READING ON MARK 13
[p. 76] READING ON MARK 13
HH Could you give us in a few words an outline of this gospel?
JT Well, it may be said to be the only gospel that speaks of the Lord as being in full manhood at the outset. It introduces Him as the Son at once. Matthew speaks of the Child and so does Luke; John involves His birth — His childhood — in the term ‘flesh’, but Mark only introduces Him immediately as the Son of God, so that it is obviously a levitical book, that is to say, the Lord is regarded as in the levitical position at the outset. He waits till John is delivered up; in John’s gospel He does not. In all the synoptic gospels He waits till John is delivered up before He actually begins to preach and serve, but in John’s gospel He begins before John is cast into prison, showing that it was a divine Person here doing what was to be done, whatever that may have been. But Mark particularly records that it was after John was delivered up that He began to preach, and he introduces Him as the Son of God at once, so that obviously, as has often been remarked, the Servant, or levite, is in view. The passage in Isaiah 9, “Unto us a child is born” is recognised in Matthew and Luke and implied in John, but not in Mark. It is, “Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God”, (Mark 1:1).
PL Does that connect the levite with the firstborn?
JT Yes, I think so. Sonship necessarily underlies the service that is acceptable to God, that is to say, dignity and maturity. I suppose that is what you have been engaged with all through in the consideration of the gospel.
HFN Yes, I think so.
JT [p. 77] Here in this chapter it says that the Lord is leaving the temple — a movement which has its own meaning. It is not a question of being obliged to leave it, but that He is doing it of Himself.
Ques Would you say what the link is between that and the widow?
JT I think the widow represents the subjective side, answering to God in the old system. There were those who recognized “the treasury” to the very end, but it was for the Lord to make the change.
HFN We were wondering on the last occasion whether chapter 12 was not the great education of the levite in view of an apostate state of things — a fresh chapter in his experience. Would you go with that?
JT Well, quite.
HFN Would this chapter flow out of that? There the Lord is seen sitting over against the treasury, and here He is seen sitting on the mount of Olives.
JT I think chapter 12 is the apostate state of things (”they left him and went away”, verse 12), but what is of God is owned to the very last both by the Lord Himself and the woman. He is looking on, and she represents the recognition of what was of God to the very end. Then He has to make a change and the change is made in this chapter where He leaves the temple and takes another position on the mount of Olives. The woman is in the recognition of what was there as owning what was of God to the last.
HFN Would you mind opening up the thought in regard to the Lord sitting on the mount of Olives?
JT I think it sets forth the present time, the new order of things connected with the Spirit, but there is the fullest care taken of the old before He leaves it. Chapter 11 shows what attention He paid to it, and how He walked in it and answered questions. Then in chapter 12 the apostate condition is dealt [p. 78] with, and He sits over against the treasury and takes account of it to the last moment; the woman is the subjective side corresponding to that. For her there would be relief by faith in His movements. He moved out. As we get it here, “as he was going out of the temple”, and then it says, “as he sat on the mount of Olives opposite the temple”. That is what is done; He moves of Himself. It is deliberate movement made in freedom. He leaves, and in going out the disciples call attention to what it was He was leaving. He knew what He was leaving. So it is in leaving today; the thing should be done; you are not forced out, but you are going out intelligently; morally you are quite aware of what you are leaving. Whatever there may be worth speaking of morally you know all about it, but you are leaving nevertheless. As a matter of fact the temple continued for a good while, but the Lord was leaving it then.
Ques Why is Andrew brought in here?
JT He is a very important servant from John’s point of view, for he brought in Peter; but whilst he served well at the beginning he missed the mind of God in regard to food in chapter 6 and in regard to the Greeks in chapter 12. Nevertheless, he is a very important servant in that he was one of the first who followed Jesus. He was one of two of the most distinguished, in the sense that they were the first to follow Jesus according to John. Here He is linked up with Peter and James and John, so that he comes in the fourth in distinction.
SJBC Have you any thought as to who this disciple was — one of His disciples?
JT I think when it says, “one of his disciples” it is to describe all of them; he would represent them all. The four are mentioned after. But we ought to keep to the two main points here, which are, leaving the temple, and the position on the mount of Olives.
PL Do you think that in the four being mentioned [p. 79] we have the thought of construction before us in Mark? There are four carpenters in Zechariah, and Mark is the only gospel where the Lord is referred to as the Carpenter.
