THE SYSTEM TO WHICH WE HAVE COME
[p. 285] THE SYSTEM TO WHICH WE HAVE COME
JT The writer of this epistle speaks of much that was intended to encourage the Hebrew Christians of the time in which it was written, and it is thought that this section will furnish much to show how those Christians were taken account of and provided for, pointing out to them what they had come to; not in the sense of their being carried, as Jehovah said earlier, that He had borne them on eagles’ wings and brought them to Himself, but in the sense of coming to the things in their minds and in their affections. Perhaps but few in that day would understand the things mentioned, but they are spoken of abstractly, as indeed much truth has to be spoken of today. Things are spoken of abstractly, but nevertheless they exist, and they are enumerated briefly in the verses read, spoken of as over against what Israel came to in the wilderness of Sinai. “Ye have come”, it says (verse 22), “to mount Zion; and to the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels, the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling, speaking better than Abel”. The mind may enquire why the next verse should be found immediately, “See that ye refuse not him that speaks. For if those did not escape who had refused him who uttered the oracles on earth, much more we who turn away from him who does so from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth; but now he has promised, saying, Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but also the heaven. But this Yet once, signifies the [p. 286] removing of what is shaken, as being made, that what is not shaken may remain”. Clearly the saints were on shallow ground in their souls, although they had plenty to speak of mentally, otherwise it would not be needed to warn them as to the impending judgment of God. Another thing is that the Spirit does not speak of Himself in these verses, He speaks of things; then He comes to persons, and God Himself, and Jesus, but He opens with the thought of things to which they had come, indicating that, as in the beginning of Acts, a system of things was in mind. We have the suggestion here in verse 22, mount Zion, and then the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and then myriads of angels, the universal gathering. So that what we have here corresponds in a sense with the system we are in, that is to say, Christianity; it is a system of things, and not a ‘one-man’ matter, save that it is Christ’s matter, and it is God’s matter, and the Spirit’s matter, but it never can be a ‘one-man’ matter in the sense of creatures. It is a question of the Holy Spirit, according to the Acts, the blessed Spirit having come in, into the system. It would be a question of what the Spirit would effect in it, a wide thought, so that those of us who are in it, are in it in view of all that it involves, with great opportunities. So that what is there is opened up to us; and what we may be in it, the Spirit will make us, He will do all possible, but it is a question of what we may be in it, not what others can make us, what we are ourselves. I am only making these few remarks to indicate what is in mind. There are many here who can help us, and it is a time for helping, and mutual feeling, too.
Rem In view of what you are saying, it is “ye are come” — a present thing.
JT A very good remark.
Ques In what way have we come to mount [p. 287] Zion?
JT Well, it refers to a principle, not to a person.
CRW I was wondering if you could open out a little as to what the scope of mount Zion is.
JT That is a big order, but we can get some little idea. “Jehovah loveth the gates of Zion, more than all the habitations of Jacob”; we have already alluded to that, and the writer here clearly intends that those to whom he wrote should understand. They were Hebrew Christians, and it was a well-known thought in the Old Testament, beginning with David, opening up great thoughts, and constantly alluded to in the Psalms and the prophets, and so it is now transferred into Christianity.
CRW Does mount Zion more or less cover the three items following it in the passage?
JT Just so; there is something in that, but mount Zion is taken by itself. The punctuation would show that mount Zion is the first item, and then the second item is the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem; the third item is myriads of angels, the universal gathering, and then following on that the assembly of the firstborn, who are registered in heaven; and then God; and then the spirits of just men made perfect; and then Jesus, and the blood of sprinkling. I think what is alluded to here refers to Christianity. The language is somewhat Jewish, really, yet the terms refer now to Christianity, but in view of the millennium it will have its place, too, according to what it used to be in great measure, but in Christianity all has its own setting, the terms have to be understood in the light of Christianity. We are dealing with Christianity, and Paul, the writer, is speaking to those whom he has addressed as Christians; he is endeavouring to bring them in their spirits and minds into Christianity, to deliver them from Judaism. But the book of Revelation shows that it will come up again; we read of the Lamb, and a hundred and forty-four [p. 288] thousand being with Him on mount Zion, and that they should follow Him wherever He goes, showing that it would be a millennial situation, which we are now almost looking for; we are the heavenly side of it, but still, we are looking for it, we are to have part in it, “the world to come, whereof we speak”.
