⬇ EPUB

THE NEW JERUSALEM

DLH What is the connection between what we have been considering and the new Jerusalem?

JT I think the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia would indicate that he would have knowledge of the new man. He would understand the bearing of the word ‘new’, as we have been remarking. The new man is evidently for God, that in which He finds delight on account of its freshness, but the new Jerusalem introduces another thought. It is a complete vessel, including, I judge, all the other features that have occupied us. The element of preservation is evident in the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; what is presented includes what was from the outset. The foundations were made intact and would be included in what was new. In other words, the fruit of the work of God in the whole dispensation is seen there and is included in the newness. I suppose that every thought of God in regard of government is found in it, and that livingly. His government through providential means, and His government through Israel — the twelve tribes — all these thoughts are there.

DLH Would you mind saying a word in regard of the distinction or difference between the new Jerusalem in its eternal setting and the holy city in its millennial setting, to which you are just now referring?

JT Its bearing towards the eternal state of things is evidently as a divine dwelling-place; that in which God will be with men. The thought would be, I suppose, taken up from the Lord’s presence here. He became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. It was new. God had tabernacled with Israel but “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1: 14). It was a wholly new way. God was there, but there in a new ^[p. 202] way, and so He will be, I apprehend, eternally in that new way. The assembly will be His tabernacle among men.

DLH I should like to ask also whether the new Jerusalem, which is referred to in the promise to the overcomer, refers to the eternal condition or to the millennial state?

JT I should say both, only the word ‘new’ is not connected with the city in chapter 21 in connection with the millennial order of things.

DLH That is what struck me; it is not.

JT Nevertheless I think the Lord has the millennial order of things in view in all the promises to the overcomer in Philadelphia.

HFN Was your thought that we need what is eternal to maintain that which is new? What is administrative merely will not maintain it.

JT I think that John’s ministry — John’s gospel peculiarly — fits us for eternity. He alone speaks of the Lord coming in in that way — He dwelt among us. The dwelling was new. It was a new way and I believe that apprehending the manner of it, as presented in John, prepares us for eternity, so that the first disciples that are drawn to Christ through the testimony by John ask the Lord where He abides. “Where abidest thou?” and He says, “Come and see”. They were to apprehend the thing. It was a new thing. There is no reference to any geographical position or to any material surrounding. It was a spiritual thing, and so, I believe, if that is laid hold of, the eternal conditions begin to dawn in your soul; so that in sending the message to the disciples through Mary Magdalene, there is the assumption that the thing would be understood. “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20: 17). It is the full family thought, I think, and then the relation between God and men. These are two things, I ^[p. 203] believe, that will run together eternally, so that an apprehension of John’s gospel prepares us for eternal conditions, and we understand the force of the new Jerusalem. It is still new after the thousand years, as we have often remarked. Its unchangeableness is thus emphasised, and although it had its place in what belongs to time, it retains its qualifications for eternity.

HFN You have given us moral thoughts in regard of the other features, preservation and strength and what is for God. What is in your mind in regard to the introduction of what is new in relation to the city?

JT Well, it is just as I have been remarking; the overcomer in Philadelphia, I believe, understanding John’s ministry, is prepared for Jerusalem as presented at the outset of chapter 21 as the tabernacle of God, that is to say, that in which He will be with men. The thing itself includes, I think, the family relationship that is involved in “My brethren” - the relation to the Father, and the overcomer in Philadelphia understands that. He has become accustomed to what is new. Christendom would be regarded as having become old, because the addresses to the assemblies contemplate that the thing had become old. We know it is so. We know that what is public — what is regarded as christianity publicly — is not different from what was of old. Men have returned to the old. The public features of christianity today are not new; they are based either on Jewish practices or on heathenish practices.

The recovery of the truth has revived what is new, and so it is brought in, I think, in the address to Philadelphia. It is once brought in earlier, but in a secret way, that is, in the address to Pergamos — in the word to the overcomer there, only, as I said, in a secret way — the new name written on a stone of white known only to him who receives it. But ^[p. 204] Philadelphia, I think, contemplates the recovery of the mind of God, and every purpose of God, so that you have “the temple of my God”, as He says, and then “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”. The recovery of the truth involved all the mind of God set over against the old conditions in the public way, and thus the Lord keeps the overcomer from what was coming in in a public way. The promise does not refer to what is private or secret; it is the reward given in a public way, and hence what is written is written on the overcomer, so that there is, I believe, a knowledge of what is new, and the Lord therefore writes upon him what is new.

