GOD'S THOUGHT OF A CITY AS SEEN IN JERUSALEM (4)
GOD’S THOUGHT OF A CITY AS SEEN IN JERUSALEM (4)
Revelation 3:7 - 13; Revelation 21:1 - 8
JT It is in mind to resume our consideration of the thought of Jerusalem, and as already intimated we shall take it up today as seen in the book of Revelation. The address to Philadelphia is read because it contains the reference to new Jerusalem, a term which also appears in chapter 21. Much reference is made to Jerusalem in the Scriptures, but we confined ourselves in the two first readings to the gospel of Luke where the thought is seen in a historic way. But now it is not the historic Jerusalem that is in mind, but rather the spiritual or heavenly Jerusalem, which will apparently continue eternally. It is said to be the new Jerusalem which comes down from God out of heaven. It is significant that it appears in the address to Philadelphia, an assembly which undoubtedly alludes to the time in which we are actually today. Certain special promises are made in the address to Philadelphia; but what we are concerned about more particularly is Jerusalem, which appears in connection with the overcomer in the chapter: “He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem” — the new Jerusalem — “which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name”. The Lord Jesus is speaking Himself, and He regards God as His God. There are many promises made to Philadelphia that may be touched to some extent at this time, but the reference to Jerusalem will be more particularly in mind.
SMcC Is it not interesting that in this same letter to Philadelphia we should have allusion to [p. 175] Christ as the One who has the key of David, David being linked with Jerusalem historically of old?
JT It is significant, and the intention was to bring that in, because David is one of the most outstanding characters in the Old Testament, particularly as a type of the Lord Jesus Himself.
SMcC Would it be right to say that for this choice phase of assembly history the Lord has nothing less than the best in mind in the mention of David and the new Jerusalem?
JT And therefore it is not a mere remnant that is in mind, indeed that word could hardly be applied to the assembly at all. When the Spirit of God brings in the assembly He has in mind the whole idea, the whole idea of Jerusalem. And it will be well to keep in mind that Philadelphia refers to the assembly in its last phase, the closing phase, in which we are now; but it is not just a remnant, it is the whole idea. And so we have first the key of David, and then He who opens and no one shall shut, and shuts and no one shall open. “I know thy works”, He says, that is, the assembly’s works, Philadelphia’s works; “behold, I have set before thee” — that is, the assembly in Philadelphia — “an opened door” — not an ‘open’ one simply, but one that has been shut but is now opened, which refers to the great revival that we now have part in. It is “an opened door, which no one can shut, because thou hast a little power” that is because the Spirit has place with us; we have “a little power”. The word ‘little’ would refer to our appreciation of it, not to littleness in the power itself, because it is the Spirit of God that is in mind — “and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”, which is also very precious. It is not that we are Plymouth Brethren, or anything of the kind; that is all to be repudiated, utterly repudiated, any such name; but the Lord says, “Thou ... hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”. The Lord cherishes that thought, that we love His name. Then He continues, “Behold, I make them of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie; behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet” — which is another thing to have before us. Not that we look for homage or anything like idolatry amongst us, surely not; but still, the Lord is saying to us that He is honouring us because of these facts that He mentions, and amongst them is that “they shall come” — that is these that say they are Jews — “and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee”. Beautiful thought! The Lord says, “that I have loved thee”. We cherish the thought of the Lord’s love to us, that He loves us; it is the whole assembly however that is in mind. He goes on, “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience” — another thing to think of, patience — “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial” — the hour of trial which is the great tribulation that is to come presently; it is not far off, it is certainly coming — “which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”. And then the word finally, “I come quickly: hold fast what thou hast” — let us not give way one inch of the truth — “hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown”. And then, “He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God” — a thing we would greatly value to be, a pillar in the temple of God — “and he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name”. So there is much encouragement in all these wonderful statements from the Lord’s own mouth to us as gathered here in relation to [p. 177] the Scriptures and the truth generally, the fellowship generally.