JSE Is that why in Revelation 14 the name of His Father is referred to as in the foreheads of that number, to which you have drawn our attention, as showing that love enters in the fullest possible way into the thought of mount Zion? It says, “having his name and the name of his Father written upon their foreheads”. Does not mount Zion appear as the mountain which God Himself chose because He loved it? Would these saints have their minds turned back on that principle, that they had come to something which is marked off as being peculiarly loved by God?
JT Well, quite so; so long as you restrict it to its Old Testament and apocalyptic settings, but not the Christian setting.
Ques Does the fact that the writer says, “ye have come” credit the saints with having left Judaism?
JT I think abstractly that is the idea, and that is the force of the abstract, in using terms that are not really understood or laid hold of, and yet have application, as, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 5, “Purge out the old leaven”, it says, “according as ye are unleavened”, that is, abstractly we are unleavened as being Christians and having the Holy Spirit. It is a question of understanding what in itself may be abstract and what application it may have to us.
Ques Are you suggesting that mount Zion has a spiritual significance more particularly?
JT Yes, exactly. These terms are brought into Christianity; the writer is, so to say, giving them a [p. 289] Christian significance as he does many other things, such as “the new covenant”.
EAK Is there the thought of moral elevation connected with this in the light of the word in the Psalm, “beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion”?
JT Yes. You are stressing elevation.
SMcC You seem to be guarding the bringing in of the Old Testament setting and the setting in the Apocalypse. Have you in mind that in Christianity there is a distinctive setting?
JT Yes, what I would call Pauline. Although Paul was writing this epistle undoubtedly, he is aiming at bringing Jewish Christians into Christianity fully. He had to do with it, because it was through him and Barnabas that the thought was brought in. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Paul had to do with that; he and Barnabas had been labouring at Antioch for a year, so that Christianity had become a real thing; it was not something simply that had come out of Judaism, but it had its own entity, its own character, and that is the position of it today.
LPM Is that why the two references to what is heavenly enter into this? The heavenly note makes it distinctive, it is “heavenly Jerusalem” and those “who are registered in heaven”, heaven having a peculiar part in the matter.
JT I suppose it is the highest elevation you can get, short of an uncreated condition. The Son of God Himself enters into an uncreated condition; He goes beyond all the heavens; we cannot measure that at all, and to make that simply heaven will not do, either; it is too much for that. So that the word ‘heavenly’ here refers to what in itself is Christian. The Galatian epistle says Jerusalem above is our mother, but she is said to be “above” there, not ‘heavenly’, although it is the same Jerusalem, but it is “Jerusalem above”, but here it is “heavenly Jerusalem”, so as to lead the Jewish Christians into the idea of Christianity; their idea of Jerusalem is being transferred to Christianity, to the assembly; the assembly is the heavenly Jerusalem, as the result will prove.
Rem Does Mount Sinai refer to a demand made upon the people which they could not fulfil, but now God has reached this point in Zion which is the place of His own sovereign choice and provision, and we have come to that?
JT Quite so; if you keep in your mind that you are talking about Christianity, and the Spirit of God here, because Paul is aiming at that, only he is gradually coming to it, presently he will be writing the epistle to the Ephesians.
Rem So it is the system that is operating here; although it has a heavenly character, it is here, is it?
JT Just so; it has a heavenly character. It had an earthly character with them, that is, Jewish believers of old; it was on earth, but now the idea has been transferred to heaven, and presently we will have an epistle to the Ephesians, in its full sense, “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ”.
SMcC Might I ask why the Spirit is not formally alluded to here? God and Jesus are referred to, but not the Spirit.
JT It is, I think, somewhat like the epistle to the Colossians. What He effects is in mind; that is to say, the writer here is endeavouring to lead the Jewish believers into spiritual tangibleness instead of earthly tangibleness, to understand what mount Zion meant, and other such things that they were accustomed to, to lead them into the thing spiritually, using the same names but presently he may use some other names, if needed.
[p. 291] Rem So that the whole system involves the substantial work of the Spirit in the saints?