JT Well, I thought Andrew’s place would have reference here to the fact that he brought in Peter according to John. He represents the element that would bring in material for the assembly in view of the Lord leaving the Jewish system. He was needed to bring in material for the new building.
PL Quite so. Does the mount of Olives suggest the domain of the Spirit through which the Lord would appeal during the dispensation?
JT I think so, but if Andrew had been in keeping with that, he would not have made much of the Greeks. Andrew and Philip are brought in together and they fail. In connection with the question of food, the Lord “knew what he was going to do”, but He tested these two as to how the thing could be done. They are also connected together with the Greeks. They seemed to be impressed with the importance of the Greeks coming up, and I think the mount of Olives would check that spirit. The Greeks as such were important in the eyes of Andrew and Philip, but the Lord points out to them in His answer that the corn of wheat has to fall into the ground and die. They attached importance to certain persons of distinguished race or history coming into the testimony, and the Lord discredited that. It seemed as if those two brothers thought it was a matter of special importance that the Greeks came up to see Jesus, but the Lord Himself did not attach any importance to them because of their special place in the history of the world.
MP Would that correspond with what we have in 1 Corinthians 1:20? “Where is the wise? where scribe? where disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
JT I think that is the ground the apostle goes on. He alludes to the wisdom of the Greeks, their great ability in language, learning and literature, and I have no doubt Philip and Andrew had in mind that it was a great thing for them to come, but it is not a matter of any special importance to the Lord. He is no respecter of persons, that is to say, christianity discredits what is spectacular, because God is no respecter of persons.
HH “Certain Greeks”, it says. What would the temple idea be at the present moment?
JT It is the accredited system; the temple stood for that. It represented the accredited system of religion at that time clearly.
Ques How are we to apply that now, as to the accredited system?
JT Well, there is an accredited system in this country, an established religion, and it is not only accredited in the world, but also by law. How are you going to get out of what is established by law and keep a good conscience? You have to understand sonship in order to do that. It is not only that the thing is wrong, but it is established by law; it is marked by antiquity and all that goes to make a religion respectable in this world. Now the Lord was leaving that.
JJ Do you think the Lord had in mind to transfer everything that was good in the old into the new? He could do that.
JT I thought that was represented in the four.
JJ I was thinking of the woman you were speaking of.
JT The Lord shows in the woman here what has to be carried over in the four. She represented what was subjective in the old and she was there till the last moment, but here is One great enough to make a change. It requires moral greatness to move out of that which was established by law and which had in [p. 81] this case divine credentials. It took great moral power to do that; we see the reality of what it meant to come out in the Acts. The old system was not great enough for this poor widow — she cast in “the whole of her living”.
HFN Is that only done by learning what the mount of Olives suggests? Does the power for it lie there?
JT I think so. As He is leaving the temple the remark is made, “see what stones and what buildings!” And the Lord answers, “Seest thou these great buildings? not a stone shall be left upon a stone which shall not be thrown down”. That is a settled thing; they are seen in that light on the mount of Olives, that is to say, there is light in the movement out as to what is going to happen to the things you are leaving, however well founded they seem, and however ancient. You are made intelligent as to what is to happen to them as you are leaving.
HFN You made reference to the Acts. Would it come out in connection with Stephen? There was a wholly new centre. The temple had stood for a centre of light.
JT I think it would. He represents all that there was in the old; he goes over the ground in a masterly way, and his death meant the end of that system; devout men buried him. There is nothing about the literal burial of the apostles. Stephen’s burial is significant because it fits in with earlier burials. There was light in his face as the face of an angel, and the light from heaven in chapter 9 is a clear indication that the old system was over and done with.
HFN Your reference to Stephen in relation to burial is very interesting. Would you mind opening it up a little more?
JT Well, I think it is burial in the way it is [p. 82] spoken of in the Old Testament. He is regarded as representing what was in Israel and ending it in the full light of heaven; the thing is buried. “He saw the glory of God, and Jesus”, and his burial is in that light. Sarah’s burial represented the end of that system and Rebecca took her place, and I think the church in the full sense (Rebecca) comes in after Stephen’s burial. He is buried in the full light not only of resurrection but of heaven; he is buried in the light of Jesus in heaven, so that everything is secured. There is no doubt of all coming to pass that was in the mind of God about Israel. The Spirit of Christ marked Stephen.