DLH The writing would have a present application, would it not?

JT I think there is that in the overcomer that corresponds with it; there is, in his public bearing, the stamp of what is new.

WJH Would you say that that is really the feature of the overcomer in Philadelphia, where the general state is good? God has nothing that He expresses disapproval of in the general state, but even there He introduces the thought of overcoming, and I wondered if the overcomer was one who continued in that which was fresh.

JT I think so. You can discern that in your own experience; whilst in a general way those with whom you walk are going on with God, yet you yourself have to overcome. In fact, it is in your overcoming and in the overcoming of others that the thing is maintained. The idea of overcoming relates to what is evil and opposed in a general way, not simply to the state of any given church.

FHB Would it consist in holding fast what we have?

JT Quite so, and in a general way, as I said.

^[p. 205] The need of overcoming is present always, and one qualifies as in Philadelphia for a position in the temple. The temple is that in which the mind of God is preserved, and this is the first thing mentioned, “him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God”, showing that an overcomer is concerned primarily about what the mind of God is, and the thoughts of God being preserved and maintained here. That is the first idea you get, and the next is “the name of my God”, which includes revelation. I apprehend an overcomer now holds to the complete revelation of God. He sees that the world as an organisation is set against that.

Organised opposition is the most powerful opposition there is, and the book of Revelation shows that there is that character of opposition in the world to the love of God flowing out. Then there is the great city Babylon, the most powerful of all organisations against God, against the revelation of God. Well, the overcomer in Philadelphia stands against all that, so that he has the name of His God written upon him, and then the name of the city of His God. He holds to divine administration, and that it must be complete, as the heavenly city suggests. In other words, the overcomer stands for everything that has come out in the dispensation. He stands over against Sardis, whose works are incomplete. The overcomer in Philadelphia goes on to completeness. He will have that feature, and I think that is what the city would suggest — “the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God”. Then he understands the Lord’s new name. He sees the Lord, I apprehend, operating, but all that has come out in Him is in relation to what is new.

J.J. The mystery?

JT I think it would include that. The new name alludes, I think, to the ministry of the last days.

JJ Where would Paul’s ministry come in in this connection?

JT I think John makes room for it. As you say, the mystery is involved in the Lord’s new name.

GWW What do you understand by the Lords new name?

JT I think it is what has come out in Him especially in these last days, as standing over against what marks public christianity. To remember that this is said to an overcome in our days, I believe, helps. If the Lord promises one anything, it is what he would value, and the revival of the truth has brought in the new. Emphasis has been laid on the new, and you cannot connect the Lord with what is old. Since the Reformation, I should say, there has been an immense impetus to knowledge, and the trend of modern teaching is to connect the Lord with what is old. He is linked on by secular writers, as well as by religious writers and teachers, with what is old, whereas those who know the truth realise that they stand for what is new.

HD'AC Is that connected with what is holy and what is true? He that is “The holy, the true”.

JT Quite so. Holiness, as I think we shall see, is intimately linked with the idea of newness in the city. But you can see how modern teaching, whether secular or religious, connects the Lord with what is old. Even if you take the Romish system, it connects the Lord personally with Mary. Well, that is not new, because the understanding of His new name means not simply that He was born of woman, but what marks Him coming in by Himself. He brought it in, acquiring nothing from His mother morally. The humanity that He came into was new in a moral sense, and I think that Romish teaching, as well as Protestant teaching, is to connect the Lord and all that has come out in Him with what is old; whereas the Holy Spirit coming in in the way of revival has ^[p. 207] brought in a living state of things, and in connection with that, the understanding of what is new. So I think the overcomer in Philadelphia understands what the Lord means in those promises. He is prepared for what is new.