JT I would think so. As much as to say, if Peter or John were present when this epistle was read, someone would say, ‘Well, what does he mean by these terms?’ Peter and John could tell them; they would undoubtedly allude to Pentecost, and what followed subsequently in the Acts. Peter himself alludes to certain things that Paul had said that were hard to be understood; but he did not say that of himself, he could explain, I am sure, any of Paul’s letters himself, and we have got to come to Paul, that is the idea. Peter would convey that to the hearers, you have got to come to Paul. His letters are Scripture, he would say, you have to come to it. Of course, Peter’s letters are Scripture, too, but they were more Jewish, they were for the circumcision.
LPM Would you say that this thought of the divine system is peculiar to Paul as unfolding it?
JT He is the one who had the thing. No doubt you could tell us the things that are said to be his peculiar administration.
LPM I was thinking as to the necessity of our laying hold of this thought of a divine system established here. Is that vital in regard to the truth?
JT I think it would be vital, more clearly so as soon as we come to see what the administrations were that Paul had under him. Peter had his own, too; he had an administration, the keys of the kingdom of the heavens were given to him. I would just remark on one or two things that are clear in Colossians. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says, in Colossians 1: 23, “and not moved away from the hope of the glad tidings, which ye have heard, which have been proclaimed in the whole creation which is under heaven, of which I Paul became minister”. That is one administrative sphere under him. Then he goes on, “Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill [p. 292] up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly; of which I became minister”, that is another, “according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to complete the word of God”, that is another thing. That great matter is under his hand, and if we read it all, the thing will become clearer, “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been made manifest to his saints; to whom God would make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you the hope of glory”; that is another thing, “Christ in you the hope of glory: whom we announce, admonishing every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ. Whereunto also I toil, combating according to his working, which works in me in power”. Well, if Peter were to be asked about these headings in our chapter, from Paul’s letter, undoubtedly he would unfold something of the things that were under Paul’s hand, his special administrative area or areas, so that the Jewish Christians should come into Christianity, and Peter probably might say to them, Why do you not come right over, all the way, into Christianity, because Paul, Barnabas and I had to do with it? Paul would say, Barnabas and I had to do with it, and after our ministry in Antioch the believers were first called Christians. The word ‘called’ there has a significance beyond the ordinary word, meaning it is a word that is to stand in all time, in view of the dispensation proceeding.
PL Peter makes it very engaging, he says, “our beloved brother Paul”, suggesting, I suppose, what possibilities there were in that realm of love as against the straitened and legal and lifeless condition.
JT If then we suppose that Paul himself came in, and Peter and John were conversing, and several [p. 293] others of the apostles, how quickly the whole matter would be illuminated, the people would begin to see that there was a new dispensation, and all the other dispensations entered into it.
HW Had you in mind that the Hebrews apprehending these various features, would be helped to enter into the truth that comes out in the second chapter of this epistle, the thought of the One who was bringing many sons to glory, and the Sanctifier and sanctified all of one ? Would this be a necessary foundation in their souls?
JT Very good. In the first chapter it is really a question of unfolding the glory of Christ personally. God had spoken by the prophets, and now He has spoken in Son, and then the writer proceeds to unfold the glories of Christ, but they are largely taken from the Psalms, that is to say, from sayings of the Old Testament saints. God is honouring the saints to bring out the glories of Christ through their sayings, and then Christianity is brought in in chapter 2, where it is said that “He that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”. The word ‘sanctification’ was well known in Israel, but now it is to be known in Christianity. It is a fine word in Christianity. “He that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, that is one of the loftiest truths that we can get in Christianity, and it is mentioned in this letter to the Hebrew Christians, so as to make them Christians in the true sense of the word.
HW So that they would come into the gain of the thought of brethren, and of sons, in the truth of the assembly?
JT Quite so; the word ‘brethren’ was known in the Old Testament, but now it is acquiring a new glory in these phrases in Hebrews 2.
Ques Are these things in Hebrews 12 what is [p. 294] referred to in chapter 6, the things that belong to full growth?
JT I would say that, the things that belong to full growth. He had already dealt largely with them under other terms, in chapters 2, 3 and 4, when he works out the great priestly thoughts, and chapters 5 and 6, and so forth, but they are brought under these heads in this chapter so as to simplify them and make them concise, I would say.
SMcC Do you mean that we have in these expressions, mount Zion, and the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, a compression of the teaching of all that has gone before in the epistle?
