THE MEDIATORIAL SERVICE OF CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (4)
[p. 179] THE MEDIATORIAL SERVICE OF CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (4)
JT I think Mr. McC. wishes to refer to something left over from our reading this morning.
SMcC I wish to ask whether there is a reference in verse 2 to the place of Christ in the mediatorial position. He refers to “my God” in that unique way, “I have not found thy works complete before my God”.
JT Well, in Philadelphia we have: “He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no [p. 194] 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”. No doubt you will think it well that we might open the whole subject as to the Philadelphian epistle, so that we may get what leads up to this matter and the verse I just read. The question of Philadelphia is vital; it is of peculiar value or importance. In truth, as was referred to in prayer, the latter glory of the house is in mind. That is to say, the whole idea of the assembly is in the Lord’s mind and not simply a phase of it; hence the word thy applied to Philadelphia. It becomes, therefore, a matter to which the brethren will wisely give full consideration. Although the idea of remnant is seen in Thyatira, yet what is alluded to in the book of Haggai is not a remnant properly. It is the whole idea of the latter glory of the house; that is to say, applying it to ourselves, the latter glory of the assembly. Perhaps therefore we may somewhat revise our thoughts of a remnant, seeing that the whole idea of the assembly is in the Lord’s mind in this address to [p. 180] Philadelphia.
HH Would not that mean that the remnant becomes the whole assembly?
JT Well, yes. We use the word ‘remnant’, but Philadelphia represents, in the Lord’s mind, the whole assembly, and that gives it a magnitude that perhaps we have not applied to the assembly for the latter days. It is not simply a remnant, but the whole idea of it, and the Lord is going to close with that.
LES Would the word in Haggai 2 have the same thought in mind? “The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit, remain among you: fear ye not”.
JT Quite so. That is just what was in my mind, because the covenant is the full idea, and then we have “my Spirit”. “The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit, remain among you”.
PL All that connecting with intactness; “Jehovah of hosts” involving completeness?
JT Quite so.
JC-S Then is the assembly, as seen in this epistle to Philadelphia, the assembly in its totality, so to speak?
JT Well, it is in the Lord’s mind, I am making much of that, because He has a right to say what He pleases, and He is pleased to speak to Philadelphia as representing the whole assembly. He is pleased to indicate that. It is not, of course, strictly what Ephesus was; it cannot be. At the same time the references that the Lord makes indicate that, in His mind, the whole assembly is there. Of course, we have to make allowance for the condition of christendom, that is scattered and broken, and we have the really infidel condition of the church publicly at the present time, and yet the Lord has never given up the thought of it, and He is reverting to it now in this epistle.
[p. 181] Ques Do you mean that what the Lord finds in some He credits to all who form the assembly?
JT Well, quite so; but you use the word ‘some’. I would prefer to use the word ‘whole’, the whole idea, as making much of the Lord’s mind and what He has a right to say, the actual words that He has a right to use. That is, it is not simply reduced in His mind to a mere part, but the whole idea, as if He were holding on to the whole idea of the assembly, and going to close with it.
PL Do you have that set out also in the gospels, that when He cleansed the temple He called it His Father’s house?
JT Quite so.
JC-S Does what you were saying in regard of the assembly viewed in this way account for the Lord not introducing any one of the features that marked Him in His judicial garb, as given in the first chapter? He is pleased with Philadelphia, is He not?
JT Just so. He has nothing to say against it; in fact, He is approving it. He is using the pronoun ‘thee’ as if He were speaking to the whole; but then He has a right to do that. It is a question of the liberty that He has and that He takes.
FCH “The holy, the true”; does that refer to manhood or does it include Deity? “These things saith the holy, the true”.
JT Well, I am not sure about that. If we refer to John 6: 67, we shall get a touch on that. The Lord says, “Will ye also go away?” And Peter says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. There it is a question of the Person of the Lord Jesus, but in our passage now He is pleased to refer to Himself as “the holy, the true”, and He is referring to something that should be in the assembly and was [p. 182] in Philadelphia.
AJG In John 6 we have the Lord confessed as “the holy one of God” and then, in John 7, He says of Himself, “He that speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that has sent him, he is true”, I wondered whether you got the holy and the true in those two chapters?
JT Very good. Then again, of course, we have in the first epistle of John, “He is the true God and eternal life”. That same term is used of the Father in John 17, so that the words have to be taken in their context, and it raises the question as to why the Lord connects the idea of holiness and truth with Himself in speaking to Philadelphia.