DLH Is not what is new connected with ascension somewhat? I thought that christendom, as you have been saying, connects the Lord with men here, I suppose, universally. The great idea is that the Lord Jesus has rehabilitated humanity here, but they seem to have lost sight entirely of the fact that the Lord Jesus is in heaven and is a Man of a new and heavenly order. In my own mind I rather connected the thought of the new name with that which really stands in contrast to the generally received notions in regard to Christ in christendom.

JT I think that is right; as you follow John he will prepare you for that. In John 3: 13 he speaks about “the Son of man who is in heaven” — a most remarkable statement. Then again, “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before” (verse 62). Your mind is filled with the thought of the difference, of something wholly new in a Man.

GWW Is it all that He brought into manhood and which He has now carried through into His new position in resurrection?

JT That is what it would come to. The ministry of the last days peculiarly emphasises all that. Public christianity has grown old, like Judaism.

GJE So would you say that the new was really before the old?

JT Well, quite. That is what comes out; as John says, “A man comes after me who takes a place before me, because he was before me” (John 1: 30). That is how John brings the thing into your mind; that here you have a Person who, as he says, comes after him. He came after him historically, but He was ^[p. 208] before him.

GWW So that the overcomer would resent any attempt to connect what is true of the Lord with anything that relates to what is old and decayed and which vanishes away.

JT That is wherein we shall profit, as we see that this subject is introduced in Revelation in connection with an overcomer. I think that gives the clue to the thing. If one is an overcomer, one is prepared for what is promised.

JCS The overcomer stands for what comes out of heaven.

JT Quite; and this should work out practically in our ways, especially in the spirit and order marking our service and collective relations.

WCG Does the writing suggest the thought of an indelible impression given to a person?

JT The Lord says, “I will write upon him”, etc. You come into the knowledge of the idea in the new covenant. If we understand 2 Corinthians, I think we can understand something about this writing. This feature of the truth is prominent in Revelation.

WCG So the overcomer has things in consciousness, not merely in figure.

JT Yes. In 2 Corinthians the writing is manifested to be the writing of Christ written on the fleshy tables of the heart, “not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3: 3). The thing thus is known to us.

WL Why is it “upon him” — “I will write upon him”, not in him, but upon him?

JT I think He is dealing now with what is going to be public. In Pergamos it was private — it was secret — but in Philadelphia it is public, because it contemplates what is going into the millennial order of things.

WL Do you mean it is to be public now?

JT There would be that in the man’s testimony, but I think he will come out in the millennial day with this writing. It is the thought of the distinction ^[p. 209] that will be placed upon him — a pillar in the temple of God, and the name of God written upon him, and the name of the city of God, and the Lord’s new name. If we look at him in the millennial day with intelligence, we shall know what a history that man has had. He will be known as a man of distinction in the testimony.

EJMcB Do you connect the thought of being an overcomer with the kind of person that has secured in his affections the features we were speaking about in regard of the new man?

JT I thought those features would be taken up by the overcomer.

EJMcB So in the overcomer we would have a visible element here now that would exemplify the truth written in the two epistles, Colossians and Ephesians.

JT Quite; these two epistles insist on what is new and heavenly. They enter specially into the ministry for the end, preparing the assembly for the coming of the Lord.

DLH These traits of the overcomer would be manifested now, would they not?

JT That is what I think our brother meant — that the overcomer would take up in his affections all these features we have been dwelling upon, but when you come to the city, you have the thing in its completeness.

HD'AC There will not be a different set of pillars then than there are now.

JT I think that what one is now he will be then. That is, I think, what the Lord means. He makes a promise to you that you value; you value what a pillar in the temple is now. The value of the thing promised has to be known to be appreciated.

PL You get the expression in Psalm 87:6 “This man was born there”. Is that the testimony seen ^[p. 210] then?

JT Well, quite. The overcomer will be known as belonging to a certain church period.

RSS Do you connect John the baptist in his ministry with what is old? He said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3: 30), and the Lord said of him, “There is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist. But he who is a little one in the kingdom of heavens is greater than he” (Matthew 11: 11). Would you connect John the baptist with what was old?

JT I would. He came in on that line. The twelve at Ephesus knew only his baptism; they came into the new by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

ASL It is the introduction of the new that makes everything else old.