JT I would think so; that is Paul’s ministry. I have no doubt that the whole of Paul’s ministry could be worked into the epistle to the Hebrews, not perhaps the full sense of the epistle to the Ephesians but in some sense.
LPM Had you in mind that we must understand the principle of Paul’s ministry in order to understand the system that exists?
JT Just so; and especially I would use the word ‘principle’. Taking the principle involved in mount Zion which would be unfolded in the earlier epistles, it would be a question of sovereignty, the sovereign mercy of God, because what is in mind now is to bring out Christianity, not to enlarge simply on what is in the Old Testament; using it, of course, but to bring out Christianity in its own proper distinction, its own terminology, too, to establish the terminology that is proper to it.
HW These statements would stimulate enquiry as to what they involve, what is the thought behind them?
JT What a fine opening up there would be, if we took it up in that way. Now in the early days of the present revival they had meetings in Dublin on [p. 295] prophecy. They kept on looking into prophecy, and ultimately the prophetic map was worked out, and it became intelligible, and the prophetic map becomes intelligible in working out Christianity; Paul’s journeyings and his ministry enter into those inquiries. These are all feasible and easily worked out if we are subject, the Spirit of God ready to help us in it, so that we might be really Christians.
HW I should like to ask whether this statement ye are come might be illustrated by some of us from the Antipodes saying, We have come to London, although we may not know yet very much about it. Is that the position?
JT Very good. Most of us know a little about it. It is better worked out in an illustrative way, as applied to the American Commonwealth, where you have no monarchy, but you have great stress laid on law and principles; what is called the Constitution of the United States. If a person, a European — as millions did during the past fifty years — goes to America, well, in the schools they are told that the American Constitution is the greatest there is, and the best there is, and so forth, and then you would be told something about the Congress and about the President and so forth, one could enumerate many things, but what has just been said is enough to show that the word ‘Zion’ is really a principle; the American system is involved in the Constitution, and so it is with the heavenly system, that we have come into out of all the nations, through the gospel. We can take up the constitution of Christianity, for really it means what the assembly is, because the assembly is the centralisation of everything in our system; everything is centred there.
Ques Would mount Zion be a kind of overall thought, covering the whole constitutional matter and then the various items specified to be there?
JT Well, quite so; the word ‘overall’ is good, I [p. 296] would say; and then the working of the thing out in detail under certain terms, intelligible terms.
ESH Is the principle of mount Zion in Romans 9, “I have loved Jacob” and “the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared for glory”?
JT Quite so; for the Christian apostles were all Jews, the twelve apostles were all Jews, brought out of Judaism, but brought under the tuition of Christ. The Lord Jesus had Christianity in mind when He taught them, when He brought them up. They were wonderfully instructed, and they would understand the terms, the Old Testament terms, and hence were readily employed by the Spirit of God in dealing with New Testament things. So that the saints, after the Lord Jesus went up, went to the temple, and in the temple they were “praising and blessing God”, where they would use the Old Testament terms, but the Spirit of God allowed that, and gradually worked the thing out into Christian terms, heavenly terms.
Rem So that you get the apex of everything in this dispensation in Paul?
JT That is what I would say. That is a good way of putting it.
Ques Why does this come at the end of the epistle and not at the beginning?
JT I think because it is so concise, because the earlier part of the epistle will help you to open up these terms.
Rem When Ruth came to Bethlehem she knew little about it, but she really had come to God, “Under whose wings thou art come to trust”.
JT Quite so. She became an apt learner, too.
Ques Would the service of the Father in the chapter help us to enter into the thoughts that you expressed, the thought of discipline being used in connection with speaking?
JT Enoch would be a model for all learners in [p. 297] the antediluvian times. The ends of the dispensations have come on us, and we ought to take up these dispensations and see what they mean, and I would say that Enoch is the one for the antediluvian dispensation. And then we come down to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and to David and the prophets, so that we get the ideas in each of the dispensations; they will be opened up to us, and we become familiar with them by the terms, because all tend toward our own dispensation, it is the end of everything for learning. So that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, that is he would know everything, so to say, from Adam down to himself.
PL All the rivers run into the sea yet the sea is not full, is that it?
JT Quite so.