SMcC So that it is important that while the few of us here may be only a section of the assembly, we should never have less than the whole assembly in mind and before us all the time.
JT Exactly. I think the Lord would say to us that if we think of ourselves as a section, He would rebuke it, because He is thinking of the whole assembly, He has never given up the thought of it.
CAM Would it be right to say that “he that overcomes” is one who has entered into the meaning of the historic Jerusalem that we have been occupied with? I wondered whether you would make a remark as to the relation of the historic Jerusalem to the Jerusalem that we are looking at now. Has the glory of this Jerusalem that we are to be occupied with now been acquired through all that wonderful spiritual history?
JT I think that; not only the revival as we call it — and rightly call it — but the whole history from the beginning down, from Paul down, is in mind; and especially the sufferings of the Reformation, the terrible sufferings that the brethren endured during the time of the Reformation. The Lord is hinting at it here, that He will not put any more burden upon us; He is not going to call us to any great suffering or persecution so far as I can see until the end, and that ought to be comforting to us. “I ... will keep thee”, He says, meaning, I will preserve thee; “I ... will keep thee out of the hour of trial”. It is an hour of trial, others will feel it; it is to come on all the world to try those that dwell upon the earth. It is a very solemn consideration.
CAM It impressed me that the occupation with the historic Jerusalem was of great value as coming before what we are considering now; the matter of suffering and the actual knowledge of temple conditions [p. 178] that we were speaking of in Luke precede this wonderful, spiritual, and glorious idea.
JTJr Do you think the young men should look for this preservation from the hour of trial when we think of the present war conditions?
JT Very good. I think the Lord values it when we count on His promises, when we reckon on His promises. He will surely make them good. And the younger ones will do well to heed that word ‘keep’, that we can keep ourselves; let each one see to it, to keep himself. But the Lord has promised that He will keep us too, out of the hour of trial.
CT Would you say that the Lord was speaking of new Jerusalem to the woman in John 4 when He said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father”? Did He have new Jerusalem in mind at that time?
JT Well, just so; He had in mind, I would say, the whole history of christianity where the true worship of God is apparent. In the Old Testament you might say the true worship of God was not fully there; but the true worship of God has come now, so that “we are the circumcision”, the apostle Paul says, “who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh” (Philippians 3:3). Those are the actual persons that the apostle means are really worshipping God.
JMcK Could you help us as to the idea of ‘new’? Do you connect it with reconciliation as having been worked out in Christ according to 2 Corinthians 5? It says in verse 17, “So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new: and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”. It is not the idea of purging or cleansing, but it is entirely new, is it [p. 179] not?
JT Wholly new, which is christianity proper; that is christianity proper, it belongs to christianity. There is the quotation we have just had from Philippians, “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”. “We”, there are those that can be so designated at this present time, and we want to be amongst them. “We are the circumcision”, that is, we have dealt with the flesh, because in circumcision it is a question of the flesh being cut off. We are the circumcision, the real christians, the real believers in Christ, and we rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh. We worship God by the Spirit. It is not simply worshipping in the spirit of the thing, as people say. We are the circumcision who worship God by the Spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh; we want to be sure we belong to those who are worshipping in that sense.
JW In contrast to the synagogue of Satan?
JT That is the word I had in mind.
ASB What about concision?
JT Concision is partial, it is not equal to the full thought of circumcision; it is a poor affair.
DH In verse 12 it says, “He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God ... and my new name”. Is that open to every one of us?
JT Those are special ones. It applies to us if we are walking in the truth; in that case we are the overcomers, that is to say we belong to that class of people, those who overcome. The Lord Himself brings the idea into His own history, that He had overcome; “I have overcome”, He says.
NB Have you any thought as to why there is no reference to the Father in this address? In [p. 180] addressing the overcomer the Lord refers to “my Father” in both Sardis and Laodicea, but it is “my God” here throughout.
JT The idea of ‘Father’ is not much found in Revelation, which is not like the epistle to the Ephesians or to the Colossians. The word ‘Father’ is not very much mentioned, especially as to being the Father of Christ, that He is Christ’s Father.
