She will not repent”, (Revelation 2:21). You need not expect anything from that quarter, save in individual cases.
PL Would the morning answer to the Philadelphian character?
JT I think so. The Lord is in view Himself. You feel that spiritually it is so.
PL The thing commenced with the departure from first love, which culminated in the Thyatira midnight.
AHW Does Peter distinguish the periods of the night in his epistle in referring to the day-star having arisen?
JT I suppose so; it arises in the hearts of the saints. The morning alludes to His coming; the light of that day has already broken in upon us. It is in the light of these things that we have the Lord’s supper introduced, the significance of which is obvious here. But first of all there is the state of the religious world — its murderous attitude towards Christ, and then the condition within where He is — the house of Simon the leper — an antagonism not actually against Him, but against one devoted to Him. That is the form the opposition takes inside. Outside the opposition is directly against Christ; they take counsel how to put Him to death; inside the opposition is to those devoted to Him — not ostensibly to Christ, but really so.
[p. 95] Ques What do you make of being in the house of Simon the leper?
JT I think that would be a house of reproach; leprosy in the reckoning of the religious element outside would mean reproach — something to be avoided. The Lord was in it, however. I suppose it would allude to those who own their leprosy and admit what they are publicly — no pretence to being anything different. There is a full acknowledgment of leprosy being there, and that is where the Lord is.
JJ That is not very far from the mount of Olives.
JT Well, quite. It is not that leprosy was working there; far otherwise, or the Lord would not have been there. It is that the thing is owned, and I think where the Holy Spirit is and that admission is maintained, any other reputation would be unbecoming.
HFN You referred to the widow at the end of the previous chapter as representing the spirit of the old system; would this woman represent more the spirit of the new?
JT The woman at the end of chapter 12 is devoting all her living to the treasury of God, this woman has something very precious which she uses with intelligence. The casting in of the two mites was more an act of devotion; the woman knew into whose hands the two mites came and what would be made of them. That is what goes on in the house of God. You know what use is made of things. I believe that when Barnabas devoted the price of the land, he had confidence what use would be made of it, so he put it at the apostles’ feet; and so generally, in giving in the assembly; it is intelligence. What marks this woman in chapter 14 is intelligent affection and that Christ was all to her, not only Christ in regard of what had been done for her, which would be more Luke 7, but Christ apprehended as officially serving. She anoints Him on the head, but He [p. 96] refers to His body, that is to say, she was intelligent as to what was acceptable to God and effective in service. The allusion is to what He was officially, I think. He, however, associates it with His body, showing that in His mind it was the whole idea. The body is a complete thought, it comes out in Matthew and Mark. So the Lord’s supper as we get it here is not the memorial side, but is in view of a vessel. “Take, eat: this is my body”. I think she is on the way, so to speak, she is leading the way in regard to an official vessel which was fully understood and covered in what He said about it: “she is come aforehand to anoint my body”.
ER There is a difference as to the anointing between Matthew and Mark. In one case it is the king and in the other the prophet, but it was His head which was anointed in both cases.
JT Whereas in Luke and John it is the feet, showing that in Luke it is more the grace side and the walk carrying it to her, and in John the love going into death — His feet were carrying Him there. But the idea of a vessel is in Matthew and Mark because, whether it be the assembly or individual service, it is a complete idea — not only the head, it is the body.
Rem I have not quite got the thought as to the vessel.
JT Whether it be the assembly or the individual, it is a complete idea, not only the head, but the body. Matthew runs with Mark generally as to facts. He begins his gospel with the word ‘book’; the first word is ‘book’, which alludes to that very thing. “In the volume of the book it is written of me”, “A body hast thou prepared me”, (Hebrews 10:7,5). That is the foundation of all books as recorded of God, and Matthew is the book of the incoming of the vessel. “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”, (Matthew 1:1). It is the king clearly, but here in [p. 97] the body.
HH Would not Colossians 2:9 correspond with the thought? “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. The Colossians were in danger of taking up the wrong book.
JT That is so. The first chapter (verse 18) is, “he is the head of the body, the assembly”. That is the complete idea in Colossians, and that is the thing to get hold of. “He is the head of the body, the assembly”, and in the second chapter (verse 9), “in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. Now all that, I think, enters into these two evangelists because there is nothing said in the institution of the Lord’s supper in regard of memorial in either of them. It is not a question of remembering Christ in these two evangelists, but of eating. Luke alone brings in the memorial, that is, he brings in Christ in the way of love. It is not a question of building up a constitution in Luke, but of having love for Christ and recalling Him, whereas Matthew and Mark have in mind the building up of a constitution — a vessel, so that it is food. “Take, eat; this is my body”, not My flesh, but My body.
HFN With regard to the thought of vessel, do you refer to something wider than the Lord personally?