JT Quite. Then there is what grows old and aged; that marked the Jewish system, and so it disappeared. The same applies to historical christianity, and so it is ‘disappearing’.

FHB I was wondering whether the thought of the new name would indicate something different from what had been set forth in the Old Testament — the Spirit having come.

JT I think it would be what He is in relation to the assembly, known particularly in the last days.

FHB Quite.

DLH I should like to ask what the word is for new there. Is it kainos?

JT Yes, it is.

RSS I suppose what God set up in Judaism is referred to as old.

JT I thought the Lord at the last passover gathered up in His own Person all that had existed of God, all that God had been to Israel. He took the cup. Luke mentions two cups, but he only. It is said the Lord received a cup, and He said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22: 17), for He would not drink at all of it until He drank it new, or in a ^[p. 211] new way. The manner of His drinking would be new and will be new in the future with Israel. There was the cup, but it was connected with what was old, and He gives it to the disciples and says, “divide it among yourselves”. I apprehend He meant that what was there livingly in Him, all that God had been to Israel from the very outset, was passed on to them, and was to be preserved amongst them. They were to divide it amongst themselves. That was one cup. Then, after that, He takes another cup, and I think that the new thing that He speaks of here is in the second cup, that is to say, the cup of the Lord’s supper. He says of it, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (verse 20). What belonged to Israel does not disappear; it was in another cup, and they were to have that up too. But the passover was not to be celebrated again by them in that way, but the cup that He received was given to them to be divided amongst themselves. He says, as it were, You are to share that; I will have to say to it later, but in a new way. In the meantime, every divine thought in regard of His earthly people is cherished by those who love Christ. But then there is the second cup which He says “is the new covenant in my blood”, and that is where the Lord becomes our object constantly. He comes in freshly to our affections by that, and I think that His new name is understood by those who drink that cup.

JBC-l I have been thinking, whilst you have been speaking, of the accounts of the transfiguration in the synoptic gospels. Would they not in principle bear on the thought of the Lord’s new name in that sense? There they saw the Lord in contrast to that which publicly surrounded them in a religious way on the earth, and God the Father speaks in regard of that Person. There you get God saying, “This is my beloved Son” again; He is set in a new connection ^[p. 212] I mean that the transfiguration would bring to bear upon the spirits of the disciples that the Lord had not come in for the rehabilitation of things upon earth, but for the bringing down from heaven of that which was of God. Would it really be that earth-dwelling arises from the lack of the interpretation of the Lord’s new name?

JT I believe that is so, and those who have come back to the cup in the Lord’s supper cherish His new name. They do not forget His relations with Israel. Indeed, Revelation shows that He will resume His relations with Israel, but the overcomer in Philadelphia, understands the new name, for I think it enters into the cup of the Lord’s supper. The setting of the breaking of bread in Acts 20 confirms this; although at Troas, it is an Ephesian setting.

WJH Why do you think so much is said about the name in connection with Philadelphia? In three different settings the name is brought in.

JT Well, I think it is because of the attitude of the world and the professing body to revelation. The revelation of God in Christ is systematically opposed by the world as such — by men in it, and by the professing body (Babylon) now. ‘Name’ is what has been set out in revelation whether on the part of God or of Christ.

HD'AC They absolutely refuse the new name in the world. Nothing in the new name is at all palatable to the world.

JT They do not want what is new in that sense, whereas the overcomer in Philadelphia stands for the name, for what is set out in the name. He clings to Christ’s name as against the many names that have been adopted in christendom. He especially regards it as seen in His relations with the assembly.

JJ Will you say a little in connection with the thought of what is strictly new in christianity in contrast to what belonged to ^[p. 213] Israel?

JT Well, I thought we had got over that. I was thinking as you spoke of “the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem ... and my new name”.

JJ What I meant was that the thought of the body is absolutely new, is it not, whereas the many things that are old were connected with Israel formerly, like the covenant, and the house, and the temple. But in christianity you have the body.