AM-h Does the emphatic I in the last clause of verse 9 give the whole idea, “I have loved thee”?
JT I was thinking of that. The pronouns throughout would indicate that the Lord has the whole idea in His mind, but then it is a question of what He is pleased to have in His mind. It is not to go back to the beginning of the dispensation, but just to recognise the liberty the Lord is pleased to take, in writing these epistles. The pronouns throughout, as I was saying, indicate that the Lord has the whole idea in His mind, but then that is what is due to Him. We should not question it and we should not limit Him to what should be said literally in so many words. It is a question of what He is pleased to have in His mind in writing this particular letter.
AED Would the expression, “I have loved thee”, link on with the love of Christ for the assembly in Ephesians 5, and the way in which He has retained the whole thought, in view of the presentation and the word that it might be holy and blameless?
JT Quite so; if the Lord’s words here just imply what Ephesians 5 says. The Lord’s words are, “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an opened door”. That is the assembly at Philadelphia.
[p. 183] The Lord would indicate that He is thinking of the whole assembly, and yet the meaning has to be understood by the actual wording of the Lord, by what He says; the “thee” is Philadelphia. That is to say, it is a phase of the assembly and not the whole assembly.
WC Would this be the work of the seven Spirits of God, the complete establishment of every assembly thought? In Sardis the Lord is said to have the seven Spirits, as if the Spirit had no scope in the Sardis conditions. Here would it be that there is the full answer?
JT I think it would. The Lord had in mind to speak as if the assembly was present there, as if the Spirit was in the assembly, and the Lord is addressing the assembly. At the same time we have to make allowance for the fact that He is using the word thy to a phase of the assembly called Philadelphia, a feature of the assembly. So that we are bound, I think, to recognise the wording that the Lord uses. The question of the Spirit must come in, of course, in Philadelphia, but then it does not come in until the Lord says, “Let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”. The Spirit, of course, is implied, we can see this, but then the Lord is not stressing it. In writing to Sardis He stresses the idea of the Spirit in the employment of the numeral He uses; that is, the seven Spirits of God. There is a fulness of spiritual power which He has, but it does not say that He is using it; but He has it.
PHH It says in verse 8: “I have set before thee an opened door, which no one can shut, because thou hast ...” certain things. Would they be practical features, which would prevent us from merely thinking of this as an abstract picture?
JT He is speaking of certain features of the assembly which were true at Philadelphia. It is therefore just one phase of the assembly just as each [p. 184] assembly is a phase, beginning with Ephesus.
FJF Is not what is in the Lord’s mind in our minds when we put the loaf on the table on the Lord’s day?
JT I would think it is. As the Lord comes in, after we begin the service, I would think He would have in mind what we are dealing with here; He would have nothing less in mind than that. Therefore the service of God enters into the present time peculiarly. That is to say, we are in the time of a revival, and a revival marked by the Lord’s supper, which is the great feature of the beginning of the service of God. We have the service of God restored to us.
MB Does the “key of David” refer to, or link with, the full thought of the service of God in the assembly?
JT The word ‘key’ would imply the administration of the truth of the assembly, and the service of God in the assembly, and all that is opened up to us according to this phase of the assembly.
ANW Does the whole thought come still more clearly into view in the statement. “They [p. 185] shall come and shall do homage before thy feet”? That could hardly be local, could it?
JT The ‘thy’ there is clearly the assembly itself. So that the Lord is making promises, because the enemy, Satan, is in mind here. The Lord is going to challenge him and rebuff him, and oust him, as it were. The Lord is taking up the combat in this letter.
WC Does that remark as to doing homage imply the presence of a divine Person there, the assembly being a creature?
JT The homage is to the assembly at Philadelphia, not to Christ, “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, and shall know that I have loved thee”. It is the assembly that is in mind. The Lord intends to cause the enemies to come and worship before Philadelphia’s feet. That is to say, it is the remarkable distinction that the Lord makes as to Philadelphia. It is not a divine Person, of course, it is not other than a creature, but, at the same time, the Lord is pleased to use this language and we may well let Him use it.
Ques Is it not similar to what we get in John 17? “I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me”. Is not the language there similar?
JT Very similar; but here the word ‘worship’ is used, which is very remarkable.
LES Would this be somewhat like the passage in Zechariah, where Satan is seen standing at the right hand of the Angel, and it says, “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan! Yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee!” Zechariah 3: 2?