JW The brethren are held together in a sense in their souls of what “the word of my patience” is, and linked with that, the word, “I come quickly”. That would be a reality to them, would it not, in these days of revival in which we live?
JT And as has already been remarked, the whole assembly is in mind; the Lord has nothing less than that before Him. The whole assembly is in mind and we want to be sure that we belong to that. We are here this Monday morning after the first day of the week because we love the Lord; we are here according to His mind, looking at the Scriptures, and in the fellowship — the fellowship of the truth.
JWF Would you say that the exercise of testing what is real goes through? At Ephesus they tried those who said they were apostles and found out they were liars; and here they are trying those who say they are Jews.
JT They are the same class of people; “they ... are not”, the Lord says, they say things and they are not. John’s epistle would help us on those lines, how everything is presented in the abstract, we might say; and if anything is to be said that is negative, it is said absolutely.
JWF It would appear that the exercise of discrimination goes right through.
NS While the name of ‘Father’ is not mentioned in the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia, would you say that it involves the whole thought of [p. 181] the economy, and the new Jerusalem in connection with it? There is reference to “my God”, “my new name”, and to “new Jerusalem”. Would that involve the whole thought of the economy?
JT You mean that the Lord would convey that He had the economy in mind in what He was saying?
NS I was thinking of the greatness of the address to Philadelphia; the whole thought of the assembly, as you were saying, is in the address to it; and the promise to the overcomer would seem to bring before us the greatness of the whole thought of the way God has come out in revelation and the relation in which the assembly is set.
JT That is true; the whole idea is in mind in what the Lord said.
ANW So that the “my” really involves the incarnation, does it not? “My God”.
JT Just so. It is a remarkable expression in the sense in which the Lord uses those words — His God.
JTJr This period is a time of opening up; there has been an opening up of the truth ever since Mr. Darby’s time, has there not?
JT I would say that, ever since the revival; we rightly call it a revival of the truth. But then we also spoke of the fact that the whole truth is in mind, including the Reformation and the suffering that entered into it; the saints have gone through the whole matter. The Lord is crediting them with it; He knows how to value it, He knows how to love us and to show His love. He loves because of any faithfulness that is manifest in our walk and ways.
AHP Do you think the thought of Philadelphia might suggest persons that refuse to be diverted from the original thought of the assembly as in purpose, but hold tenaciously to the divine idea of the assembly as suggested in Paul’s ministry as to [p. 182] it?
JT As in purpose, I would go with that fully. Say a little more.
AHP It seems to me that the moral features that characterise Philadelphia are features that are carried over into the eternal condition of things, the city coming down out of heaven but linked on with the idea of the original thought; it is not an impaired condition, it is what was in God’s mind from the outset.
JT So that what comes down out of heaven is going back into heaven, but first it qualifies itself. It has come out of heaven and goes back into heaven; that really applies to ourselves, those who belong to the assembly and are walking in the truth of it, that we have come out of heaven morally and now we are going into it actually. We belong to heaven. We are not Jews in the sense of the Jewish position in the millennium; we are a heavenly people.
JTJr You are stressing the need of making everything of Paul at the beginning, and what he received from heaven. Do you think what came out in Luther was also from heaven; I mean as to faith? Did heaven assert itself then? And then at the present time it is a question of what is coming from heaven; the whole thing is connected with what has come out of heaven from the beginning.
JT Just so. Really it is what comes out of heaven morally, that is, the work of God is there, it is implied. But then there is the actual thing, the literal actual thing, that we are going into heaven, each one of us by name. We are known by name and each one of us is to go into heaven according to his name. Luther acquired a great name; justification by faith came out through him and no doubt he will go into heaven. We should have great respect for him; even though there was defect in his course, he stood well at a moment when others [p. 183] failed.
SMcC Mr. Stoney used to say that nothing goes into heaven but what came out of heaven. I suppose he was alluding to the character of the work of God.