JT That is right, and the mystery is new, but I think that great stress is laid on what has been called attention to — the name. What is set out in “the name of my God” involves revelation, and “the name of the city of my God” involves every thought of God. What I understand by the city is that every thought of God is there, because the measurements would indicate there is nothing left out. One observes the way in which men leave things out and make things fit to suit themselves, but the name of the city, I think, means that the overcomer would have everything; nothing must be left out; the very smallest things must have their place. The city is thus a vessel that includes everything, not only certain things, but everything is gathered up there, and the overcomer in Philadelphia understands that. He understands the special relation of the Lord, in what has come out in His name, with what is new. I believe His new name has reference to His relation to the assembly in what is peculiar to herself.

DLH Is not the name connected with the thought of renown, what a man is set for and is identified with in a kind of public way here? Is not that the thought of name, and ought not every one of us and every overcomer be in a kind of way set for all these things?

JT I am sure that is so. One would particularly emphasise the vessel in which every divine thought is secured, because there is such a tendency with us ^[p. 214] as believers to leave out things, omitting them — ignoring some and forgetting others. What the name of the city suggests is that there is nothing left out. Every divine thought is there. Someone was remarking yesterday that it is in the light of ascension that you get the first vessel for the preservation of divine things, that is to say, Noah’s ark. There you get the beginning of this thought of a vessel for the preservation of divine things. Now, when you carry that idea on through the whole of Scripture, you see how it comes out in a vessel that is perfect in every way. You look at it, and there is not a thought omitted from it of all that God has given expression to, and that ought to act upon us at the present time, as to how we are holding things that God has given expression to. Much is made of the cities of this world now and of great human organisations generally, but the overcomer has no part in them; but he will have part in the heavenly city.

WCG Is that the way the glory of God is secured — by the expression of the name?

JT Well, no doubt. I suppose the glory of God is the shining out of what He is. That would be involved in His own name. What strikes one about the city is what she has — not exactly what is given to her, but what she has. There is evidently the sense of acquirement; she has things. The first thing mentioned is she has the glory of God. She has it.

GWW Would you say that the measure in which we shall each one be contributing to the shining out of the glory must be the measure in which we have acquired an apprehension of all that which is spoken of here, ending up with the new name?

JT Just so, and the Lord said, “For whosoever has, to him shall be given, and whosoever has not, even what he seems to have shall be taken from him” (Luke 8: 18). What I think is going on at the present time is that nominal christianity is losing everything ^[p. 215] it has had. Years ago there was much more in the so-called denominations than there is now. They are gradually losing what they have had because they have not had it in a real way in the true sense of the word. To have a thing in reality is to have it by the Spirit, and I think that is how the city is apprehended. She has the glory of God. Where did she get it? It is what is going on now. The believer who has the Spirit has got something, and hence Philadelphia is called upon to hold fast what she has that no one take her crown. It is in the holding fast to the thing that you have — what has been recovered to us — that other things are added. “For to every one that has shall be given ... but from him that has not, that even which he has shall be taken from him” (Matthew 25: 29).

EJMcB Would the expression of Paul in Philippians 4: 19, “My God shall abundantly supply all your need”, convey to your mind the thought of one morally on whom “the name of my God” was written?

JT That is good. What impresses one is how near Paul had come to the Lord; “my God and your God”. The apostle says, “my God”.

JJ Would it be right to say that the principle of that is seen in the end of Acts 4? You have referred to the first three chapters. No one said that anything they possessed was his own, neither was there any among them that lacked, for distribution was made to all as every man had need. The principle of the city was there.

JT Quite. What I think is going on now is that what people seem to have is being taken away from them and given to others who have. Hence the Lord would lay it upon us that we should have divine things in a spiritual way. This leads to the new Jerusalem.

HD'AC ^[p. 216] So that whilst christendom is losing, true christianity is gaining.

JT That is right, and it will all come out presently in the heavenly city.

DLH The pound taken away from the unprofitable servant was given to the one who had ten pounds.

JT That proves the principle. The unprofitable servant is morally unfit to have what belongs to God.

JCS Would you think the writing on the saints at the present moment involves much suffering, but the result will be a vessel formed and that vessel will be put alongside of Christ as the Lamb’s wife — the suffering One?

JT That is true. The Lamb is the rejected suffering One, and the church as His wife must correspond.