JT Oh, yes. I think the assembly is necessarily in view, particularly in Matthew.
HFN You remarked some time ago that Mark brought in the vessel of service. Would that form the vessel of service? Is that your thought?
JT I think that is the setting of it. You see the great ideal in Scripture of service is Paul, and he is the first to be called a vessel, that is, it is a complete thought, a complete thing. He “is an elect vessel to me”, (Acts 9:15). What you find in Paul is that the Lord had taken great care as to his reception amongst the saints, so that he should be rightly received; he got the word from Ananias that he was to rise and be baptised and wash away his sins. He did not wash [p. 98] away the public reputation, because he afterwards refers to himself as the chief of sinners, but he washed away his sins. “And be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he saw, and rising up was baptised; and, having received food, got strength”, (verses 17 - 19). These are all mentioned, not incidentally, but for a purpose, indicating the idea of feeding, that is, you have to get strength. I think the Lord indicates that in these two evangelists, it is a question of eating His body; it is not the flesh but the body, which has to be understood spiritually. In John’s gospel it is the flesh: “But the bread withal which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world”, (John 6:51). It is that bearing of His death, but in Matthew and Mark it speaks about His body as food and His blood as drink.
PL Would it suggest assimilating the spirit of the Hebrew servant?
JT Just so. You see what is set before you in the end. He says, “Take, eat”, in Matthew 26:26, “this is my body”. The word ‘eat’ may not be in this gospel, but we see in that what was in the Lord’s mind, “Take this: this is my body”; so that it is in the apprehension of what is in the book, what is written in the book, and what came out historically as recorded in Matthew and Mark. That is the thing to get hold of; that that One went down into death, because what is before us in the Lord’s supper is really a dead Christ — it is Christ dead; He went to that length — to death — and one has to lay hold of that and eat it to understand what the vessel is.
MP Would the passage in 2 Corinthians 4:11 be the fruit of it? “That the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body”.
JT Quite. You see there “we have this treasure in earthen vessels”, (verse 7). We want to lay hold of the complete idea, whether it be collective or individual;
[p. 99] that it is not using my head only, it is the complete person. In the Lord’s case you have the anointing on the head and feet, and then you have Him calling attention to His head, His side, and His feet — it is the whole person. So in regard to the consecration of the priest, it was the whole person.
AHW Do I understand that we see “I delight to do thy will, O my God”, (Psalm 40:8) expressed in the way the Lord used His body?
JT Quite. We are said to be sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ, and we have to be in correspondence with that. In Matthew and Mark we have that, and in Luke we have more the affectionate remembrance of Christ.
AHW So this food and the strength you speak of would enable us also to delight in the will of God.
JT Exactly. It is by that will you are sanctified.
DLH Then is the thought in Luke what is continuous, that is, a continual memorial, and in Matthew and Mark what the soul apprehends and feeds on?
JT Just so. You apprehend that it implies the knowledge of “the book”. “In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God”. Matthew is the filling out of that book, and it shows that the vessel was here. “They shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’”, (Matthew 1:23) but there in that body, and so in the institution at the Lord’s supper what you get first is “as they were eating”. You notice here they were lying at table and eating when it is said to them, “One of you shall deliver me up”, calling attention to the importance of eating even if sin has to be dealt with in any of us or in a company. We get the importance of food being there, as if the ministration of food helps to the acknowledgment of the thing; and then it goes on to tell us that as they were eating He took the bread.
[p. 100] Ques Are you emphasising what we might call the intrinsic value and preciousness of the Person?
JT Well, yes, but in the connection mentioned it is not only the intrinsic value, but in Matthew it is the king, and so, in the end of that gospel He says to Mary, “go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me”, (Matthew 28:10), not that I shall see them, but they shall see Me. Here in Mark He tells them He would go before them into Galilee, which is an important thing, that is to say, it is the rejected position; we do not have to take it first. He takes it first; He goes before them, but in Matthew He sends a message and says they will see Him there. Thus it was their responsibility; it was what they were to do. Here it is what He would do, showing that He goes before in the place of reproach. In Matthew He tells them to go there and they would see Him, and they went to the place where “Jesus had appointed them” (verse 16) and they saw Him. That is to say, it is a governmental touch — the Lord is supreme in government. You have to go to see Him, that is, He has everything, what you need He has, but you must go to Him to get it.
Rem That is for the brethren.
JT Yes, and “the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them” and they saw Him. Then He goes after them as much as to own that they had done what He told them, and they are going to get the gain of it. So He goes up to them and they worship Him, and then He says, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”, (verse 18). That is the position in Matthew, so whilst it is what He is intrinsically it is also what He is in relation to government in that gospel, and to the service of God in Mark. I think the woman’s act here is to call attention to the kind of service that is acceptable so, “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world,
[p. 101] this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”.