HWS Is there anything in the thought of privacy connected with the new position?
JT I think it points to the access we have to Christ. Those four disciples took advantage of the position He took up. He took up another position, and they took advantage of the access. No doubt the others could have taken it, too. Those four would represent those who take advantage of access to Christ in the new position, and thus know what is coming. They are not content simply to know that the stones are to be thrown down. It is an entirely new position in this chapter, and the Lord is calling attention to the new thing by sitting opposite the temple. They want to know what is going to happen. “Tell us, when shall these things be, and what is the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled”, that is, they represent those who wish to know the whole truth. They are not content with an inkling, with the first glimmering of light, as many are, but want to get it all.
Ques Is that the spirit of the woman at the end of the previous chapter?
JT Well, I think so. Her act is intelligent and commented on by the Lord. It corresponded with Himself and is that which enters into christianity;
[p. 83] it is complete self-sacrifice. It was too great for the old system.
Ques Do you think the four would give a universal character to the new position?
JT I think they would — the new material that He would bring in.
JJ Why does the Lord give the new light in a prophetic setting?
JT That would be to release their minds from the old system they were engrossed in, and He gives the facts right on to the end. It would have a delivering effect upon them, and would acquaint them with what should happen in order to set them free of it.
JJ Is it similar to the way Paul addressed the Thessalonians, giving them all the facts right to the end?
JT Quite. It is very like Revelation — what the Lord says about Himself — that the Son does not know is explained by the book of Revelation.
HH And would Mark’s own exercise as a servant underlie this, in considering what the new system was?
JT Quite. The light in this chapter would help him.
HH I thought it was because he got help in his own recovery that he set it out in this way.
JT Undoubtedly. It is the bearing of the whole thing on the servant here.
Ques Would Antioch represent the new position at all?
JT I think it does. The light from heaven in Acts 9 is a plain reminder that it is not from Jerusalem; that place was done with; it is from heaven, and chapter 10 is the substantive thing. Light is one thing, but substance is another. Chapter 11 brings out the preaching of the scattered ones on account of Stephen’s persecution. They went as far as Antioch; there they preached to the Greeks, and it says, “the Lord’s hand was with them, and a [p. 84] great number believed and turned to the Lord”. There you see the material coming in, but it is still kingdom material. They turned to the Lord and Barnabas goes down from Jerusalem, but he makes no reference to Jerusalem; it is a question of learning from the light. Then we are told “he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit”, and “a large crowd of people were added to the Lord”. It was an extension of the kingdom; they were brought to the Lord and added to Him. Now the next thing is they make assembly material out of them. Barnabas goes and seeks out Saul and they spent a whole year at Antioch and taught in the assembly. Now you are getting material for the assembly which, I think, would correspond with Andrew, for he was the one who led in the bringing in of assembly material. So it says that they taught for a whole year, and “the disciples were first called christians in Antioch”. Now you have them marked out as related to Christ outside of Jerusalem, and then the formation at Antioch is noted — “The assembly which was there”.
Ques Did I understand you to say Barnabas would be similar to Andrew in bringing in Paul?
JT No; what I said was that I thought Andrew might represent the material brought in by Paul, as Andrew was the first to bring in assembly material; he brought in Peter. So that the work at Antioch proceeds and we are told there were at Antioch certain ones, meaning they were in that place, that is, in the assembly that was there. Hence we have set out the idea of a new system outside of Jerusalem in principle, and then the Holy Spirit administers there. They ministered to the Lord and fasted and the Holy Spirit asked for Barnabas and Saul. “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”. He recognises the assembly that was there, and Barnabas and Saul went in a missionary way, forming assemblies. Then we are told that in [p. 85] returning they appointed elders in every assembly — not yet in every city — but in every assembly, because the idea was to set up the thing in local settings, each church standing on its own feet; each supplied with elders. I think all that legitimately fits in here with the mount of Olives, because it stood over against the things the Lord was leaving.
RB Is not the privacy characteristic of the new and contrasted with the public position at Jerusalem?
JT I think so. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father”, (Ephesians 2:18). Christianity is private; although it is public in effect, yet it is characterised by privacy.
HH The thought of the Supper would be very important in regard to the mount of Olives — the spiritual side of things; we need to give place to the Spirit.
JT I think so, in the sense of elevation and strength. The sitting here is to be noted, because sitting on the part of the Lord is taking up a definite position. It is not temporary. Then the first thing is significant. He “began to say, Take heed lest any one mislead you”. That is the first thing to take notice of.