GWW I gather that what the Lord appreciates in Philadelphia is the having, and not the seeming to have. One feels what a vast difference there is between the two things. One is the definite work of the Spirit which gives us to have, but one might seem to have by a mental act. The latter will pass away, but what one has as the definite work of the Spirit of God is abiding and eternal.

JT And I think that is what underlies the new Jerusalem. She has the things. An overcomer, you might say, really represents the thing. He represents the heavenly city, because in principle he has the things which will appear in the city.

HH Do you not think that the assembly in that way qualifies at the present time for coming out as the heavenly city; she will take things up publicly in that day, because she has cherished the interests of Christ when they are outwardly refused? Although the ruin is complete, there is still the public side of things.

JT There is certainly a public side at the present time. If the Lord’s supper is anything, it remains a ^[p. 217] testimony, until He come. But whatever there is is on moral ground, not official — “as unknown, and yet well known”.

HH What is an exercise amongst the saints now will come out in the heavenly city.

JT Yes, every exercise and formation that is of God will find its own setting there. For that we wait, accepting present obscurity and reproach.

FSM You were saying that lovers of Christ are characterised by the new man, and, as lovers of Christ, should we not be led on to be overcomers, and would not that lead to the inevitable consequence that the city comes out prepared as a bride? Does not the thought of affection carry right through?

JT Quite so. “The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made herself ready”. That is what is going on. Now, what may be remarked in regard of this subject in the two epistles in which the heavenly city is mentioned, is that it is spoken of as the heavenly city and not as the new Jerusalem. In Galatians 4: 26 it is “Jerusalem above”, not the one coming down, but the one above. It is the present bearing — what is above. Then in Hebrews 12: 22 it is the “heavenly Jerusalem”, that is, the character of the thing is heavenly. But in Revelation it is “the holy Jerusalem”, “new Jerusalem” because it is a question of coming into view there, and in coming into view, the element of holiness and the element of newness appear.

NL What is the force of the word Jerusalem? Why does he say Jerusalem?

JT I thought it denotes the seat of the great king, the seat of rule, the seat of light and rule according to God. Some of us were saying the other day that you might build a city such as David had, stone for stone, temple and all, but that would not be the idea of new Jerusalem here. There will be an earthly city literally, but the idea of new Jerusalem ^[p. 218] is not another one built up again on the same site, stone for stone, house for house, and the temple; that would not convey what is meant by the new Jerusalem. The word means that it is a Jerusalem of another kind, a Jerusalem that never existed before. The name Jerusalem is retained because it is a question of light and rule, but there never had been such a Jerusalem before. It is a totally new idea. Anyone can see it is so from the fact that it comes down, and that it is a cube. It is not built of stone and mortar at all. It is not simply a replica of the old made over again; it is a totally new thing; one, as I said, that never existed before. The name is retained because the name stands for light and rule, and that is what the thing is, but it is light and rule in this wonderful vessel. The retention of the name shows the divine thought effected spiritually.

DLH But is it not the case that the word Jerusalem refers to righteousness and peace, and that that is the reason why it is retained?

JT I have no doubt it refers to peace. Possibly there may be a link with Melchisedec.

HFN Would you add a word in connection with the voice out of the throne? The final voice says, “Behold, I make all things new”.

JT I think it all goes with the Revelation. The throne is the centre of everything from chapter 4. God is asserting that He is not content with anything old at all. You will notice that it says, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth”, but it does not say the old heaven and the old earth have passed away; we read, “for the first heaven and the first earth”. Whilst it is true what the psalm says, “All of them shall wax old like a garment”, still the point is not that they are old, but they are the first. God virtually says even the material creation as it is will not do, and that is educational, because we all touch the material creation as it is, and may be content with it.

^[p. 219] God announces here that even that will not do; everything must be new, and the question is what kind of material will it be? That is the thing we have to learn. The original word ‘new’ means it is totally different. What kind of heavens will it be, what kind of earth? That has to be found out. They are to be totally different.

ASL Like the new man we had before us this morning — -a kind of man that never was before.

FHB “That which is spiritual was nor first, but that which is natural” (1 Corinthians 15: 46).

JT Just so.