JT I remember that; that is the reason I added the word ‘morally’.
Ques Would the thought in relation to the going in and the coming out be seen in Psalm 122? It says, “I rejoiced when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of Jehovah. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem. Jerusalem, which art built as a city that is compact together”.
JT “Our feet shall stand”, that is beautiful.
Rem Then I was thinking of the future, of eternity, of abiding in that place. It says in Psalm 125, “They that confide in Jehovah are as mount Zion, which cannot be moved; it abideth for ever. Jerusalem! — mountains are round about her, and Jehovah is round about his people, from henceforth and for evermore”.
JT So that passage and others like it may well be compared with the revival that we have been dealing with. Only the revival that we are dealing with, in connection with Mr. Darby and those who worked with him, has in mind the whole idea; not a remnant but the whole idea. And that stands now; it is the whole idea we are dealing with, the whole idea of the assembly.
ASB So that while in verse 8 it says, “Because thou hast a little power”, that is, the power is modified, there is no modification or depreciation in relation to “my word” and “my name”.
JT I think the Lord must have greatly treasured what He was able to say to Philadelphia; He must have treasured it in His own heart; it represented in His mind the whole idea of the assembly, what is constantly before Him. “I speak”, Paul says, “as to Christ, and as to the assembly” (Ephesians 5:32). That was the characteristic of Paul’s ministry all the time, that he spoke of Christ and the assembly.
JRH Would what has been said as to what comes out of heaven and what goes into heaven help us in relation to verse 11, “Hold fast what thou hast”? I was thinking how the Holy Spirit would help us in this, to keep it by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us.
JT Quite so.
Ques Is the thought of “I will write”, the impression of what we have been having the last three days, the impression of new Jerusalem, that the Lord is writing it on us?
JT Very good. It is a remarkable thing the kind of material the Lord uses, it is you yourself. “I will write upon him”; the kind of material He uses is persons.
CD Is the kind of man that God puts glory upon indicated in the acacia wood in the boards of the tabernacle? They were overlaid with gold, and also the cypress wood in Solomon’s house was overlaid with gold. Does that suggest the kind of man or humanity that God puts glory upon?
JT Just so; gold is used in that sense for what is thoroughly genuine, what can be regarded as thoroughly genuine; so that whether it is humanity or the assembly or whatever we may say, as looked at in that light it is thoroughly genuine.
CD I was wondering if that is what we have here in the overcomers, those who have been faithful, the kind of men that God glorifies. He puts glory upon them in verse 12, does He not?
JT He does indeed. Think of what the Lord did, how He could go over the ground in His own mind, we might say, speaking reverently; He goes over the ground including the names of the persons that He commends, the very names; He keeps them in His mind. Then the new name, “my new name”,
[p. 185] He says, that is another thing. We marvel at the Lord using that as to Himself!
SMcC What does that convey to your mind, “my new name”?
JT It must be something that He has not taken on before; it is brought in now, the time has come for it, that is the way I would look at it; the time has come for it.
ANW Why is overcoming necessary, even in Philadelphian conditions?
JT I would look at the word ‘overcoming’ as referring to the whole position on the earth, whatever it is that we have to overcome.
NB What is involved in being a pillar?
JT It is distinction I think; a pillar is what distinguishes one. A person is distinguished by what he is.
Rem Is that not seen in Galatians 2? There we have those that were conspicuous communicating nothing, like, I suppose, the Jews here who say they are Jews and are not; but then lower down in the chapter it speaks of James and Cephas and John who were conspicuous as being pillars; Paul says they “gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”.
JT We are told what the conspicuousness was; they were pillars.
SMcC In relation to “my new name”: in this revival that we have been alluding to, especially in the last fifty years, there has been a constant opening up of the truth as to the Person of Christ.
JT I am glad you do not say one hundred and fifty, because we commonly do that; but the last fifty years has peculiarly had that feature in connection with the truth as to the service of God in the assembly. You have that in mind?
SMcC Exactly, and the way that the Person of Christ has been distinguished in it in our souls.