JS Would we be in any danger of being on the line of the old, of getting back to it?
JT I think that is a great danger always. We know full well how the misleading came in in christianity in spite of the excellent start made.
HFN Will you say a word on the Lord here as Teacher? He is referred to as Teacher in this chapter and then in the next, “The Teacher says”, (chapter 14:14). It is a title we do not often refer to the Lord. How would that bear on our levitical service?
JT You get it repeatedly in this gospel, as in the others, and I think the importance of teaching is seen in John in the two in chapter 1. They had been [p. 86] disciples of John and now they heard him speak. They had often heard him speak and often doubtless commented on the way he spoke, for I am sure he could speak well. A man indwelt by the Spirit from infancy would speak by the Spirit of God. It is said they heard him speaking, and they followed Jesus. That shows how thoroughly the ministry had affected them. They were directed to Christ; they followed Jesus, and “Jesus turned”, it says, “and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?” (John 1:38) They say unto Him, “Rabbi”, and then the Holy Spirit tells us what that means. Rabbi means ‘Teacher’, signifying they were now ready to transfer their education to a greater. Although they had an excellent teacher, they were ready for a better one. They said, “Teacher, where abidest thou?” I think there you get the idea of teacher and of the appreciation that should be present with us of teaching. We should be able to discern what is superior; although we are glad to have anything that God gives, yet we should be able to discern what is superior. One might have said to the two, You certainly had an excellent teacher, but they discerned a greater, and so the Holy Spirit tells us what was meant by Rabbi, and they “abode with him”. Thus you get discipleship in the sense of being with the one who teaches — abiding with Him. You may get teaching at a distance, as in books and from addresses, but to abide with the teacher is the thing — to get instruction direct and the things that go with it.
HFN In John 20, where Mary speaks of Him as teacher in the same way, would that show the completion of the line of divine teaching?
JT It does indeed.
HFN Are there not several notable people in John who address the Lord as teacher? First the two you have referred to, and Nathanael in the first chapter; then Nicodemus in chapter 3, and Martha [p. 87] in chapter 11, and then Mary in chapter 20. Would they represent a course of education?
JT No doubt. Mary, I suppose, represents the completion of the education, so that disciple is the term habitually applied to the saints in John and they are thus instructed. It is most important in these days when there is so much bad teaching that the saints should be on that line, not at a distance only, but on the principle of “Where abidest thou?” getting the teaching where He is.
PL You get the thought, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren”, (Matthew 23:8). Does the allusion to the brethren suggest dwelling with the teacher?
JT I suppose so.
RB The Lord alluded to Himself as teacher in connection with washing their feet in chapter 13. What would be the import of that?
JT I think it is on the same line. It was a question of His superiority and greatness.
The prophetic side of our chapter is extensive, but it is there for us, and I think it ought to be linked up, especially in this gospel, with the Revelation, because the Revelation is to the bondmen of Christ. It is the “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him” (Revelation 1:1), that is to say, the Apocalypse is not something the Lord gives of Himself, but is on the line that the Son Himself does not know. He takes the ground. The prophetic ministry is received from God. It is received by Christ and given to His bondman John to show what is shortly coming to pass, that is to say, there is full recognition of God’s place in the ordering of the world. Prophecy has to do with the ordering of the earth, and God is the sovereign Ruler, and the Lord speaks to them on that line. The Father is Ruler of heaven and earth and things are in His hands. The Son takes His place mediatorially as subject and waiting for the Father’s revelation, so that, when He receives it He gives it to John, who gives it in turn to the assemblies, but primarily it is for “His bondmen”. I think therefore the Revelation should be fitted in with this chapter so that we may see the position in regard to prophecy. It is God’s disposition of things, God’s ordering of things, and He holds it in His own power until the time comes. Thus chapter 13 stands by itself in this gospel, but it is most important for us that we should be kept from these earthly things and wait on God about them. It is God’s time, it is not in our power to know about them except what is revealed. In the end of the chapter it says, “This generation shall in no wise pass away, till all these things take place”. It is perhaps a difficult passage to many, but I think intelligible as understanding what the word ‘generation’ means, that is, not necessarily the actual people living in a certain period of time; it is so generally, but it sometimes means the kind of people without respect to duration. Take, for instance, what the Jew is and will continue to be; there is no other generation like him in the history of the world; there is little trace left of the Greeks and Romans, but if you take the Jew, he remains what he was.