JT Very good, “Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee!” Jehovah will do that. And now the Lord Jesus here, in writing to Philadelphia, is saying things about Philadelphia that are similar to that, but it is a remarkable thing that He says, “Do homage before thy feet”. That is, the feet of this phase of the assembly, namely Philadelphia.
WC In chapter 19, John is rebuked by the angel for doing homage to him, which makes it all the more remarkable here. According to the note, the word is apparently the same.
JT It is the more remarkable. John is rebuked twice for falling down to the angel, but the Lord is pleased to say this here, and should we not give Him the liberty to do so? It is a remarkable thing.
[p. 186] Ques Does it imply that the Holy Spirit is in Philadelphia, in that way?
JT Well, of course, if it is viewed in this light it certainly would imply that the Holy Spirit is there, and, of course, He is there. The Lord is speaking to a phase of the assembly, and the Holy Spirit is in the assembly. It is a feature of this dispensation that the Holy Spirit is in the assembly.
AJG Is your point that the homage is not to the Holy Spirit, but to the assembly?
JT That is what I see. The Lord says, “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, and shall know that I have loved thee”. That is plain enough.
Ques Will that come into evidence while the assembly is here on earth?
JT Well, if you want a concrete evidence of it, of course, one is not prepared to say that. I am seeking to insist on what the Lord says, for we are to pay attention to it. Whatever it may mean, we are to pay attention to it. The Lord says it.
HW Would you connect it in any way with the closing words of Ephesians 1. “The assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”?
JT That is very like it. That is another thing to be observed, that Paul refers to the assembly, as “the fulness of him who fills all in all”. That is to say, she is viewed as having part in the headship, which He is exercising. She is not viewed there by herself as the assembly, but she is a feature of the headship. The Lord is Head, of course, but she has part in the headship, which is a remarkable thing.
Ques Is the homage contingent on what is said in verse 8, and does that go back, perhaps to the beginning of the Acts? In Acts 4: 7 it says, “In what power or in what name have ye done this? Then [p. 187] Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them”. Here in this passage we have “a little power” and the keeping of His word, and the not denying His name.
JT Now you are coming to another thing. You are not questioning the matter of homage, you are coming to the things that the Lord approves in Philadelphia, which, of course, we must observe, but then what we are dealing with first of all is this question of homage. The Lord says of Philadelphia, “I make them of the synagogue of Satan ... that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee”. That is stated by the Lord, and I think we ought to keep that clear, and then try to understand what He means. All we can say is that He says it, and, of course, we must accept that it is His word and it means what it says. We are not to make it concrete. To make it concrete is another matter, which I am not prepared to do, because we have no concrete evidence that the Lord is making anything or any person to worship before the feet of the assembly. But there it is, and we may well leave it and wait on the Lord to give us light about it, if we have not the light.
CMM When Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped Daniel, was that right?
JT Well, I would prefer now to have the passage from Daniel read, so that we can see the meaning of it.
AJG It is in chapter 2, after Daniel had interpreted the dream of the great image, he says (verse 45), “Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold-the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter. And the [p. 188] dream is certain, and the interpretation of it sure. Then king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. The king answered Daniel and said, Of a truth it is that your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, because thou wast able to reveal this secret”.
JT There is nothing said as to any question about it. What Nebuchadnezzar did is accepted by Daniel, and that is the fact, I would say. Well, we might leave it there. There is no question about it. But when we come to this book, the prophet John falls down to worship the person who spoke to him, and he is rebuked twice for doing it. It is clear enough therefore that the idea of worship is not attributed to a creature. The angel says, “Worship God”. That is the full truth that comes out in regard of anyone attempting to worship a creature.
AJG If the Lord makes the enemies bow down and do homage before the assembly, no one can question it.
JT Just so. That is just what I am thinking, I am trying to stress that the Lord has a right to do these things, and we must allow Him that right, and understand, if we can, what He means by it. We may be sure that He is not encouraging idolatry, far from it. At the same time He is surely honouring the assembly in a peculiar way, and we might accept that.
Ques Is not the expression used in Scripture- for the movement of an inferior towards a superior person? It is referred to in worshipping the king, for example. It has not necessarily a religious significance.
JT That is, you would make it a question of language or custom, but the Lord is saying more than that here.