CRW Would you say that the thought of “the living God” is one that goes through all dispensations?
JT That is good, because that is what we get here immediately, “the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem”. Heavenly Jerusalem is just an expansion of the thought of the “city of the living God” because it carries forward into Christianity; then as you see in the book of Revelation, heavenly Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven “as a bride adorned for her husband”. So it is the assembly, and therefore we move on from “the living God”, which is a term well known in the Old Testament, but now it is applied, it is linked on to heaven, to a heavenly Jerusalem, a new thought altogether, a spiritual Jerusalem, a heavenly thing. And then the next thing is the myriads of angels, the universal gathering, which would refer, I suppose, to those whom God in His operational workings would employ, we have come to that, “myriads of angels”, an immense thought, and then “the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven”.
[p. 298] Ques Do you get an impression of the universality of the system in the items mentioned?
JT I think “the universal gathering” carries that with it. So that I would say in brief, that Zion is the principle governing the whole system. The city is the political centre, and then the “myriads of angels” would correspond with Congress or Parliament, and then the “assembly of the firstborn” is a question of quality, society, the society we have, and then God Himself, that there is no pagan element in it at all, it is God, the whole system is under God, it is His own, and that He is judge of all, there is a true judgment of everything. And then “the spirits of just men made perfect” would be the kind of people, not angels but men, the order of men in the place. And then you have the Lord Himself, the “mediator of a new covenant”. The word ‘new’ here is fresh, a fresh covenant. It is not old laws put together and an enormous multitude of them, but freshness, conciseness, too, the sayings of the Lord — for instance, the saying of the Lord Jesus, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”.
SMcC Would Paul’s ministry again help us as to this expression “the city of the living God” inasmuch as he particularly sets out the features of church administration and church government?
JT Very good, church government, how we are to behave ourselves in the house of God,”the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth”.
LPM Have you a word to say on the “blood of sprinkling”? It is mentioned last.
JT I would say the speaking character of it, it is “better than Abel”, and yet it is not belittling Abel, but what is spoken is better, the blood of Jesus.
Ques What is the force of sprinkling here?
EAK Would it indicate the foundation of the system that you are speaking of, in it we would apprehend, would we not, that there will be nothing [p. 299] in the universe of bliss that is not founded on the blood of Christ?
JT And the speaking of it, how much was said in the sacrificial books, but how much more could be said of every feast, of every offering time, what volumes! It says of the Lord Jesus as to His works that “the world itself could not contain the books that should be written”, and what volumes could be written about the blood of the Old Testament, but it is all concisely expressed in the blood of Jesus. Things are brought down to a minimum in volume in that sense, but emphasising the quality of the blood.
Rem Would it be the title of divine ownership, “the blood of sprinkling”? Moses sprinkled the book and all the people.
JT Very good.
Rem So that what would be involved is not the blessing that would flow to the people so much as what would be secured in them for God?
JT Yes, just so. I think the speaking is beautiful, especially in Exodus 24, already alluded to, where we get the elevated position in the Old Testament, and that beginning with chapter 19, where we get that they have been brought to God, on the mount and the law given there. The people did not want to hear any more, they were afraid, but the blood of sprinkling is a thought that can easily be conveyed in teaching. So that Exodus 24 is to bring out the quality of things in view of the tabernacle, the very best things must come into the tabernacle because it is a question of the assembly in type, and the very best things must be in it, and so they are in it.
Rem So the pattern is given on the mount.
JT Just so, and things are above, it is the elevated position. Moses himself went to that limit, that exaltation, suggestive of where Paul went, as far as the third heaven. Moses was to go up, Joshua was to go, too, but that was only an accompaniment [p. 300] or an element with him, but the real idea is the mediator, and how high he went, whereas Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders were on a lower level. Exodus 24 is to bring out the level of the Old Testament, but it is typical, and entering into what we are speaking of here in this chapter.
SMcC It is interesting in that way how Peter brings forward the quality into Christianity, when he speaks of the “sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”.
JT That is a beautiful reference, as entering into the idea of sprinkling.
CRW Would it give us a deep sense of the holiness of the place into which we have been brought, at the same time a sense of the love that lay behind the blood?
JT Love must be in it, quite so.
LPM Would the sense of vastness enter into the thought of sprinkling, because what is sprinkled covers a vast area, does it not, in principle, in the sprinkling of the whole tabernacle system?