Then the Lord goes on to say, “Take heed, watch and pray, for ye do not know when the time is: it is as a man gone out of the country, having left his house and given to his bondmen the authority”. I thought it would be well for us to take note of the authority; He gave “to his bondmen the authority”. If He did not reveal the time, He gave them the authority, whatever that may mean. It is not simply authority, but the authority. He passed on the authority to certain ones.
DLH Then how do you take the thought of the authority as having a bearing upon present conditions?
JT Well, I think the first thing is to notice there [p. 89] is such a thing as the authority. It will never do to admit there is no authority, will it?
DLH It will not, indeed.
CCE Do you think the authority involves the Lord’s absence?
JT Quite. It is power to act in His absence, and then, “To each one his work”.
HH Would the name of Christ come in?
JT Well, quite. The authority is a very real thing. Things are, of course, done in His name, but there is the authority.
S Is it connected with spiritual power?
JT It would go with spiritual weight. What you get in the book of Numbers was that Moses and Aaron were to be accompanied in numbering by heads of houses, not those appointed heads of houses. They were heads of houses and that means they had power. It is not simply a question of being appointed head, but I am head, and if I am that, then there is power.
Ques Do you mean the way in which Abraham is spoken of as head of his house?
JT He commands his house, we read; but these men were heads in their father’s houses. It is not that the father is head — he is obliged to be head — but that a person in the house is head of his father’s house. That is a different idea. The illustration of it, I think, is Gideon. His father was alive, but Gideon became morally greater than his father. He recognised his father, but he influenced his father, so that it was his father’s bullock of seven years old that he sacrificed, and the image in his father’s house that he overthrew. These acts challenged his father’s natural rights, but he succeeded; Gideon established himself as having power in his father’s house. He acquired the thing; he was not appointed.
DLH Would it be something like the king “against whom none can rise up”, (Proverbs 30:31)?
[p. 90] JT That is the idea exactly. It is what the man is.
Ques Would Paul’s word to Titus convey the idea? “These things ... rebuke with all authority”, (Titus 2:15)?
JT That is it indeed.
DLH Then that means what a man really has and not what he assumes to have.
JT That is the thing. I think Gideon is a good illustration.
HFN He acquired power in his father’s house.
DLH Well, he acted like a king.
JT And all his conduct afterwards was in keeping with that. He refused to be king; he would not go beyond what he was. The crown would not add to him really.
PL Do you see this in Elisha with the double portion of the spirit of Elijah? Do you see authority there?
JT Well, I have no doubt. You do not want a crown. “The locusts have no king”, (Proverbs 30:27). That is in the very passage where the king is recognised, and yet the locusts have not one, but they have such as that amongst them. It is the other side of the picture, that is to say, you do not want the crown. The parable in the book of Judges is to show that. The worthless tree alone would take the crown. The fig tree, the vine, and the olive tree, were conscious of serving and that none else could do what they were doing, and they refused the crown.
Rem So it is moral authority, not official.
JT And you are content with that. You are only thinking of the service you are doing, and you do not want a crown. Wherever you see aspiration to the crown, you may depend there is no service going on at all. You are content to remain in your service and leave the crown.
[p. 91] Ques Would the thought of bondmen imply they were under authority at first before he gave them the authority?
JT I think that is right. It is not simply servants but bondmen; you belong wholly to the Lord.
JJ “And to each one his work” is connected with that.
JT Some may be more distinguished than others, but each one has something from the Lord.
ER Is it not important that what we get in verse 10 should go on?
JT “The gospel must first be preached”, quite. It seems it is imperative; it is the Lord’s ordering.
ER I have been struck lately with the apostle in the last chapter of Timothy standing before Caesar and the nations, showing what a moment it was to him, the Lord standing by him so that the preaching might be fully known. Do you not think we ought to be very much stirred up?
JT I am sure that is right. Timothy was charged most solemnly and urgently to proclaim the word; (2 Timothy 4:2).
SJBC What about the reference to the porter?
JT I have been thinking lately of those who have broken off, as one may say, from divine principles, that they are descending into a low level of looseness and confederacy; for these are the features of those who have broken away from the path of divine principles, and I believe it is because there has been disregard of the doorkeeper. The command to the doorkeeper is that he should watch.