JT [p. 186] The Person of Christ, that is to say His sonship; the sonship of Christ. People used to say that He was Son eternally, but He became Son in time.
JTJr Then do you connect “my new name” with the Lord’s position in the sanctuary, that is, as Minister of the sanctuary in the opening up of the service of God?
JT Very good. He is the Minister of the sanctuary, He is the One that is in charge of the service, that is what is meant, as Aaron was in the Old Testament. The Lord Jesus was seen in Moses and Aaron; they were taking care of the service of God and the testimony.
JRH Would this scripture help us as to the place that Jerusalem has in the service of God?
JT Quite so, but then it is Jerusalem that is come down from God out of heaven. It is what is come down from God out of heaven; you mean that?
JRH That is what I had in mind. Yesterday morning the hymn was given out: ‘Rest of the saints above, Jerusalem of God!’ and it seemed to give a distinct line to the meeting.
JT I can quite understand that it was a distinct line, because it is what has really come down from heaven, either morally or literally. The literality of it will be when we come out with the Lord Jesus as like Him, “when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). When we come out with Him as we see Him, as like Him, then we shall come down from God out of heaven to have part in all that God is going on with on the earth. I think it is wonderful that we should have things of this kind before us and be able to speak of them to one another intelligently and feelingly.
SMcC Might I ask at this moment in relation to what you have just been saying, if you have any [p. 187] difficulty with giving out an indirect hymn in the service of God?
JT Not if it conveys the truth.
SMcC There are some who think we should only sing or give out hymns in assembly service that directly address divine Persons; but the hymn that has been alluded to, which is a beautiful hymn, is really an indirect hymn as you might say, but full of spiritual wealth.
JT It is indeed. That is a beautiful hymn, it is a treasure, one of the things that we have come to — part of the inheritance that we have come into. Mr. Darby has a number of hymns in the book and I regard them as an inheritance come down for the assembly in our times.
CD The singing of such a hymn engages you with divine Persons, even though not addressed to divine Persons.
JMcK Does that song of the sons of Korah, (Psalm 87), help us in what you have been saying? “Jehovah loveth the gates of Zion more than all the habitations of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God”.
JT Just so. I would read that in the spirit of it, because it has not come into christianity; the Psalms have not come into christianity and therefore we speak of them in the spirit of them.
WMcK What is involved in the expression, “from my God”, in Revelation 3? It is not just that the holy city comes down out of heaven, but it comes from God.
JT It is to give it full distinction, full character, I would say; coming from God is everything; everything that is good is there and to be admired, and it comes down out of heaven, from God.
SMcC And would it suggest that the assembly is in complete accord with the mediatorial position? The Lord Jesus said, “I came forth from God”;
and again it says, “Jesus, knowing that ... he came out from God and was going to God” (John 13:3). I am not referring to the assembly as being the mediator in any way, but she is in accord with the mediatorial position.
JT Quite so, in accord with it; and then if you get the spirit of a thing too, that gives great character to what is being said. Even although the letter may not be fully in accord with it, the spirit is the spirit of a thing, the spirit of truth, for instance.
ASB Does that enter into the close of chapter 16 of John’s gospel in that way, where so much is made of the Spirit? The disciples say to the Lord, “Now we know that thou knowest all things, and hast not need that any one should demand of thee. By this we believe that thou art come from God”. And then would you say chapter 17 would have to do with the ornamenting of what is going back to God?
JT Very good. I am glad you say all that; it is very beautiful. What comes out of heaven goes back into heaven; it is qualified to do that.
JW And would the lines of quality be ever before us? A pillar would be a choice thought, would it not? And the name of my God would be a feature connected with the renown of God.
JT Oh, yes. There is nothing greater than what is said to be of God.
ASB Then are we to understand that the pillar suggests the substantive character of the thing and its permanency, and that the writing in principle is upon the pillar?
JT That is good. I think the idea of a pillar is visible ornamentation, something that is visible and adds to what is being done or said.