ER I suppose the feature of breaking the box, which we get in Mark’s gospel and in no other, is an important one. Would it not show how she shuts herself out entirely in all that she does?
JT Quite. Tell us about the breaking of the box.
ER I thought it was a very beautiful thought. Not only was there the anointing there, but she breaks the box, representing herself.
JT The action of Mary in John in the use of her hair is on the same line. It is the Person who is before her.
ER Only in Mary’s case she retains the fragrance because her heart has touched it. “To you therefore who believe [is] the preciousness”, (1 Peter 2:7).
JT Quite.
AHW When you say this kind of thing should always be present at the preaching, do you refer to the way the preaching is carried on?
JT It is not to be a legal thing, but the Lord had in mind that all that this woman had done should be also spoken of for a memorial of her. It is what she did. Her name is not given us in John, so it is not so much the person of the woman as the thing that she represents. You want it to be evident that that is the kind of ministry. It is not clerical — it shuts out clericalism. People brought up under a clerical system are sure to be damaged. They have not the right idea to begin with.
AHW Is this the spirit that is to mark the preaching?
JT I think so. Paul said, “Whom I serve in my spirit in the glad tidings of his Son”, (Romans 1:9). That is the thing. It was in his spirit he served God. Wherever he preached, you may depend, there was some suggestion of what this woman had done; it is the thought carried through.
[p. 102] HH Do you think it would suggest the assembly material in the sense of referring to the body? Would it go as far as that?
JT I think that is right when the preaching has that in view. Preaching has the material for the assembly in view, and persons converted under clerical preaching are sure to be warped. It is hard to make them fit into the assembly. So the presentation of what this woman did, that is, her act, not what she said, would save souls from being damaged by the clerical idea. They would refuse ministry not in keeping with Mark’s gospel.
JJ Would “these glad tidings” in that way correspond with Paul’s gospel? It seems like a special view of the gospel.
JT No doubt, and then, in mentioning what she did you have to mention the fact that it was the Lord’s head and that the Lord said it was His body. Therefore, you would have the idea of the vessel and obviously the convert is to be a vessel. You are to be brought in as a vessel because there is no other thought in the mind of God than that every brother should be a vessel; the thought applies individually and collectively.
JJ So in connection with the man with the pitcher of water, the Lord allows for Paul coming in; that is the kind of ministry that leads to the assembly.
JT Exactly.
Ques Do you carry on the application in the thought of the cup where it says, “They all drank out of it”?
JT Yes, in the sense that it was one thing; it is one idea. It is that out of which we drink. I think it leads to that in which the love of God is, a vessel for the love of God.
Ques Is your thought, in what you have been saying, complete committal to the will of [p. 103] God?
JT Just so, complete as to your whole body — indeed, body, soul and spirit.
Ques Does Romans 12 suggest that in connection with the believer’s body?
JT Yes, it is presented as a living sacrifice. The members are dealt with in chapter 6; they are to be used as “instruments of righteousness to God”, (verse 13) but in chapter 8 the body is viewed as a whole. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness”, (verse 10). The body is thus secured, and in chapter 12 it is presented as a whole — one complete idea.
Ques Is Paul on that line when he says, “We are unto God a sweet odour of Christ”, (2 Corinthians 2:15).
JT Quite.
RB If I understand you, you are pressing two thoughts, one as to eating His flesh, as in John 6, the other as to eating His body. Is the thought of eating His flesh the building up a spiritual constitution of vigour and power, and the thought of eating His body the acceptation under the impulse of His love of the yielding of oneself (the complete person) to Him?
JT That is the way I look at it. John 6 is the condition that the Lord took, so that it says, “The Word became flesh”, (John 1:14); it is the condition. Hence, in John 6:51 it is “the bread withal which I shall give is my flesh”. It refers to the condition He took and which He laid down. It is terminated, that is, the flesh-and-blood condition. It has to be apprehended that that is terminated in His death. It is vicarious there; it is “for the life of the world”. So that the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood would be the apprehension of that condition laid down — that life terminated. I do not live in this life in the flesh after that. He came down and laid down His life.
Rem On the propitiatory side.
[p. 104] Ques Is it based on the passover? You get the passover and the feast of unleavened bread here at the outset. What is the significance of that?
JT I think, carrying it to our own times, it refers to 1 Corinthians 5 as preparatory to the Lord’s supper. It shows that the feast is to be kept and that it is a continuous thing, whereas the Lord’s supper is a special thing. But the eating that precedes it is of all moment because you have no taste for it unless you keep the feast of unleavened bread. It becomes a mere outward thing. Then another thing comes out in these two evangelists — Matthew and Mark. After partaking of the Lord’s supper they sing a hymn and they go to the mount of Olives, meaning, I think, that it is a question of power in the soul. It is a movement not said to be led by the Lord. It does not say He did anything specially, it is what they did.