[p. 189] EuR In the Old Testament it says they worshipped Jehovah and the king. The king would represent the rights of Jehovah, would he not?
JT He would.
EuR And may there not be some representation of Christ in the assembly when this is done?
JT It is just a question for us to consider, I think Mr. Darby makes a strong remark, if I remember rightly, dealing with the word ‘worship’, but nevertheless what we are speaking of is important and should be left as it stands. The Lord has used these words and He has a meaning in it, and it is clearly to distinguish peculiarly the assembly at Philadelphia.
RW Is that supported in that it is said of Philadelphia that she has a crown?
JT Well, of course, that is not very much. We are made kings and priests ourselves, according to Revelation 5.
AA-n Is it because there is what is in affinity with Himself as “the holy, the true” in Philadelphia?
JT There is that, clearly, and ought to be, and always is in the assembly really, and in every one of us, that we are holy and true, but the Lord is saying more than that. He is saying, “I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet”. And what is it for? That they may “know that I have loved thee”. Therefore we might perhaps enlarge on the thought that the Lord is enlarging on, namely, the thought of His love for the assembly.
JC-S It is not that the assembly invites worship but the Lord causes it.
JT Just so. It is to distinguish the assembly at Philadelphia peculiarly, and I think we might as well accept that and proceed with what we have further. It says in verse 10: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come [p. 190] upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”. Now we have a question of the patience that is apparently marking Philadelphia. It is a time of patience, and apparently it is there; and there is a promise attached to it, as it says: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”. I would think the Lord means that He is going to save those who are true to Him as in Philadelphia from the awful trial that is coming upon the whole earth. I suppose communism is involved in it, and the great apostasy that is imminent is involved in the promise that the Lord makes. It seems to me it should be a great comfort to every one of us that we are going to be kept out of it. It is not simply that we are going to be taken to heaven, but we are going to be kept out of it, and I suppose that will synchronise with the rapture. We are going to be kept out of the great tribulation that shall come upon all the world, “to try them that dwell upon the earth”.
EuR Would you include every believer that is on earth at that time in the “thee” in that verse? “I also will keep thee”.
JT It refers to those that are in Philadelphia, and that would mean the state we are in now, that God has brought about through the revival. He has brought certain of us into a state of holiness and truth with the Lord Himself. He speaks of “a little power”, showing that it is still, in a sense, a remnant, but it is there, and it has a little power, and then there is the patience; and then the keeping of ‘thee’ out of the tribulation that is to come upon all the world to try those that dwell upon the earth. I should not say it goes beyond the true ones; that is, those who belong to Philadelphia.
EuR [p. 191] You said it synchronised with our being raptured.
JT I believe it will, but I do not think the promise is made specially to those who are not walking in the truth. The Lord has stressed that it is to those who are walking in the truth.
AJG Is it not a promise made to those who keep the word of His patience? Would you mind saying what is involved in the expression “the word of my patience”?
JT What patience the Lord has! I believe He includes in His own mind the thought of what God is, indeed in His patience regarding the whole race. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, and it is the time of that, and we do well to think of it and have it in our hearts in the Lord’s day evening preachings, so as to be in accord with the spirit of Philadelphia.
AJG Does it mean that the Lord Himself is patient and that we are to be patient? And that throughout the period of patience the Lord will sustain the saints with His word?
JT Quite so. Very good.
LES In the word in James, which is a reference to this, it says. ‘The man who is patient, though under great trials, bears up, and does not lose heart or courage’ (See footnote to James 5: 7).
JT That passage in James refers to having patience, for the coming of the Lord draws nigh. It is a time of patience, and why should we not participate in it? I believe we may well introduce it in connection with our little meetings for the gospel services on Lord’s day evenings. The gospel is continued in our little meetings; there is a little power, no doubt, and it is honoured, and perhaps an occasional convert, but it does not go much beyond that.
ECM God “desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”.
JT Quite so. It seems to me that God is greatly pleased with what is being done in this little homely way amongst the brethren, in the small gatherings throughout the world. They kneel down in their homes to pray for the gospel, and they bring in terms that imply the gospel, I am sure God is pleased with that, and I believe it enters into what the Lord says here.
RWS I think we are being helped to see that all things have not the same value, and that we are really in a realm of refinement, so that there is something special here. We may be inclined to think in a common way, and not specialise.
JT I think that is very good. There are specialities, and I believe Philadelphia is a speciality with the Lord Jesus. Then this matter of the gospel should be continued urgently, so that the truth is kept before men in our little meetings for the preaching.