JW Do we understand then that things are obtaining spiritually now in accordance with these [p. 189] verses in Revelation 3, and that they will come out literally in Revelation 21?
JT I would say that.
Ques We say that the assembly is of heavenly origin. Is that because we are taken out of Christ?
JT Well, it is the work of God; that is what I would mean by it, that God has wrought and we are the product of His work. The product of His work is in mind.
Rem References have been made to the Lord that He came from God, “knowing ... that he came out from God and was going to God”; but then we say that the assembly too has come from God, from heaven.
JT But not in the same sense that the Lord came from God, because we are creatures; but we are creatures that God has wrought in. God has wrought in us personally so that there is something corresponding to what the Lord is Himself; but what the Lord says of Himself is infinite. We cannot limit that at all, it is an infinite idea. He came from God and He went to God; that is infinite. Anything of that kind we should be most careful about, so that we keep the infinite thought in our minds and make it clear that we think that it is infinite. Because divine Persons are infinite, the Father and the Son and the Spirit are infinite. No angel is infinite, nor any other creature; none save divine Persons are infinite.
ASB Is what you say as to God’s working borne out in John 17 where the Lord speaks to the Father about “the men whom thou gavest me out of the world”? He says, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me”.
JT That is, the Father really had wrought in them, and the Lord alludes to that.
ANW A man sent from God such as John is another matter, [p. 190] is it not?
JT It is.
JWD Does the use of the personal pronoun involve distinction of certain persons with these characteristics in the millennium? It says, “He that overcomes”, “he shall go no more out”, and “I will write upon him”. Does that involve distinctiveness in certain persons?
JT Surely. But of course it would be only creatures that are in mind there, you mean that, of course. They are only creatures, but they are distinguished.
JWD Yes; I mean that in the millennial setting of “the city of my God” there will be certain persons distinguished in these features. Will that be so?
JT That is exactly what I think.
SMcC In regard to what you have been stressing as to the heavenly side, would the present move of the head of the system so well known to us all, that is so opposed to the truth, be a definite assailing by the enemy of what we are considering, the heavenly side?
JT I think it is most terrible to think of. I am quite aware of what you mean. It is most terrible, the boldness of it, the barefacedness of it, that at this last time they should be coming forward pretending to have new thoughts and new doctrines. It is blasphemy; to my mind it is just that. It is terrible to think of their coming forward at this stage of things, when communism is taking the ground from their feet; they want to re-establish themselves by assuming to bring out new doctrines. There is nothing in these doctrines but blasphemy. We were recently having a word about women in John’s gospel, and amongst them is Mary. It speaks of defectiveness in her, of actual defectiveness in Mary. She is not like a divine Person, she is absolutely and entirely unlike that, because she really sinned in the way she spoke to the Lord, telling Him to do things.
[p. 191] I am only referring to it because of what you say as to the place certain ones give her; she is just a creature, although a wonderfully honoured creature. Why should we not speak honourably of her too? We can and do, but at the same time she is just a creature, and it is just blasphemous that they should come out so boldly in bringing these things forward about Mary. In fact they go so far as to say ‘the mother of God’, a terrible thing to say.
CCT So it would help us to hold fast what we have. Is that the idea now?
JT To hold fast what we have. But now we might proceed to chapter 21. Will you just read the passage again?
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea exists no more”.
“And [p. 194] I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice out of the heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall not exist any more, nor grief, nor cry, nor distress shall exist any more, for the former things have passed away. And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he says to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful. And he said to me, It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that thirsts of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son. But to the fearful and unbelieving, and sinners, and those who make themselves abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters,
[p. 192] and all liars, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Revelation 21:1 - 8).
JT The wording is wonderful, especially what the Lord says in verse 7, “He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”. Wonderful! The Lord could use those words as to us and as to Himself; He is going to be God to us.