JT Hence the millennium, I suppose, will be on that principle and then a new heaven and a new earth after that. The prophets show that the principle of the new heavens and the new earth is in the millennium, but strictly the thing itself is beyond that, wherein righteousness dwells. But the millennium is a wide area, it is to show what God can do with man in flesh just as he is, but with the added thought of redemption, that is to say, of the new birth. The new birth in its millennial signification is to bring out what God can do with persons in flesh and blood, that is what the millennium will be, and then there will be evidently a winding up so that we come to a new heavens and a new earth; the state of things that is according to God where all things are of God.
SMcC If the covenant has no official place in Christianity, in the light of Paul’s ministry, why does the writer say here, “and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant”?
JT I would say because he is speaking to Jewish Christians, the very best things are coming over into Christianity; it was for them to understand it.
Ques Would Jesus, presented in that light, eclipse the greatest in Judaism?
JT Quite so.
Rem So that emphasis is laid on the person rather the office.
JT Quite so. This question of the new covenant is constantly coming up, but it is a question of Judaism and how patient God was with it, and having it in His mind to revert to it again, He is not discarding it, it is to be reverted to, and the terms will have their own proper place in it. In the meantime they are applied to Christianity, and they are used in their own force, but we do not get them where we have elevated spirituality such as Ephesians and Colossians, and that ought to weigh with us, God intends to have Christianity on its own footing, in its own grandeur and distinctiveness. And if God is pleased to use old terms and give them a certain force for young Christians and the like, good and well, God has a right to do that, especially because presently He is going to revert to Judaism.
Rem Is it to be noted that the scripture here speaks of a new covenant rather than the new covenant, and the word, as you have already pointed out, is not the usual word but that which means new in the sense of fresh and youthful?
JT That is very touching, I think, that it is that word in view of what we have been saying, that God is very tender about Jewish things; and as to Paul himself, nobody could be more tender as regards Jewish things, “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ” for their sakes. How could he do it? Well, how can God do it, how can God go on [p. 302] with it and use these terms? Because they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes, God has never given up His thoughts about them, and His promises to the fathers. He is going to work them out, and we shall have part in the heavenly side of it in due time, and we shall not be afraid of it, either, because the names of the sons of Israel are inscribed on the gates of the heavenly city.
LR Do you link the love of God at all with this reference to the new covenant?
JT Well, by extension, perhaps, but in a certain sense by reduction, because John brings out the love of God and Paul brings out the love of God, and Peter brings out the love of God, in such a way that we want to get at its full meaning, and its full force. But if we wish to have it connected with the new covenant there is no difficulty according to what we have been saying because we will presently be in the heavenly side of the divine system and we will not be ashamed of the new covenant then certainly, but it is not made with us, it is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
Rem We really have something better.
JT We have, and it looks as if God has reserved some better thing for us; why do we not keep up to the things that He has reserved for us? Better things.
LPM What you said about Colossians and Ephesians should greatly help us in our consideration of the matter as not entering into those two epistles, they being a setting out of Christianity in its fulness.
JOS Does it correspond at all with what the Lord says in Luke 10 when He stressed that they should rejoice that their names are written in heaven, and then you get all things being delivered to Me of My Father and then He says, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see”?
JT Just so, that helps because it differentiates what belongs to us, “rather rejoice because names are written in heaven”, that is a good connection.
EAK Would the fact that Jesus is the “mediator of a new covenant” be a distinctive glory of Christ that would come before our hearts in connection with the spirit of the covenant?
JT Just so; because the spirit of it is brought into our dispensation, not the letter but the spirit, as the apostle says; it certainly is a glory of Christ, as you say. But the things that Israel will have in the millennium will not be equal to our things, they will have an ordinary temple and many other such things.
PL “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings is to search out a thing”. Is this condensed epitome, so to speak, to stimulate search and enquiry as distinct from the diffused character of Judaism?
JT The glory of kings to search things out, that is the Lord if you make Him the king, He is doing it all for us, is that what you mean?
PL I was thinking, too, of the saints, the very way the subject here, so vast, is condensed, but capable of infinite expansion to arrest and to stimulate enquiry and research.
JT So the Lord says to Nathanael, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”.