Ques Does the word in Thessalonians come in there. “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of the Christ”?
JT I think it does fully.
HW Does not the closing of the dispensation call for greater public activity perhaps in a gospel way?
JT I had thought of that. I attempted to say something to my brethren in New Zealand and Australia when I was down there, as to going out with the gospel, and preaching in the open air, and they are doing it, as far as I can hear. It was the way the gospel began first, according to what we get in the book of Acts. We cannot conceive that Peter could have preached to three thousand people otherwise than in [p. 193] the open air.
FJF Mr. Darby has a very important letter on the subject. He says it would be a sad day if we did not go out in the gospel, I think it is in his first volume of letters.
Rem It needs a lot of faith when nobody stands to listen.
JT That is true; but some do. It is well worth continuing, therefore.
JGH Paul’s word to Timothy is “preach the word”.
JT Well, that is what the brethren are doing now. They have changed the wording of the sign boards to indicate that “the word” is preached, I think it is a wise choice, a wise correction. Of course, it is right to say, preach the gospel too, but preaching the word is more in keeping with a “day of small things”.
AR You spoke of prayer for the gospel; do you think that in our prayers we should extend outside the circle in which we move, and pray for the gospel universally, where it is preached?
JT I should think so, whoever may be preaching. We are thankful for the preaching, whoever preaches and our prayers should cover them too.
Ques Do you think the preaching of judgment should enter into the preaching at the present time, or not?
JT Well, it is always preached. Paul preached judgment, and judgment should accompany it. It is only a matter of warning and we should not be ignorant or silent about judgment. We surely should not let people die in their sins without telling them the danger.
Rem Paul says, “Warning every man and teaching every man”.
JT Quite so. But now we should come down to verse 12. “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, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name”. These are precious thoughts and they belong to Philadelphia. They imply that Philadelphia, at least those who have part in it, is coming in for great things; the Lord is using the word “My” so much.
ECM Is the thought of “My God” the same as in John 20, where the Lord says to Mary, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”?
JT Well, “the name of my God”; these are the Lord’s own words, and He would speak of the thing from His own standpoint. It is not a question of the privilege that belongs to the saints, as in the message that He sent through Mary; here it is from His own point of view that He is speaking, “The name of my God”, and that name involves much, I would say that it is somewhat different from what we find in John 20. In John 20 the message is that “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. Well, that is the question of christian privilege and glory, but here it is the “name of my God” by itself, and therefore I would distinguish it. The Lord Jesus refers to the name by itself; so that the two things are not the same.
JC-S Is this exclusive to Him?
JT It is exclusive to Him. That is what I would say, but in John 20 it is linked up with ourselves as well.
AJG Does it indicate great feeling in the heart of Christ, in thus speaking?
JT I think it does, and it really works out to what belongs to the present time, the idea of the name of God. The Lord is saying, “the name of my God”; note the word ‘name’.
CMM Would it be linked with the baptismal formula?
JT I think the name there is God as God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is only one name there, implying the Deity, as we might say. It is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that one name would apply to Them all.
HH We ought not then to say ‘the name of the Father, and the name of the Son and the name of the Spirit’, but one name comprising the three Persons of the Godhead.
JT Quite so. It is presented in that way, “baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”-the and is there in each case. So that the thing is presented in that way; it is the one name but presented as affecting, or applying to, the three Persons severally.
PHH What is the force of the expression, “the temple of my God”, here? The word used is naos, which we understand to be the shrine itself.
JT I suppose the allusion would be to 1 Corinthians 3, where it is said that the Corinthians were the temple of God, but then this is “the temple of my God”.
PHH Is it a peculiarly blessed thought that Christ’s God shines upon the saints, upon the overcomer?
JT Well, there is such a thing as that. Whether we understand it, whether we apply it in a practical sense, the saints are said to be the temple of God, “Do ye not know that ye are the temple of God?”. It is based upon the presence of the Spirit, for “the Spirit of God dwells in you”. It is a question therefore, in that sense, of the Spirit of God being there with the Corinthians, and therefore the shrine was there. It is that in connection with which God is worshipped, but it is really largely because of the [p. 196] truth that is ministered, and the truth that was coming out there at Corinth.
Ques Could the word to the overcomer that “he shall go no more at all out” be opened out a little?