AHP Would it be right to link this passage that we have read with Paul’s prayer in the first chapter of Ephesians where he speaks of God’s inheritance in the saints? It says in Ephesians 1:17, “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him, being enlightened in the eyes of your heart, so that ye should know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints”. I am enquiring whether this passage we read in Revelation 21 is the answer to Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 1, God’s inheritance in the saints affording God this choice vessel for the outshining of His glory?
JT Very good. You mean that the saints are the vessel for the outshining? That is so.
ANW Is that in line with the fact that this is the only time that John mentions sonship?
JT I think that is quite right, that it is the only time he mentions sonship. A very remarkable thing it is too, because he mentions children constantly. That is to say, John deals with the family of God, while Paul deals with the same persons but distinguishes them by the word ‘sons’.
SMcC In regard to this word, “I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”, do you understand [p. 193] that to refer to eternity?
JT It could refer to eternity undoubtedly, because that is what the Lord is — God. “He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20); I mean to say that is a definite statement as to Him in John’s epistle. But here it is just saying that some persons will have this great privilege — that God regards Himself as their God. Of course it could not but mean the same thing, because it says in John’s epistle that Christ is the true God and eternal life. That means that He is God, a wonderful fact that we should keep in mind too. But then it says, “I will be to him God”, that some person or persons will have the real enjoyment of the fact that Christ is God to them; and it is a great thing to feel — Well, I know the Lord as God, I can speak to Him as God, and I know Him that He, as God, will speak to me. I revere Him, and at the same time I have the joy and consciousness that He is my God. We may say that He is our God.
HB Thomas says, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).
JT It is the same thing; he accepted the fact.
ANW The third verse is eternity, is it not? “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God”.
JT That is the same thing, I would say. The Spirit of God loves to bring all this forward, especially in the book of Revelation, because it treats of the time when there is much denunciation of the truth, and great value attaches to those who hold it and value it.
SMcC It is interesting that in verse 2 the definite article is omitted before “new Jerusalem”, whereas in the letter to Philadelphia the definite article is used; it is “the new Jerusalem”, whereas here it is,
“I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem”, as if it is what characterises her, do you think?
JT I do; and later on in verse 10 where we get the word again, it says, “And he carried me away in the Spirit, and set me on a great and high mountain, and shewed me the holy city, Jerusalem”. There it is not called new, it is just “Jerusalem”, but it is called “holy”. It is well to notice omissions and the like in the passages read and to understand what they mean. “The holy city” is a greater thought than its being new.
SMcC Would “the holy city” suggest that it is not just a state of innocence, but that the moral question has been completely resolved and we are in the presence of what is infinitely great?
JT So that the word ‘holy’ is greater than the word ‘new’, because it involves that something has been effected in it.
Ques Would the words, “the holy city”, have a particular bearing on the time of recovery? You remember it is spoken of in that way in Nehemiah 11.
JT You mean Nehemiah’s time was a time of recovery corresponding with our own time? Just so, we might well note the correspondence.
JWD Do you think the city idea goes through into eternity?
JT Oh, I think so, I think that is unquestionable.
J.W.D. As a city?
JT Well, quite so. God can keep things in that way.
JWD It is not that the apostle is identifying what it was as going in, or does it still retain the definite form of a city?
JT Well, I should say that; why should it not? I mean to say if God wishes to keep it like that why can He not [p. 195] do it?
JWD Then do you think that it involves the idea of administration still?
JT Well, I do not know; it is not necessary to make it that. The idea of a city is a precious thought, it is so much mentioned in regard to Jerusalem that God evidently cherishes it.
KR In the eternal setting the city is seen coming down, the same as in the millennial setting.
JT That is the fact; it is the same city and it is of the same value. Undoubtedly the idea of a city will go through into eternity. It is a thing to be considered as to why God cherishes it so much. He has a right to cherish it; it has been much in His mind from the very outset. And now it is a new city, it is new Jerusalem, so that it is entirely fitted for eternal conditions.
SMcC Is it not right to think of administration as continuing into eternity in some way? I mean love is never static, love will serve, so we might think of it in that way as going into eternity?