HWS How do you apply that?
JT I think it is what you make room for by partaking of the Lord’s supper. I certainly should be stronger after it. As a memorial it quickens my affections; I see the Lord in it. The breaking of bread is really for the eye, it is really what you see. They recognised Him, it is said, in the breaking of bread, but eating is for strength and it is in connection with the eating you have this movement towards the mount of Olives. It is a question of power in the soul.
JJ Do you think the view of Matthew and Mark in the Supper is included in Luke?
JT You have to take all together, only you have to view each by itself. One would not like to think you partook of the Lord’s supper without some gain, some additional strength, otherwise it is simply a thing done weekly and nothing more — nothing added to you. There is on the one hand the question of the affections in the Person recalled. That goes on in freshness, but freshness is not everything. You [p. 105] need strength and it is in the strength you acquire that you make the movement.
Rem The bread that strengthens man’s heart.
JT That is the idea exactly.
AHW Is the idea that you are strengthened to reach this point of elevation?
JT Yes, I think so. Earlier the Lord goes there and sits down and they come to Him and ask Him privately, but here it is put as their doing. I do not say He was not there. He was, but it is the character of the thing; they were able to do this.
AHW I was wondering whether the mount of Olives bears the presentation of being the Lord’s own place.
JT I think it is heaven in the spiritual setting. I think the Lord would be there before us. It is the idea of getting strength to reach what is our own sphere. The prayer in Ephesians 3 is different from that in Ephesians 1. The apostle does not kneel down in chapter 1. He prays that we “should know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of the might of his strength”, (verses 18,19) but in Ephesians 3:14 - 17 he bows his knees “to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man; that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts”. It is a question of power in the soul. I do not think there is much in light by itself, it is a question of the power in Ephesians 3. Paul insisted in 1 Corinthians that it was not the word but the power.
HFN How do you regard what follows? Is the strength in the soul not only to touch the mount [p. 106] of Olives — the spiritual region — but also to face what follows?
JT Exactly. “Jesus says to them, All ye shall be offended, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad”.
HFN Could we ever face that path apart from having sung the hymn and having been to the mount of Olives?
JT I am sure we cannot. To face the opposition we must come out in heavenly warmth and power.
HFN Would it correspond at all with John? “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, (Revelation 1:10) and then he faced all the breakdown.
JT Quite.
Ques Would that be really the gain in service?
JT You must face the sphere of responsibility and suffering in power. You are strengthened by eating the Lord’s body as seen here.
HFN Would you mind saying a word as to Mark’s distinctive presentation of the sufferings of Christ?
JT The subject is very great. I have been thinking lately that generally in Scripture, that is, in the epistles and in the Old Testament, the sufferings of Christ are dealt with in relation to man’s need, but in the four gospels you have the sufferings of Christ, the death of Christ, treated by itself. That is the greatest thing to be able to see — these sufferings presented from four sides, because that is what we should all come to. It gives fibre to the soul to feed on them. It is difficult to speak of them really. It is more food for contemplation because the ground is so holy. We see the features in the gospels, but the understanding of the gospels requires the epistles, so that being free from our own need we can look at the thing by itself. As 1 Peter 1:11 says, “when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow”.
Ques Would that come out in the offerings in Leviticus?
JT It takes all the offerings to present the sufferings of Christ. The offerings are related to us; it is a question of what we offer.
Ques So would you reckon that what precedes is for the purpose of building up a constitution to be able rightly to consider the sufferings of Christ?
JT Yes; He offered Himself. We have to look at His doing it. It is a wonderful thing to be able to do that, to be free, as knowing the power of them in regard to oneself, to look at the sufferings of Christ. He “through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God”, (Hebrews 9:14). There is nothing in Scripture that would so subdue and comfort the heart as that theme.
JJ Is it not rather striking that the Lord only says, “Abba, Father”, once, and it is in this chapter? In every place where it is mentioned sonship is in view, and I wondered whether that would have a bearing in service.
JT We are led into that in sonship. I think the word ‘Abba’ is generally retained in translation so that it is available to all christians and means the first breathing of the Spirit of adoption. It is wonderful that we are led into it, because it is the term the Lord uses here and in the place of the greatest pressure; Matthew and Mark give the subject of the Lord’s suffering in its severest aspect. It is the sin-offering; they are the only evangelists who mention the forsaking of God. There you have the thing in its awfulness. It says, “he began to be amazed and oppressed in spirit” — a most remarkable thing to be said of the Son of God. Then the prayer, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: take away this cup from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt”. This was uttered three times. What a theme for contemplation!