JT It is a comfort to those who are serving, travelling throughout the different parts of the world, in all climates and at all times, that that will be over for ever. “He shall go no more at all out”. It is a promise to us, and it belongs to the overcomer in Philadelphia, that he does not go any more out. Every one of us here, we might say, goes out in our service, sometimes in all kinds of weathers and with all kinds of difficulties, but all that will be over.
PHH As to the temple; did you say it involved the truth coming out?
JT I think so, and the ministry where Paul says. “I have planted; Apollos watered; but God has given the increase”. It is a question of the truth, I believe. The apostle is speaking of the truth that was coming out at Corinth. Corinth was the temple really; the assembly was the temple.
AJG And the overcomer becomes prominent in that?
JT Quite so.
EuR You get increase connected with the temple in Ephesians 2. It says, “in whom all the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord”.
JT The allusion there would be to what is coming out in the millennium; what the assembly is to be in the millennium. It “increases to a holy temple in the Lord”.
EuR Does Philadelphia refer to that?
JT Well, of course, that is the truth, and we are dealing with the truth in Philadelphia too, and with the idea of [p. 197] the temple.
AJG May I ask whether the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia is entirely future in its bearing, or is there any sense in which it may have present application?
JT I think it would allude to the millennium. The millennium is alluded to several times in the addresses to the assemblies, and in the promises made in the letters, as, for instance, in what the overcomer in Thyatira comes into.
Ques Is not the term ‘new Jerusalem’ connected with the eternal idea?
JT It is; but you can say more about that, please.
Rem I wondered if these statements suggest the mediatorial service of the Lord Jesus in the glorious position in which He places us, “Will I make”, “I will write”. Does it lead on to finality?
JT Well, let us read it again, “He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar”. The word pillar is to be noted there. It is a pillar in the temple. That is to say, the temple is alluded to as a building. That is the first thing, and it is “the temple of my God”. Then it says, “he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God”. That is the first thing to be written: “the name of my God”. Then the second is “the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem”. That name is written upon the overcomer in Philadelphia. Well, what would that be except that the idea of new Jerusalem has come to be known? The holy city, which is a millennial thought, has come to be known, and then finally “the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God”. Then we have “my new name”. These are all promises to distinguish the overcomer in Philadelphia.
LES Would the thought of ‘my God’ enable us to understand the Lord’s reference to Psalm 22, where He begins: “My God, my God, why hast [p. 198] thou forsaken me? why art thou far from my salvation, from the words of my groaning? My God, I cry by day, and thou answerest not”?
JT That is what the Lord says in the hour of His sorrow, but I think this is more a time of joy. That is to say, the Lord Jesus is speaking of His God, not as the One who forsook Him, but as the God whom He knew and was enjoying. “My God” in Psalm 22 would, of course, point to the Lord’s death and the forsaking, but then He had a God and He alludes to One who is His God, here; He wants to bring the Philadelphian overcomers into what He Himself had. He is going to link it on with the overcomer in Philadelphia and He is going to write it upon him.
DJM Has the overcomer stood for these things at the present time?
JT Exactly. Any brother who is here today ought to be able to say, ‘Well, I am going on with that; I am going on with Christ’s God’. The Lord will honour him because he is an overcomer. The Lord is just pointing to what is true of him. That is really what is meant in the things that He promises here, because these things are true of Philadelphia, and the Lord knows that they are true, and He is enjoying the fact that they are true, and He is speaking to us today because they are true. He appreciates us all the more because they are true and that we belong to Philadelphia, not that we are saying that we belong to Philadelphia, but the Lord is saying it, and He is writing upon us because of this.
SMcC Does the expression “my God” in this passage here refer to the fullest and greatest way in which God may be known?
JT Well, I suppose so. We might link up John 20 with it, “My God and your God”, but the Lord here is speaking by Himself.
PHH What is the force of “my new name”?
JT It must apply to something that the saints at Philadelphia had come to know as new. It is not something old such as the denominations have, referring back to old things; but we have come into new things and we are enjoying new things. The Lord Himself presents what is new.
JC-S Do you think it might stress the idea of how the truth of His Person has been unfolded in recent years?
JT Very good. It is what is new, not what is old and about to be discarded. That is what is in mind in the epistle to the Hebrews, that there is something about to be discarded, but what we are going on with is not about to be discarded; it is a new thing. It belongs to what is new, and it is eternal, really. I was noticing last night, as we left these buildings, there was hardly anyone in sight that was not in fellowship. Well, I think that was something. God has effected that in our day, and therefore we are going on with something that the world does not know of at all. They do not know what we are going on with. If they looked in here now they would not know what we are speaking about; but we know, and we are enjoying it. It is a new and blessed thing that will go on for ever.
