"HE APPEARED IN ANOTHER FORM"
“HE APPEARED IN ANOTHER FORM”
Matthew 28: 9,10; Mark 16: 9 - 15; Luke 24: 32 - 43; John 20: 19 - 23
It would be helpful to draw attention to the word “form” in Mark, and from that to point out the character of each record of the manner of the Lord’s appearing to the disciples after He rose from the dead. The expression “another form” is one which requires attention; it is peculiar to Mark. He has in view the state of the disciples. His narrative calls special attention to their unbelief; so that in telling us about the form, Mark simply says, “he appeared in another form to two of them as they went into the country”. Revelation 1 and 2 enlarges on this comment. If the Lord’s form is not natural, if the manner of His appearance to us is not normal, it denotes things are not right with us. The form seen in Patmos called attention to things that existed. The fact was that the assembly had left its first love, and His appearance was abnormal. It is a serious matter to find the Lord appearing in an abnormal way.
Mark’s gospel calls special attention to the state of unbelief which underlay the movements of the disciples after His death. The Lord not only speaks to us when there is departure, but He changes His attitude, and you cannot say in what form He may appear. The state of unbelief was the necessity for that. Each of the addresses to the seven assemblies opened with the Lord in a position or aspect suitable to its state.
It is helpful to get the outline of the four evangelists’ accounts. The normal account is found in John’s gospel. Matthew’s account is in keeping with his point of view, and the Lord intended to produce in the [p. 2] disciples a sense of His position in administration, hence He acts at a distance, maintains a royal dignity in His relations with them.
It is not the Lord’s love which changes because He rejects what is unsuitable in us. The Lord’s love never could change, but in faithfulness His attitude to us changes if He sees what is displeasing to Him. His dealings with the saints in the Revelation are abnormal. It is not “I myself” till the close, but He is in rather a disciplinary attitude. All, save in the address to Philadelphia, are other than normal.
A normal state is where love could have its free course. The Lord’s supper had become clouded by human innovation, so that it had lost its identification. Now restored to us in its original simplicity, and in the measure in which saints are in keeping with it, we realise “It is I myself”: the Lord Himself, that is the Man. In Luke the characteristics are, it is a real Man, with all a man’s affections. When we apprehend the significance of the form in which the Lord presents Himself it results in our recovery; so the way in which he presents Himself to the assembly really brings about the state seen in the overcomer.
The Lord assumes a natural and normal attitude in speaking to Philadelphia. He only assumes an abnormal form in view of recovery. On one occasion in the Canticles He only puts His hand in at the door. The bride, having that suggestion made, can give a full outline of His Person. He is described by one who loves that Person. The Lord graciously acts in that way to bring us back, that the assembly’s relations with Him should be resumed. Luke’s account is normal as regards the Person - the Man: “It is I myself”; therefore it says in Luke, “they were glad”. At the end of Revelation also it is “I, Jesus”, a term which the assembly will understand. It is the Person. If recovery is to come in it is [p. 3] through the Person of Christ. His hand is active, it may be through discipline.
“Going into the country” seems so simple but really lies at the bottom of the assembly failure. It is taking up an earthly position instead of having their faces to Jerusalem. “Another form” is a different form, not a normal one. It is different from what He is in His own Person. As a matter of fact in Luke they did not even know Him. Song of Songs 5: 3 - 6 shows a great test of affection. The sight of His hand puts her affections in motion. The two that went into the country had been treated similarly, only He goes all the way with them into the house; then being there, He breaks the loaf and they know Him. He does not tell them what to do; but what they did was to return in that same hour to the eleven, who were in a right position though unbelieving. The Lord said to the assembly at Philadelphia: “I will keep thee from the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth”. (Revelation 3: 10). They had returned to the city. In Nehemiah a premium had to be put on dwelling in Jerusalem. They cast lots, for the disposition was to go into the country. The assembly should have retained its place in the centre of divine thought and rule.
The city is an abstract idea now; it has no concrete form yet. It is a divine conception introduced to meet what man had brought in. God introduced the idea of the city to Abraham. Going into the country is connected with minding earthly things, and then eventually we see in Revelation the woes are poured out on those that dwell on the earth in contrast with heaven-dwellers. Because these two had had the light and had been with Jesus, their going into the country was a serious thing, showing they were not attached to the divine centre. In recovery they returned the same hour and find the eleven, and those [p. 4] that were with them. They were following righteousness now. They found “the eleven”, who represented the authority of the Lord. It is a question of where one’s heart is. They found the eleven; that is, they returned to the order set up by Christ in authority. In connecting Mark 16: 13 with Luke, who gives more detail, we see the recovery was complete. The recovery was analogous to Philadelphia. It was recovery to the order that the Lord established, not partial, but complete. It is not complete unless brought back to the authority of Christ, that is the city. Paul completes the city, and he alone speaks of it formally as “Jerusalem above”. Recovery is to God’s centre, and where it is genuine we find an acknowledgment of the Lord’s authority.
The city is the assembly, but it is not yet in heaven. The apostle says, “Jerusalem above”, speaking abstractly as something which will exist, so it is a matter of light. The acknowledging of the Lord’s authority is seen in their returning to the eleven. He had commissioned the eleven. We have not the eleven today, but we possess their writings which represent the authority of Christ. Where this authority is recognised we should soon find the right company. The principle in Acts 2: 42 abides till the end, “The apostles’ doctrine”, because it is a question of their authority.
When He broke the bread, their eyes were opened. One sight of Him in the breaking of bread is enough. He was “known of them” through that. He took the place of ‘House-father’ at Emmaus, which recalled similar occasions with them as Head of a family. Prior to that He made their hearts burn on the way. The Lord drew near but in another form; He deliberately disguised Himself to get at their consciences, and used very strong language, saying, “O, fools”. He made as if to go further to call out their affections. The state of unbelief is seen here [p. 5] In spite of the great privilege that the Lord has afforded us, we should ask ourselves, Is my heart believing or unbelieving? Am I governed by darkness or light? Our natural selfishness would dispense with exercise. In unbelief there is no exercise. In going into the country and sitting down in quietness there is no exercise. Unbelief is at the root of most of our troubles. The underlying state is that there is the selfishness of nature which would dispense with exercise.
In Ezra’s day they cast lots as to who should dwell in Jerusalem. The converse is ordinarily the case, the city forming such an attraction for the young. In man’s city the lust of the eye and the pride of life are ministered to, but in Nehemiah 11: 1, Jerusalem is called the Holy City; it affords nothing for the flesh, the flesh has no hankering after the city of God. The area was as large as when David occupied it, but people all wanted to go into the country. The nobles dwelt there; these were men who had taken up their responsibilities. Resurrection men appear there in Matthew. It is the city of light and rule; there is only one Jerusalem. Flesh does not seek it, but the country.
In the question of recovery, what the Spirit does is to bring us back to the previous appreciation of Christ in the Supper, and this effects recovery. What Luke brings us to is real humanity, the spirits of just men made perfect. Jerusalem is peopled by those. In Jerusalem we see the kind of men who have taken character from Christ: they are of Him.
In John’s gospel Mary’s message placed them in a normal position after they are assembled. They are in a normal state, so John opens up our great spiritual privilege. The Lord is seen as the last Adam and the Head of a new race, the Son of God. They are now prepared for the unfoldings of the new Head. “But these are written that ye might believe”. (John 20: 31)
[p. 6] John opens up to us the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit.
How wonderful to be shut in with Christ. He brought them into a new life as His brethren. We get the unfolding of what Christ is as the ascended One. In verses 19 and 21 “peace” repeated shows the thought of the Lord’s heart for them; they are doubly fortified in peace.