JT Just so, very good. I do think that these things we are saying are true, that these elements such as the holy city and the new Jerusalem are going through into eternity; and it would mean that God greatly values them from His own point of view, as of the earliest days of His ways here on earth.
ADS Is there any link with what the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:17? He says, “So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new”. This chapter says, “And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new”. I was thinking of what is designated as new.
JT That is what is in mind; the things are new and the things are holy, and it is becoming more and more clear to us as we are speaking that these things are going into eternity, into eternal conditions.
[p. 196] As to why God is bringing them into eternity — we have to leave it; but He is going to have such an idea eternally as a city, and there is a name given to it, and we ourselves belong to it; that is the greatest thing to think of, that we ourselves belong to it, our very selves.
JB Is it not remarkable that in Matthew 27 it says that the bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep arose, and that they entered into the holy city?
JT That would mean that the idea had already taken form and was usable. The idea had already taken form before the holy city came down.
JRH In 1 John 3:2 it says, “What we shall be has not yet been manifested”. Evidently sonship is in view there. When it says here, “He shall be to me son”, is this the manifestation in its future sense?
JT When it was spoken here it was a future thing; but while it is literally future for us, we are sons of God already by faith; we all know it. In Galatians 3:26 we have, “for ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”; that is how we are in sonship; it is a question of faith. We are not literally sons because we are still liable to death, but we are coming to it, and in a sense have already come to it, because we have the faith of it. You see it is a question of faith. We are sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
JRH So John in his epistle and in this word here has sonship in actuality in view?
JT Exactly. But with anything that is stated in that sense, it is a question as to whether we have faith for it. If we have faith for it we are entitled to regard it as ours. But we are not yet literally sons because we are liable to death and to sickness; while sonship belongs to the eternal idea, sonship belongs to God. Faith makes the thing applicable and [p. 197] real now.
JRH That helps to bring out the distinction between Paul’s teaching as to the matter and John’s.
Ques Does Romans 8 bring in the literal idea of sonship, “awaiting adoption”?
JT “Awaiting adoption”, which is sonship. That is to say, we cannot say we are in all these things except in the principle of them, now, because we are liable to sickness and death, and those things do not belong to sonship. Still we have faith as to the whole matter, and faith makes the thing real and sure to us.
Ques What is implied in the word in verse 6, “It is done”?
JT I would say, as good as done, because God, the Lord, is saying it Himself and we must take it that what He is saying will actually become so. We are sure about it. When the Lord says, “It is done”, that is, in ordinary words, as good as done, because God has said it. It is going to come to pass because He has said it.
ASB Does this link on with Abraham? It says in Romans 4:17 concerning him, “And calls the things which be not as being”. And then in Hebrews 11:10 it says that “he waited for the city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor”.
JT Very good. I was thinking of that because of what was said a minute ago, that “if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is not that he is a new creation, but “if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation”. It is the actual fact stated; it is not explained. We may well accept the fact that there is such a thing as new creation; whether I belong to it is not the question; the fact is that there is such a thing as that, and that it is going to be eternally so.
TLS Should it not affect us that one man saw all this? Should it not have authority in our [p. 198] souls?
JT John saw it, you mean? Quite so. That is one great thing he emphasises, what he saw.
SMcC Elsewhere you have alluded to what is abstract and what is anticipative. Would that not help us in what you have been saying?
JT I think it would. The word ‘abstract’ is hardly understood; we do not understand much about it but I would say that John’s epistle illustratively conveys the idea of what is abstract.
ASB You have said that things that are abstract are divine certainties, positive certainties.
JT Divine certainties — very excellent phraseology.
JW So that what we understand and enter into now spiritually will come into display in the world to come and continue throughout the eternal state?
JT Just so; the expression, ‘the world to come’, became more and more real in Mr. Raven’s time; he used it much, and taught about it much, as to what was meant by it, and the Lord used him to bring out the reality of things where they had always been treated only as doctrine. He brought out the reality of things, that they existed in the Spirit, that they really existed.