RSS What is the relation between what we find in Isaiah 65: 17, 18, and what we have been saying? “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create. For behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy”.

JT That is alluded to in 2 Peter 3: 13. He refers to what is a promise for faith, where he says, “According to his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness”. The prophet gives you that, and then he brings the idea down to the millennial side of things. Peter does not allude to the second part — what relates to Jerusalem as created a joy — but to what is eternal, which we also get here; Revelation 21.

RSS So the one refers to what is eternal, as in the beginning of Revelation 21, and then he goes on to speak of what there will be here in the millennial state of things.

JT That is right; indeed millennial joy will be on the same principle. It is on the principle of what is new, as the Lord says, “when I drink it new with you”, or, in a new manner.

JJ Will you say a little how we find out what the new ^[p. 220] things are?

JT These things are found out spiritually. The Lord says, “Come and see”. That is the principle in John. “They went therefore, and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day” (John 1: 39). John’s writings are intended to make us spiritual: “new Jerusalem” is understood on that line.

HD'AC The city and the citizens will be one, like the house and the household.

JT Just so. There is no distinction really.

HD'AC And while he looked at the city, there was a voice, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men”. Why is that?

JT The city is what is related to Christ. It is the Lamb’s wife. The tabernacle is what is related to God. It is the tabernacle of God. That was how He first dwelt with men.

EJMcB Do you think that the expression, “Her shining was like a most precious stone”, indicates the answer to our brother’s question as to how to find out what is spiritual? She has found out.

JT Oh, quite. I am not saying one does not know something about the thing, but John would tell you to come and see. Then, another thing John says, “Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me?” (John 18: 34). John would teach us to say things of ourselves, to get things for ourselves. He has a way of making us spiritual, of compelling us to go to the source of things. That is what we must do. The eternal order of things is spiritual, new; it is not to be defined, it is apprehended by the Spirit.

WJH The Lord is to be known — His name is to be known as Father of eternity. As we know Him by that name, we have some idea of what eternity is like.

JT Exactly.

GWW In that way, the greater will be our apprehension of the conditions in which He will abide eternally.

JT ^[p. 221] I think the overcomer in Philadelphia has become habituated to going to the source of things.

GWW That is God.

JT God is the source of all. The overcomer understands the great mediatorial system of things, which is perhaps less understood than anything. The name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, and my new name belong to that system. The city is mediatorial, as the Lord’s name is also. The great thought is God.

ER There is one question I should like to ask. “Shall know that I have loved thee;” what is that?

JT The Lord I suppose, will in His own way compel those who are opposed now to worship before the saints’ feet and to know that He has loved them — a very precious thing. He will compel them to know that He loves us.

ER Do you not think that is the secret of all — the love of Christ?

JT Yes, quite.

WL Would you say that in the overcomer in Philadelphia you find all the great essential features of christianity, and all are preserved by and in the overcomer?

JT That is so. He understands the mediatorial system, and all that leads up to the city, because you get every thought of God there. I do not think there will be one thought that has been set out in Christ omitted in the city.

Ques In that way, will it contain “things new and old?”

JT The agencies of divine government from the outset are seen in the city in its relation with the millennium, but I do not think they will appear in the eternal state. It is in the latter connection the city is said to be new.

FW “As a bride adorned for her husband”. Would that suggest what ^[p. 222] is new?

JT Yes. She is new and holy.

FW I was wondering whether the adornments (Revelation 21: 2) were connected with His new name — characteristics of Christ.

JT I suppose the adornments would correspond with Him as she knows Him. His wife has made herself ready.

JJ Did you say last night that the love of God was connected with what was mediatorial?

JT Well, it is made known mediatorially. It is made known by the Son come into manhood. We are dependent on His mediatorial service. Revelation must be through the Mediator — a divine Person become Man. God, being a Spirit, can only be apprehended fully by men in a Man.

JJ I thought what was mediatorial suggested some distance, whereas the love of God and that love to us rather brought in the thought of what was near.

JT But the idea of mediator is He has come in on behalf of and towards men. What should we know of God without the Lord becoming man? Everything must hinge on His mediatorial position.

← Previous Article 17 of 30 Next →