JTJr Is it the idea of God and man? Is that the idea here? The Lord is speaking here to us as Man in relation to God, and that we are now brought into relation with God as men.
JT Just so. The Lord says, in John 17: “The men whom thou gavest me”. These are the men, and we, through grace, belong to them.
Well now, we shall just have to look at Laodicea for a few moments, and get a few thoughts that we can carry away with us as to it, and the attitude of the Lord toward it, particularly the way He is presented as “the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”. That is to [p. 200] say, the Lord presents Himself to Laodicea, not as the new creation or in connection with the new creation, but “the beginning of the creation of God”. We have the idea of creation, and therefore our minds are directed back to the first of Genesis, where God has to do with the creation. That is the God we have to do with too. He is the God of creation; but then Christ is the beginning of that. He is the beginning of it. That is to say, He is before it; He begins it. What is presented to us in Genesis 1 begins in Christ; He is the beginning of it, and, of course, that directs us back to much, because the actual world that we are dealing with was created before man, much before man. Angels were created before men. We have therefore to think of the Lord Jesus as the beginning of all that. What a place it gives Him! What a place it should give Him in our minds, as seen in this address to Laodicea!
Ques What is the import of the “Amen” coming before the thought of the beginning?
JT The “Amen” is mentioned at the beginning of the book and it is a suggestion of finality. It is final. Whatever is in mind, the Lord is that; He must finish up everything, it is like the Alpha and Omega.
SB Would it be right to say that this beginning of the creation of God was in His mind in the way in which He speaks to Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”
JT Well, quite. We have to go back in our minds and think of what God had. He had been operating long before man; He had been operating when “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. He was there then. So that it enlarges our minds, and leads us to think that it is not simply Genesis 1, but it is what was before that. So that whatever was before that, the Lord is speaking of it.
[p. 201] Rem So that in Colossians it is said, “He is before all, and all things subsist together by him”.
JT A very good application there.
Ques Would that link on with what we have in Colossians, “who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation”?
JT You have the Firstborn there, but here He is the Beginning. Each time it is the beginning, not the firstborn, but the beginning. It is a cognate thought, of course, whether it is the firstborn or the beginning.
PHH What is the force of the Lord referring thus to Himself in addressing Laodicea?
JT I think it is to impress us with what He is. He is “the Amen”. He is the finish of everything, but He is “the beginning of the creation of God”, no matter how far back your mind travels, you cannot get to this, but He is there. In John l, it is: “In the beginning was the Word”; but here it is “the beginning of the creation of God”. We cannot just say what the beginning in John 1 was. “In the beginning was the Word”, but here it is “the beginning of the creation of God”. The Lord is that. Whatever it was, He is it. So that the mind is directed to something in that sense, as to the glory of Christ.
PL Is it an answer to the heartlessness of Laodicea, involving in our day such attacks upon Christ? Does this silence all? I was thinking of the heartlessness in the profession today in regard of the Person of Christ.
JT Well, and, too, the much that is made of science and what science has found out in the work of creation. The scientific man makes so much of it, but the Lord Jesus says: ‘I am the beginning of it’. They may say it is millions of years and you marvel how they spin it out in terms of millions! Well, the Lord says, ‘I am the beginning of that’.
[p. 202] That is what He says here. No matter how far back you go, He is the beginning of it.
Ques Would that dismiss from the minds of the saints all these evolutionary thoughts that man has taken on?
JT Just so. The idea of evolution would do away with all this. Men of science would not admit that the Lord Jesus was the beginning of it. They would make out that it was some scientific thing.
Ques Is the presentation of the Lord’s glory in this way calculated to stir us up out of any lukewarmness?
JT Very good.
AJG Does it add peculiar lustre to His readiness to stand at the door and knock?
JT Very beautiful. That is one thing I thought we ought not to pass over. It is as if the Lord is standing and knocking at the door of everybody, especially christendom. “If any one hear my voice and open the door”, He says, “I will come in unto him and sup with him, and he with me”. We are reminded of Peter, what the Lord said to him, when He washed his feet: “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”. Here the Lord is proposing to have part with anyone that opens to Him, and that he should have part with Him.